A long-awaited five-year United Nations climate report, to be released later this week, is expected to be the most dire yet, as well as the most conclusive about a human link to warming. The study reportedly cites a 90 percent probability that human activities are to blame for most of the warming trend of the past half-century.
But some top scientists are saying the report isn’t dire enough, and doesn’t take into account recent major melting events with arctic ice, which some think could mean flooded coastlines much earlier than previously thought.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- mrbill on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
248 Comments
And they said the same thing on the cover of Time mag in the ’70’s except it was a dire warning of the coming Ice Age. Which there was for a few years…but alas..no more. Yes, its warming…but is it man made.
And dont think all those big corporate folks are getting on board for fun. They all have big financial interests in this scheme. Either to trade the caps on CO2 or to push some technological boondoggle.
Onto the next bigger and better scare.
Im thinking that most of the missing white girls have been found or the war is becoming tiresome to the media.
Just shut up and pay us our money so we Global Warming Scientist can sponge out billions of currency from every country world wide.
You’ll just waste that money going to Vegas or buying lottery tickets anyway!
We Global Warming Scientists can guarantee you gloom and doom reports for the next 100 years!
So just pay us and shut up!
MrBill, you bring up very good points, and you have a number of highly-respected scientists reiterating that sentiment.
Physicist,Fred Singer, just released, “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, and another Danish physicist, Henrik Svensmark, and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder have a book out in March, entitled “The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.”
The WeatherChannel has recently been accused of trying to yank the certification from any meteorologist who did not comply with their global warming agenda. I’m not sure why the ACLU – or liberals, in general, aren’t all over that strong-arm tactic. Wait – I know, it would discredit their political agenda.
What is not publicized is the fact that the entire global warming fiasco is based upon the computer model one scientist made trying t determine what the history of warming and cooling has been for thousands of years – when we only have about 150 years of concrete, recorded data.
One man came up with the model.
Since the press is a liberal monster, for most purposes, there is little covereage of the story that 60 PROMINENT SCIENTISTS recently signed a letter stating that model was not accurate.
In that letter, the scientists declare:
““Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future.””
These sceintists are asking for a chance to debate Kyoto – but so far, they have not been invited.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
In cases like this – there is ALWAYS a money trail – follow it.
Yes, follow the money trail of the global warming deniers.
What, it leads to big oil corporations?
Who would have thought that?
Steven – please show us evidence that even ONE of the 60 prominent scientists I linked to the story about – is involved in big oil.
Are you trying to make the point that these highly-regarded scientists – experts in their field – are taking payoffs from Big Oil? Are you intimating that the field of Science no longer has any integrity?
I anxiously await your proof. You may be the person who can change my mind on this – if you can come through with this evidence.
Is this UN the same outfit who should be investigating the Kofi scandal? How’s that coming?US. Out. Of. UN. Now.
“Global warming deniers”. Been hearing that a lot lately, from a number of sources. Sounds an awful lot like “holocaust deniers”.
A little focus group branding?
GS,
Did not look at your links. The main warming denier who is at MIT, IS connected to Big Oil.
While I am interested in science of all varieties, climatology is not my field of expertise. So, based on that, I will let those who are more familiar with the relevant data sets, answer your allegations (Ben and cosmos – would be good candidates).
I think it is very sad that the Bush administration has purposefully manipulated science and scientists to serve their ideological agenda. This has probably been their most serious crime against humanity.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070130/pl_nm/bush_warming_dc;_ylt=AgFlmzMrYkXkuvuh___HK0ka.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA–
“This has probably been their most serious crime against humanity.”
More crisis, overhype from the left.Very sad.
outlander,
Didn’t think of it as “branding”.
But,manipulation of science = crimes against humanitysort of hurts my claims of neutrality, huh? But, you know, I am not going to apologize for being against unadulterated dishonesty that Team Bush is well known for…
“Critics have called the UCS an “unlabeled left-wing activist” group[10], and noted that UCS funding often comes from organizations that support liberal policies[11]. UCS received an “Ideological Spectrum Rating” of “1″ (Radical Left) from the Capital Research Center.[12] Activistcash.com states that the UCS “embraces an environmental agenda” and “politicizes science” itself.[13]”
More far left crap. These people do far more than just environment.
Fleet,
I sure hope global warming and our inability to get scientific answers on any number of areas is “overhype”. It’s okay with me if you bet your life on that. I don’t care to join you in that wager. Thank you very much.
Crimes against humanity?Puh-leeeze
Fleet,Where does your quote come from?
wiki
Being such a brain dead conservative must really be hard work. I just cannot imagine.
I concede that “crimes against humanity” is strong. But, manipulating information so that people are unable to tell what is true and what is not, is a pretty serious offense, IMHO.
No need to call names.
What search terms did you use? USC or something else?
And, I am assuming that you know wiki is not infallible.
Sorry,Denying the denial of the Bush crowd, gets old.
Union of Concerned Scientists, the group from your link.
Steven: What do you mean by “manipulation of science”.
When I saw Al Gore’s movie my reaction was that he was overly optimistic and conservative. I stand with my position.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/928.asp
“I collected a list of climate change position papers put out by the major governmental scientific institutes of the world that deal with the atmosphere, ocean, and climate. All of these organizations (at least that I could find) agree that significant human-caused climate change is occurring:
United Nations IPCCAmerican Meteorological SocietyNOAAU.S. National Academy of SciencesNASAEPAAmerican Geophysical UnionNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchRoyal Society of the United KingdomCanadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Science, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Royal Society (UK)
Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK)
If anyone can find examples of governmental scientific organizations that deny the consensus position, I’d be happy to make a second list of links. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have long been hostile to international climate change negotiations, so their scientific organizations may well have official positions opposing the consensus. However, the Saudis are apparently changing their stance, as announced in May 2006 at a U.N. sponsored meeting in Germany. “I believe the petroleum industry should actively engage in policy debate on climate change as well as play an active role in developing and implementing carbon management technologies to meet future challenges,” said the president of the Saudi state-run oil industry giant, Aramco. In 2005, both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gases. However, the Protocol does not call on them to reduce their emissions.
In summary, there is an overwhelming level of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. Those who defend the contrary view are fond of pointing out that we shouldn’t stifle their opposing point of view, since heroes like Galileo with his sun-centered solar system view and Wegener with his continental drift theory both challenged the overwhelming scientific consensus of their day and were proved to be correct. That is true. However, Galileo and Wegener did not have the public relations staff of multi-billion dollar companies helping them promote their contrary views. I’m not too worried about the contrarian view of human-caused climate change being stifled, and would like to see the media stop quoting the contary views of such think tanks as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall foundation, and scientists such as S. Fred Singer of the SEPP. Getting one’s climate science information from these sources it similar to getting one’s news from a tabloid newspaper. Sure, some of the stories are true, but a lot of the material is of questionable quality, to say the least. The media should focus on getting their scientific information from leading climate scientists who regularly publish in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The best easily available source of this infomation is from realclimate.org, a web site maintained by some of the world’s foremost climate scientists.
Dr. Jeff Masters, Chief Meteorologist for The Weather Underground
outlander,
I would refer you to the above link that I provide as one example.
There are actually book-length treatments on this subject. Here is the latest one:
http://www.amazon.com/Undermining-Science-Suppression-Distortion-Administration/dp/0520247027/sr=1-1/qid=1170255300/ref=sr_1_1/105-5776582-8630068?ie=UTF8&s=books
Not saying that I do not believe that global warming is man-made, but given the stakes in the game, shouldn’t we err on the side of caution?
If we take the Bush approach; more research and voluntary control measures, what happens if we are wrong and the warming IS man-made and we COULD have done something about it, but now it is too late?
Do we really want to load the revolver with three bullets and put it to our head?
How about four bullets? Five?
What the hell, just load all six chambers and hope one of the bullets is a blank.
Thank you Ben. Sleeping in late this a.m.? A good day for that, though.
Dear the proud ignorant;What is your scientific background to debunk thousands of scientists ? Fox news?How many many more degrees can your children/grandchildren handle? What more proof do you need?Lets put it this way; just take your medication & DON’T VOTE.Left,right,center- you can only understand these archaic labels because you are stupid to analyze things for yourself.You have +/-10 years, my fellow primate.
This is a link to the Union of Concerned Scientists home page:
http://ucsaction.org/ucsaction/home.html
Only in Fleet’s universe would them being left-leaning (which I don’t know to be true) equal them being unreliable.
Do what Fleet seems unable to do. Read; make up your own mind.
mrbill – “they” did NOT say an ice age was imminent. Maybe some non-scientist popular press writer did but NOT the scientific community. I never saw that Time article; being in grad school at the time my reading was pretty much restricted to scientific journals (which is also where I published). For climate issues I still tend to favor that scientific literature to Time, NewsMax or whatever.
We do believe that in the “out years” (many thousands of years in the future) the Milankovitch cycle will begin to try to move us toward a glacial period. This process is very slow, unlike the reverse. It will be quite interesting for future scientists to track the progress since the current interglacial has CO2 levels WAY higher than previous intergraclials.
Current CO2 levels are so high that if a Milankivitch cycle reduced them by the ‘typical’ glacial amount they would still be higher than a ‘normal’ interglacial.
Left leaning = unreliable
enema, according to you, anything you don’t agree with is unreliable.
You do realize that right now in Alaska they’re relocating whole cities due to the coastline coming dangerously close inland, right?
Do you realize how much money it takes to move a whole city? Multiply that by all the cities on the coast.
As far as the water crisis in the west, I don’t think it’ll be much longer till we don’t have that problem anymore.
Name calling is above you.
Given the track record of the “Crying Wolf” scientists and looking at who is backing the phony global warming scare …
If you think the envirnoment is going through profound changes, and also believe that Mankind is the driving force, it seems to me that the development of India and China can make or break it for the entire world- irregardless of what the rest of the world does!
I don’t claim to have the depth or breadth of knowlegde regarding this as shown by previous posters- just MHO.
Nothing like a closed right-wing mind to prove the point. Thanks, fleet.
This a link to recent accomplishments by UCS:
http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/history.html
Oh, fleet this is your cue to utter “kumbaya” and other such powerful counter-arguments.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html#skip300×250
The Canadian Prime Minister seems to think Kyoto was/is all about the money. And it was unfair to the developed nations.
I don’t know of any reputable scientist that disputes the fact that the earth is warming.
It is.
The coastline rising, the glaciers melting, the wildlife wandering into cities looking for food… all affirm said fact.
However, the earth has warmed and cooled thousands of times – long before man ever had much of a presence here. What caused that? Dinosaur flatulence?
Steven, you have your head in the proverbial sand. You admitted to not even reading my link – yet you make assumptions about the ‘deniers’ and then you go on to push the issue off on Cosmos (a total retard) and Ben (verdict’s still out…) But, if you are correct – and either of those two can show proof that these scientists are connected to Big Oil – then I’ll take a look at the evidence.
Politics has hijacked science on the Global Warming front.
If you don’t want to read the letter I linked to from the 60 scientists – I doubt you will even take a look at a petition from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine that has been signed by SEVENTEEN THOUSAND SCIENTISTS who vehemently DISAGREE with the general “consensus” on Global Warming.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm
The sad fact is – the followers of Global Warming are NO DIFFERENT than the followers of David Koresh, the followers of Jim Jones, or the followers of fundamental Christianity.
They are a religious CULT.
They are BELIEVERS – putting their FAITH in one man’s computer model – a model that thousands upon thousands (see above link) scientists say is NOT FACTUAL!
This is NO different from the groupies that say the Immaculate Conception really happened – they take it on faith, even though the world around us says it’s not likely.
There was a time when that same general scientific ‘consensus’ told us the Earth was flat – and like today’s Global Warming Nazi’s, they tried to silence anyone who spoke against their BELIEF.
That same scenario is happening again as the bosses at the Weather Channel try to silence any meteorologist who disagrees with their political agenda.
Ohhh pcunt? You’re in usual foul form this morning. What happened, shoot yourself in the eye while relieving yourself of the morning wood?
“The sad fact is – the followers of Global Warming are NO DIFFERENT than the followers of David Koresh, the followers of Jim Jones, or the followers of fundamental Christianity.” GS.
ONLY you could make that tremendous leap. Did you use a catapult for that one? Body canon?
“The WeatherChannel has recently been accused of trying to yank the certification from any meteorologist who did not comply with their global warming agenda. I’m not sure why the ACLU – or liberals, in general, aren’t all over that strong-arm tactic. Wait – I know, it would discredit their political agenda.”
Uhm, right. Assuming this nonsense is true (no link), we’re talking about a TV channel which employs meteorologists speaking to the standards board of their profession about meteorologists who deny a TV channel’s well-known “global warming agenda” (”Local forecast coming up, but first: another reminder that global warming is real and irrefutable!!”).
And the ACLU is supposed to do. . .what? And why?
Keep on posting, GS. You’re hilariously insane.
Fleetwood,Please watch your language!!!!!!!!!! I understand that sometimes an expletive feels correct and sometimes satisfying but your use towards pmom is completely out of line and inappropriate!Children do read this blog, and this thread may be of particular interest being that it is around science fair time.
oism has been discredited many years ago. I found it rather amuzing when they tried to recruit me and claimed that the “inventer” of C-14 was on their staff. Since the guy who got the Nobel was on my thesis committee I asked him. He scoffed at the whole bunch.
Moving whole cities in Alaska!!? I have friends in Alaska, when I write them will I still be able to use the same zip code?
Just wondering.
Hank
Julie,Amen. And please join with me admonishing WSC and CF for same.
No Rage – YOU’RE the insane one. You have little knowledge of what is going on anywhere but in your own little circle of cult-buddies.
Heidi Cullen, is the gal @ the Weather Channel who wants to decertify ALL meteorologists who do not see things HER way – the global warming way. Not JUST the ones who work for her channel – ALL OF THE METEOROLOGISTS IN THE UNITED STATES.
A true Global Warming Nazi of the worst kind.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636
Since when have liberals backed yanking hard-earned certifications if a person disagrees with the popular viewpoint?
Oh wait – I know the answer to that one.
Julie dear, is it only Fleetwood’s language that bothers you? Or does it only bother you when a conservative uses language that is unappropriate?
Just wondering.
Hank
And Heidi’s good lookin’, too – which makes it hard for me to dislike her.
Ben – your dismissal of OISM doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. I personally, know four of the signers of the petition from the State of KS – all of whom are highly-educated and respected in their fields.
At this point – you are trying to discredit SEVENTEEN THOUSAND scientists – and from what I hear you saying – you only have a Master’s, not a Doctorate.
That’s one hell of a lot of scientific minds that say the computer model isn’t a reliable source.
It sounds to me like you have a political bias.
Hey Ben,
If this whole global warming thing is nothing more that a bunch of political BS, maybe you could explain to the poor ignorant unwashed on this BLOG exactly how the great Kyoto treaty does anything other than transfer wealth from the western nations to the third world nations.
Why penalize the nations that are actually doing something to stop global warming?
Just wondering.
Hank
“No Rage – YOU’RE the insane one.”
Dear Wacko:Heidi wrote that statement on her BLOG. Her employer supported her. End of story.
A fair summary of the facts, minus the spittle (note the “liberal” source):
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245581,00.html
At least you abandoned your bizarre, irrelevant attack on the ACLU. . .
Julie – sadly, both of those two participants have been reduced to using expletives of genitalia to describe each other.
I hope they both quit doing it – it lessens the integrity of the board, but if neither minds – I suspect it will continue.
GSherry – you didn’t really post a link to World Net Daily and expect anyone to take it seriously, did you?
World Net Daily – home to holocaust deniers and various other right wing loonies?
Why not just post a link to Free Republic while you’re at it?
Rage – I stand by my statement concerning the ACLU. Typically, they support any individual, or group, that is targeted by a dominant entity into silence.
I just asked where they were on this one.
Where exactly are these 17,000 scientists GS?
Hank? Whether it’s the rapid melting of our magnificent glaciers, the record-breaking forest fires each summer, or the insect infestations that have ravaged 4 million acres of spruce forests, global warming is having a dramatic effect on Alaska’s landscape. It also threatens so much of Alaska’s cultures, economy, and pastimes. The temperature of the vast Yukon River has warmed ten degrees, resulting in diseased salmon. We have also seen warmer streams and higher siltation from glacial runoff in the famous salmon streams of the Kenai Peninsula. Scientists now predict that the disappearing sea ice could mean the extinction of polar bears by the end of this century, if not sooner. As migration patterns of whales, caribou, moose, and other animals change, Alaska Native subsistence ways of life are threatened. Hunting and fishing become less reliable. It also becomes more dangerous with changing sea and river ice, increasing storm activity, and higher river levels during traditional hunting periods. Indigenous peoples across the Arctic have noticed the appearance of insects, birds, and fish not seen before.
The environmental and cultural costs of global warming are clear, and so are the economic costs. Roads, bridges, ports, water and wastewater systems, pipelines, utilities, and buildings are all threatened by both the thawing permafrost and coastal erosion. Four Alaska coastal villages that are literally falling into the ocean due to stronger storms, lack of protective shore ice, and warming permafrost are now making plans to relocate. Well over a hundred more are at risk. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates that relocating just one of these villages would cost between $100 million and $400 million. There are also public health costs. This summer, the city of Fairbanks had to open “breathing centers” because of the heavy smoke from forest fires.
akcf.org/_pages/story/VirtualMarch.php
“Residents of Shishmaref, located on an island off the coast of northern Alaska and inhabited for 4,000 years, have already voted to relocate inland because their community is literally falling into the ocean. Staying will put their lives in danger. Another 20 communities in Alaska are looking to relocate, and the Army Corps of Engineers estimates more than 160 are threatened by erosion. According to the Government Accountability Office, moving just one village could cost between $100 and $400 million.”
WSClark – if you can prove the information wrong – go right ahead., I’m all ears. Otherwise, quit attacking the publisher as a valid method of debate.
Put up – or shut up.
It’s really that simple.
Oh yes, GS, you’re sooooooo above all the namecalling.
Here, I see why America is falling apart from being the most influential nation on the sick planet. For those who oppose the idea of global warming, you are placing a bet over the survival of future generations. The point is it is LIKELY to happen, and if we try to prevent it from happening, it won’t hurt. So stop meaningless argument on any belief and do for good of humanity.
Politicalmom – follow my earlier link. The scientists have all signed their names.
“Rage – I stand by my statement concerning the ACLU. Typically, they support any individual, or group, that is targeted by a dominant entity into silence.”
Sigh. . agree or disagree with its positions, the ACLU’s mission is to defend the Bill of Rights. That means against encroachment by government.
The Weather Channel != government. AMS != government. Heidi Cullen != government.
The ACLU has no dog in this fight.
And I’M the one insulated from reality??
World Net Daily -
“Should Christian Be Armed? The Right and Duty of Self-Defense.”
“Taking Back America – are you ready for another American Revolution.”
“How the UN Will Be the End of the United States and Israel.”
The issue is credibility, GSherry. If I posted a link to back up a position from DU or the Bartcop, the Cons would scream.
It’s the same issue – WND is so far from mainstream that they celebrate the writings of Upchuck Norris.
Dear PM,
Will their zip codes change?
Hank
GS – no, I have a ’scientific’ bias. There is not “one” computer model; there are many. And, while they differ in the details they all agree that we are warming globally and that is causing other changes.
Hank – it is not BS. Kyoto is flawed but it serves as a startuing point. One thing that I think we need to be doing is finding ways to help developing countries not make the mistakes we have made in over-reliance on fossil fuels. Nuclear will be a big part of the picture IMO.
I do not favor penalizing the nations that are trying to do something; who said I did?
GS – “you only have a Master’s, not a Doctorate.” BULLSHIT! Tell that to UCLA and Nobel Laureate Bill Libby. I git my PhD there and Libby was on my committee.
WSClark – You still refuse to address the issue.
If you can’t get past WND – there are many more sources, here is but one:
http://www.dailytech.com/Bad+News+for+Global+Warming+Alarmists/article5914.htm
At some point – if you want to maintain some of that credibility you keep talking about, you need to stand on the issue – and quit throwing out red herrings.
Are you ready?
“GS – “you only have a Master’s, not a Doctorate.” BULLSHIT! Tell that to UCLA and Nobel Laureate Bill Libby. I git my PhD there and Libby was on my committee.”
I based that ONLY on the information YOU provided – that of working on a ‘Thesis.’ If that’s all you provide, how can you expect anyone to think differently?
So – you are prepared to denounce all the thousands of scientists who disagree with you – but you get your panties all in a bunch when any one disagrees with YOUR assessment?
BTW – not that it’s important – but in your last sentence, Mr PhD, the word should have been “got,” not “git.”
This is so soooo amusing.
As a fully paid up conservative (and a Brit one too), I find some of the arguments here absolutely hilarious.
All you have to do is open your eyes and Look to see that the climate is changing. Who cares if it’s caused by CO2, when absolutey nobody with two braincells to rub together denies that it makes it worse.
The funniest point of all is that Nothing we can do now or in the next 20 years (aside from 100% carbon absobtion by 100% of the population of the planet), is going to make any difference in the next 100 years. Anyone who says anything else is just living in fantasy land.
What Can be done and Should be done is to make preparation for what is certain to come.
The Dutch have accepted and are planning now. Everyone else is arguing about conflicting articles.
It’s so bad right now that you can even see it with Google Earth if you care to look and given the quality of that tool, it’s got to be bad for that.
By the time the IPY teams have reported, the same “Conservatives” (otherwise known as vocal provocative head in the sand all for me types) will be screaming blue murder to know what the (almost certain to be Democrat Government) is going to DO about the mess.
The answer is “Not a lot” because there is not a lot we Can do.
I shall enjoy that thought and cherish it through the political bloodletting and unbridled whinging and whining of the next decade, by the very people who are currently denying this is actually going on.
Heh. Ya know, GS, I choose Fox News for my link on Google News, because it was the first one that could be considered anything close to “news.”
I passed up the Daily Tech story, as this was the FIRST SENTENCE:”It’s been a bad year for Global Warming Alarmists.”
Do you even understand the concept of “credibility”?
What does it matter anyway? Jesus is coming back soon…
That was sarcastic, but sadly it is the real logic behind the rights’ opposition.
Yes, the world is warming, and no one can deny that. The question is who is causing it? Ice testing shows our current C02 levels are higher than they have ever been through the history of our ice record.It is a logically leap to assume humans are responsible. Look at how many of us are on the planet! We are crowding out the natural environment. You can’t really blame us because we have a right to be here, but we need to be more responsible.
GS, regardless of where you stand on who is causing it, what is wrong with trying to fix it? Why do the CONs keep stalling and blocking? It doesn’t make any sense. Unless, of course, you think it won’t matter…
“BTW – not that it’s important – but in your last sentence, Mr PhD, the word should have been ‘got,’ not ‘git.’”
And I should have typed “chose” not “choose.” So what?
Andrew – I don’t believe in Jesus, so it sure as Hell isn’t the motivation behind MY sentiment.
And I don’t believe for a second that it is for the majority of the SEVENTEEN THOUSAND SCIENTISTS, either.
It may be for one or two, however.
The problem, Andrew, with ‘trying to fix it’ as you put – is that the measures the leftists want to enact will send us back to the Stone Age. No fossil fuel, no Ethanol, no beef in the market. Transportation will slow to a crawl and food sources will be scarce. You like eating? Start your berry patch now.
The folks that are behind this – are of the same cloth as the enviro-wackos who enacted legislation that loggers not be allowed to clear out underbrush in the forests. What happened? The dead underbrush acted as kindling – and vast amounts of property, and in some cases, even lives, were lost to wild fires.
This is NOT a harmless agenda. Some of the most prominent minds in Science disagree with it – so let’s open up Kyoto and let them speak!
Are you against allowing them equal time?
NeilT–I fear you’re right, but I think we need to do what we can to stop making it worse. . .
Rage, you wrote, “And I should have typed “chose” not “choose.” So what?”
I wasn’t aware that you were ALSO laying claim to a PhD. Are you? To this point, I haven’t expected much from your grammar – or even mental acuity – but I DO expect those who hold the highest degrees among us – to write a little better.
So – is there something you want to share with us?
Take a look outside, and then tell me we aren’t experiencing climate change. If scientists say it’s because of global warming, I tend to believe it.
I don’t know that anyone out there (or in here) is saying that global warming is 100% caused by man. Helped along, yes.
What does it hurt (except Big Oil) to look for alternatives to fossil fuels? I suppose it’s possible that we could run out before the next ice age, but who really wants to chance pushing either along faster?
Neil – I appreciate your calm demeanor and ability to articulate your thoughts in a non-abusive way, but I respectfully disagree with you.
There is no precedent that what you are seeing on GoogleEarth is 1)a condition that has not occurred before and not been observed due to our lack of technology or, 2) that it is an accurate representation of a man-induced effect based upon the claims of (some) politically-biased scientists, and that it is factual.
Ben types fast and sometimes makes errors. So do I, and I usually don’t even bother to preview. Life is short.
This forum isn’t a doctoral dissertation; it’s a blog, or more accurately, the comments section of a blog.
RD – outside my window right now it’s snowing – and it’s January.
This is VERY typical.
What’s your point?
Yes, GS, I am “laying claim” to a PhD. Just not in English. And you? As for my mental acuity I think I can hold my own. Perhaps it just flys too far over your head.
“So – is there something you want to share with us?” Huh?
“The problem, Andrew, with ‘trying to fix it’ as you put – is that the measures the leftists want to enact will send us back to the Stone Age. No fossil fuel, no Ethanol, no beef in the market. Transportation will slow to a crawl and food sources will be scarce. You like eating? Start your berry patch now.”
You actually believe that “leftists” would let anyone starve? That is absurd! No one is saying we can’t use fossil fuels. You know, as well as I do, that “leftists” are proposing to slowly lower our emissions. This only applies to things that produce too much CO2. And you already know that.
So I ask: If Jesus’ “Return” is not your motivation for helping to prevent climate change then what really is your motivation?
“Steven, you have your head in the proverbial sand. You admitted to not even reading my link -”
As I explained I did not feel that I had sufficient expertise, or familiarity with the area to adequately respond. I do believe Ben, whom I’ve met and I’ve read some of his work.
I think the proof that you’ll require will be greater than what can be provided. I find it a waste of time to respond to rigid right winger questions that are on their face disingenuous. But, thanks for your “interest”.
Dropping in while I try to clear my head…
Wondering, since humans domesticated cattle, if the methane, et al produced could not be a part of the “human influenced” effect on global warming?
I type, fast, too, Rage. Can’t you tell?
I never proof, either, so I make mistakes, too.
I said, “not that it’s important…”
Didn’t you read that part? It was just an observation.
Now, kindly get back on topic and tell me why SEVENTEEN THOUSAND SCIENTISTS should be unilaterally ignored?
ANd how can you be an atheist AND a conservative? That really doesn’t make sense!
Thirty years ago I was scared of the big “acid rain” scare. Then there was the “new ice age scare”. Then of course by now we actually can’t possibly have any chance of surviving because of the “ozone hole”.
And now the left wing chicken littles of the world will have us all dying of “global warming”.
Puhleaze people! Again I ask, how will this effect the zip codes in Alaska?
Just wondering.
Hank
When you push a rock up a hill and it goes over the top, first you have to stop it’s own momentum then you have to deal with the impact of the effort you expended to get it up there in the first place.
Climbing the CO2 absobtion hill took us 2.5 centuries. The drop down the other side will be short, sharp and painful.
What can we do?
Well we could flood every area of the world below sea levelWe could use desalinated water generated with thermal power to sew the desertsWe could plant new forests like never before seen.
However every one of these actions would take:
1 – Political will and agreement2 – Unprecedented funding and effort3 – TIME
None of the above could be completed and have an impact within 25 years. 50 years to really work.
So if you don’t have the political will, don’t have the funding and above all, don’t have the time; then why not sit back and enjoy it?
A Government that really cared about it’s people would champion the issue, structure it’s economy and industry to support the intiative and then get the world to pay for it.
Or was I too simplistic?
Andrew – I appreciate your belief that the left would not allow anyone to starve, but the left is not traditionally known as the ‘providers.’
They are known as the ‘takers.’
When food and fuel become scarce – there is nothing to ‘take.’
If you shut down our transportation system, which is what will happen if you stop the refining of fossil fuels, Ethanol, and nuclear power – wherewith will you find the means to power the transport trucks? Wind? Huh – uh. We MAY produce more Methane if we are all reduced to eating beans, but as far as I know – no one has patented a device to capture that specific form of ‘energy.’
Leftists just expect what is here – to always be here.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are conscious of HOW it gets here, and what needs to be protected to ensure that it continues.
Andrew, Conservatism is a political leaning. Atheism is the lack of a formal religion.
However, I didn’t state I was an atheist, just that I didn’t believe in Jesus. There is a difference. Are all Jews, for instance, atheists? No.
Specifically, I am a “Fiscal” Conservative, which only means I oppose a gift economy, a nanny State, most social programs, and massive taxation.
“Now, kindly get back on topic and tell me why SEVENTEEN THOUSAND SCIENTISTS should be unilaterally ignored?”
Ah, ya got me there, GS. Everyone knows that Internet petitions are the ultimate arbiter of scientific accuracy.
Hank – acid rain was real; we have largely dealt with it. Ozone is real – see this link:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/holefaq.asp
What is the ozone hole?The “ozone hole” is a loss of stratospheric ozone in springtime over Antarctica, peaking in September. The ozone hole area is defined as the size of the region with total ozone below 220 Dobson units (DU). Dobson Units are a unit of measurement that refer to the thickness of the ozone layer in a vertical column from the surface to the top of the atmosphere, a quantity called the “total column ozone amount.” Prior to 1979, total column ozone values over Antarctica never fell below 220 DU. The hole has been proven to be a result of human activities–the release of huge quantities of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone depleting substances into the atmosphere.
Finally, as for the “ice age scare” I have already noted that we scientists had nothing to do with that. We have talked about Milankovitch cycling many thousands of years into the future but definitely nothing imminent.
There WAS a discussion about “nuclear winter” if we had a nuclear exchange. And, that concern is also real. IF we had a nuclear war we would expect an event similar to bolide impacts that we have studied in the geological record.
P.S. By the way, do you know how many of them were named Steve?
Vaughn – your ‘cattle’ assessment is EXACTLY what the latest reports out last month detailed; that cows are the single largest contributor of man-induced climate change.
I don’t buy it, but then again, I don’t eat meat.
If Global Warming advocates want to put their money where their mouths are – they can IMMEDIATELY do something to stop GW.
Stop eating beef.
GS: “So – is there something you want to share with us?”
Yeah. I work for a living. I pay taxes. I do not get government money. So, I’m not sure just how I am a “taker” like you seem to claim.
Climate change amounts to a warming of the earth of about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 100 years.
Anyone else think it would be more?
“cows are the single largest contributor of man-induced climate change.”
They are “A” source, not the largest source. Care to substantiate your claim this time?
Google Earth was thrown in there just to make a point.
I’m not a scientist. I’m just an ordinary person who has eyes and a functioning brain.
I have spent 10 years watching, reading and analysing. What have I seen?
I have seen statements like
“The rift in Pine island glacier, although unprecedented, will still take 5 – 7 years to break away” Ooops it was gone the next spring.
“The Antarctic iceshelves have only retreated to where they were in the 1050’s” And where are they now? Nobody talking about that are they. The Rift on the Ross shelf right now has just about reached the edge and open water. Then it will open up and break off the largest ever seen single iceberg.
“The Arctic has reduced its perrennial ice by 20% since 1979″ Ooops sorry make that 40 – 45% when you factor in the thinning as well as the surface area.
“Global temperatures have gone up by 1 degree C in the last Century” But they have gone up by circa 5 degrees C in the last two decades over the cryosphere.
“The annually adjusted rate of increase in CO2 averages out at around 1.3 for the last century”. But it has gone up by 2 and 2.5 over the last 5 years.
Get the picture.
All you have to do is be able to read. Think and have 2+2 make 4 not 3.959826999
I’m off for the night. I’ll leave you with that thought. All the images are there on the web.
I’ll leave you with the latest Accelerator which is only just surfacing. “Delayed re-freezing”.
Good night all
Ooops should have been 1950’s
And since cattle flatulence is the primary source of the global warming gas, perhaps a bovine version of “beano” would be our best hope.
Ok so I’m not going to bed yet. Who nicked my handle. I don’t care about cattle flatulence.
Perhaps I just don’t care at all.
I’m having way too much fun watching all this unroll
“If you shut down our transportation system, which is what will happen if you stop the refining of fossil fuels, Ethanol, and nuclear power – wherewith will you find the means to power the transport trucks? Wind? Huh – uh. We MAY produce more Methane if we are all reduced to eating beans, but as far as I know – no one has patented a device to capture that specific form of ‘energy.’”
GS, why do you assume that we would have to stop refining fossil fuels? That is just not possible considering how economies depend on petroleum products… like this laptop I am using…We just want to find BETTER ways to refine the fuel and BETTER ways to use it.If we had dumped the billions we have wasted on Iraq into alternative fuel research, we would be well on our way right now.
Your arguments do not hold any weight. I mean, we will have to stop usig fossil fuels when they run out in a century anyway. So why not prepare while we can still afford to?
As for atheism: As a general rule, if you do not use religious dogma as the basis for your morality/ethics system, then you are more likely to be relativist or humanist… and therefore… a liberal. As for Jews, I don’t know a single Jew that is not an atheist (even though some still practice Jewish traditions).
O hell. Better go. losing it.
“Then of course by now we actually can’t possibly have any chance of surviving because of the ‘ozone hole’.”
Didn’t the cut back in halogenated hydrocarbons make a difference with the ozone problem. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
But I am sure you open-minded people will find some way to ridicule public safety initiatives. They’re so French, ya know.
So I ask: If Jesus’ “Return” is not your motivation for helping to prevent climate change then what really is your motivation?Posted by: Andrew | January 31, 2007 at 11:00 AMIt seems (IMO) she enjoys arguing. I “read” her at Kansas.com and (finally after months of not being brave enough to join in) I posted a question to her. She didn’t answer my question but attacked the premise she perceived behind it. I and my question were beneath her intellectual capacity and she let me know that in no uncertain terms. I was ill-informed and probably stupid to even pose such… Well, it had the intended affect and I took it all personally. After a couple of days I admitted to her I was personally hurt by her attack. I got a response about growing up and realizing this was a discussion board and this was all a part of participating. It took several months before I actually posted again. Then I found this blog and people who really did discuss and respect other’s opinions, whether they differed or not. I’m still not comfortable with the name calling but try to just steer clear of it. Sometimes I participate but not often. Most of the time I just lurk and read and I gain from each person’s post so that’s good. Many times a post will send me to “the google” for more information. Lot’s of well-educated, interesting and well-informed people here! Lots of opinions too.
I can’t tell if I offended you with this statement or not, but if I did, I apologize. It is just something I have observed and believe. If you have questions about what Evangelical (Fundamentalist or “Fundies” as I usually refer to them) Christians believe and teach their children on these scientific subjects then rent “Jesus Camp”.
Even as a Christian, I realized that EVERY generation since Jesus’ death believed He would be returning (I mean Jesus said He would return while some alive at the time of His death were still alive… now interpreted into the “resurrection of the body” dogma).It seems to me a fatal flaw to ASSUME Armageddon. Then it would really become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nothing scares me more than people bending or denying the truth because they believe it conflicts with their religion.
linda – everyone there asked me questions – just as everyone here does.
If I missed yours – what’s the big deal? Is it really something to vilify me over?
If I had a nickel for every question I asked someone that went unanswered – I’d be a rich gal.
Look – if I hurt your feelings – I apologize – but I’ve learned to grow a thick skin around these political boards. I don’t think I’m smarter than you – and I value your opinion. But I miss a LOT of questions because I am trying to work and post here. And I really need to do more of the former or I’ll be up all night catching up.
Sheesh – people here call each other by slang genitalia terms – how can you even compare me to that??? I’ve never done that.
I’m pretty sure I apologized to you back then – but I honestly can’t remember.
If not – I repeat NOW that I am deeply sorry your feelings were hurt.
Maybe in the future you could preface your questions to me with something like, “Please don’t jump on me, but……”
Okay?
I get jumped on ALL the time. I forget there are those it actually bothers.
Andrew – I would like to rid the GOP of the fundie Christians. They annoy me to no end.
But, I’ve run a business for a long time, and my background is in economics and business. I am a fiscal conservative because I feel it is the ONLY viable choice in our nation today.
Let us not bring up the fact that Romans harvested grapes in England 2000 years ago and 600 years later, the English could not because of Climate Change! Shhhhhhh
Don’t mention that glaciers have been approaching and withdrawing for tens of thousands of years!
Rising Oceans! Do not tell anyone that Kansas was once under an ocean!
Did anyone tell you not to mention that under all ice in Antartica is land!!!
Be quiet about the fact that CO2 can be easily traced radiologically and its source emission identified!
Don’t mention that the US 25 billion dollar fund spent the last few years on investigating Global Warming is larger than the Kyoto Treaty fund since it was founded!!!
Lets not mention Dumbo Ears Waxman Democratic Congressman who will not investigate Global Warming but will have a party of henchmen to try and hang a conspiracy on Bush! Don’t mention that Waxman does not give a hoot about your views!
Do not tell any one these rules about combating anti Global Warming facists!(1) Question their source even if it is from the same source as yours!(2) Allow the press to punish their scientists with false reports even though the journalist failed junior high science class!(3) Attack the sponsors of the AGW so they will no longer sponsor them and they lose their jobs!(4) Insult the commenter! Call them stupid, brainless and a liar!(5) Bring up irrelevant topics in the middle of a discussion to confuse them!(6) Deny! Deny! Deny!(7) Make up facts about how everyone but them is supporting your GW theory!(8) Put them on a guilt trip that they do not care about the planet!
When in doubt,(dribble dribble and dribble)
I’ve never read a post from you that is offensive. Stay safe Andrew. America needs you back home!
linda – seriously, I’m sorry for hurting your feelings.
Ben: I’m just glad, on this snowy, miserable morning, that it was Bill on your thesis committee, not “Scooter”.
Hey Ben,
Here’s my theory, the globe isn’t really getting warmer. Algore fixed the ozone hole problem by screwing up everyone’s auto air conditioners. (Just in time for Dupont, I might add)
So as we now drive around with our crappy auto air conditioners we just think the earth is getting hotter.
Hank
WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIIIIIIIE!!!!!!!!!
mrbill,
“on the cover of Time mag in the ’70’s ”
Do you REALLY believe Time mag was/is a credible, peer-reviewed science journal?
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm1974: … with cooling from aerosols suspected to be as likely as warming; JOURNALISTS talk of ice age.=>Public opinion
1977Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in next century.—More debunking at,http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s.html
You are still here GS! I thought you had left when you didn’t try to answer my arguments.
I have been trying to understand how you can say such ridiculous things about fossil fuels, nuclear power, etc… and expect to be taken seriously. I can only assume that you are unconsciously (or maybe consciously) trying to convert people to your positions by making arguments that sound good to the ignorant but don’t hold weight.I really don’t want to believe you are that unintelligent, because I think that you are.So tell me, what gives GS?
As for fiscal conservatism, that is what I called myself [fiscal conservative] after I left the church but still considered myself a republican (it only felt right. I mean, I had been brainwashed into being one since I was a wee lad). You should have seen the faces in the College Republican group at UT when I told them I was pro-choice/pro-gay rights…classic… And of course, I would not participate in almost all of their activities, and it was not long after that I realized that “College Republicans” was just another Christian student organization and left. But the fact is that fiscal conservatism is not practiced by the Republican Party, and it hasn’t been for a long time. So I switched to the party that somewhat followed my newly emerged values.
So since the republican party is not fiscally conservative, and you are not a Christian, then why are you still a Republican, GS?
GS — completely accepted, never to be thought of again. Carry on! You’re good and I learn from you. I’m still new at this but getting better.
linda – thanks for accepting my apology. I DO tend to get carried away at tiems with my rants. :)
Hank – I saw a great Onion article saying that Al Gore was causing the glaciers to melt. I’ll have to try to find it; it was funny.
…. And next, Bush wants to develop super ray guns to vaporize terrorists from outer space.
Bush wants the world’s scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming, the Guardian has learned. It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be important insurance” against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a major UN report on climate change.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1999968,00.html
Andrew – I understand that you may need to compartmentalize political parties into black and white, but just isn’t reality.
Barring the fact that I am not a fundie – I still have WAY more in common with the GOP, from a fiscal perspective, than I do the liberals.
I suppose I have the MOST in common with the Libertarian Party, but since supporting them usually splits the GOP vote, and I surely don’t want a Dem in office, I register with the party I DO support more.
If you don’t understand my reasons – fine. Perhaps I don’t understand yours either, for your affiliation.
Maybe this will help – if I had was forced to shoot one of two persons ( I wouldn’t do it willingly) one of whom was an official with the AFLCIO and the other – a televangelist – both of whom I despise, when all was said and done – the survivor would likely be speaking in tongues and thanking me for sparing his life.
And so it goes…..
Wow, that sounds a little dramatic. There is no way to know what kind of hidden impacts that could have on our planet…
Here’s an idea Bush, get out of Iraq, take 100 Billion from the Military’s budget next year and put it towards alternative fuel research. Then we can let the REAL scientists figure it out.
Hey Ben,
I read the same article. But based on my low opinion of Algore I thought it was true!
Hank
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/56631
“Al Gore Caught Warming Globe To Increase Box Office Profits”
Just for fun …
You still have not countered my arguments on global warming! Or given me a REAL answer on your politics! You sound like a politician the way you side step questions… haha…
Libertarians are a step above anarchists. A rational person should realize that their philosophy is a Utopian fantasy.
I understand your conservative fiscal leanings, and I am for more efficient/smaller government as well. But the Republican Party IS NOT. They spend more than anyone! Except they let foreigners foot the bill instead of the taxpayer. This is not so good for the value of the dollar as we have recently seen. I would rather pay more taxes and have my money worth more than pay less taxes and have my money worth less.
GSheridan,
60 PROMINENT SCIENTISTS claim:”“Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future.””
Computer climate models predicted global warming, with the greatest warming in the northern latitudes.
“Observational evidence” **DOES** support the computer models — See the maps and graphs:
‘2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century’http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.htmlhttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/04/climate_change_is_real.php“So who are the sixty scientist? Most of them aren’t climate scientists, and seventeen of them have got mentioned on this blog, typically for making serious errors of fact and interpretation:”(see 17 links)
If Bush develops and deploys giant mirrors in outer space to combat global warming, what happens if we accidently break one?
Does all of America get seven years bad luck?
Just the Republicans?
Just the Bush Family?
Inquiring minds want to know….
It truly saddens me to see Freeman Dyson on the list. . .
They are probably actually secret weapons. I could see the military using these mirrors to vaporize water supplies of nations we want to invade… or giving them really bad sun burns.
Hi Andrew – keeping safe I hope?
I also am a fiscal conservative; however my science background tends to force me in certain directions. For example I am in favor of nuclear power since I see that as the only way, at least for now, to displace fossil fuels. I have written before about that – and using decommissioned warheads as a fuel supply. (In fact, I think you and I have discussed that).
I also favor trash-to-energy for a number of reasons. Then add in wind, solar, efficiency, conservation. I believe that if we choose to that we can deal with this. However, I also believe that we are perilously close to some major tipping points.
I found Gore’s movie boring but agree with Dr. Master’s review – that it is based on good science. “The science of An Inconvenient TruthThe science presented is mostly good, and at times compelling, but there are a few errors and one major distortion of the truth. Gore does an excellent job focusing on the most important issues, and usually presents them with a minimum of hype and distortion.” I think the reason I tended to find it more boring than some others I know is that I had already seen all the information he used – I read the literature.
Master’s review:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/gore.asp
Ben,
That Onion piece is funny. I especially like:[The EPA said] “Mr. Gore is well within the emissions standards set by the current administration.”
Reminds me of Gore’s movie, where he says the teacher who said continental drift was “impossible!”, is now working for the Bush WH.
Hank, Sheridan etc.re: language
I object to whomever (liberal, conservative, polka dotted…)using language that is entirely inappropriate. Like my earlier posted states – I understand that is satisfying to use expletives. However the use of the ‘c’ word (and the ‘f’ word too) in question is always and totally inappropriate for use on this blog.
Julie- I agree- little boys with dirty mouths gets old and boring very fast!
My use of p-See You In Toledo, was harsh. I should have used a different insult. Next time, I will.
On climate change- The creek can rise a little, but the beer has to be cold!
…I object to bloggers like Julie who accuse me of using language that is inappropriate…There appears to be a troll problem on this WE Blog and anyone can pretend to be “…”…I suggest that WE Blog Editors name the trolls so we know who is trolling…Someone turn up the Global Warming I am freezing…:-)…
I’m good. I have it really easy here of late (compared to others).
I agree with what you are saying Ben. I have seen the movie too (and I have it), and I talked my fundy grandmother into watching it as well. I found the crying really cheesy, but I guess Gore is literally a bleeding-heart. The substance was good though.
As for the word police… I am all for cursing! If our society found these words never necessary then we would not use them. I think they should be reserved for good moments, or it would lose its punch.
GSheridan,
“Steven – please show us evidence that even ONE of the 60 prominent scientists I linked to the story about – is involved in big oil.”
Actually they’re connected to fossil fuel energy, including coal-fired electricity, and conservatives like media mogul Rev. Sung Myung Moon.
Pat Michaels, S. Fred Singer (SEPP), Sallie Baliunas herehttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sallie_L._Baliunas
FACTSHEET: Richard Lindzen — Western Fuels, OPEChttp://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17
FACTSHEET: Patrick J. Michaelshttp://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4“Dr. Michaels has acknowledged that 20% of his funding comes from fossil fuel sources…”
GS has already conceded the point with his silence Cosmos. But nice work anyway.
…Ponders if who one works for really affects their Scientific background and knowledge…Ponders if the GW advocates should be doing less attacking and more proving…Will look to insurance companies for first proof of GW…Insurance companies will or wont insure beach front property…Insurance companies will or will not raise insurance rates on ships for floating ice floe hazards…insurance people have crystal balls…:-)…
I’ve never had crystal balls, but I did have beer nuts once. Ouch!
Cosmos – I concede nothing – I was eating lunch.
You DO eat, don’t you?
And I need to get back to work, but not before I make a couple of points.
First, being in the “fossil fuel” industry is not the same as being in BIG OIL which is what the accusation was to begin with. I’m connected with fossil fuel – but I’m far from Big Oil.
Secondly, doesn’t the fact that the year 2005 being the warmest on record actually DISPUTE the original computer model? Isn’t that the reason they are claiming Global Warming to begin with? Because it is NOT following the model?
That only proves that we are in a warming cycle, but it does not bear out the missing data of six thousand years, which is what the model is assuming. No evidence to support it, however.
BTW – are you aware of the Peri Reis maps? If they are accurate – and according to geophysicists – they ARE, then the computer model MUST be wrong.
Now, I HAVE to work. No more messing around here this snowy (I wish it was a globally-warmer) afternoon.
That will NOT translate into concession of anything.
Got it?
No, GS, they are not claiming GW/GCC because it doe NOT follow computer models but rather because they CAN model them.
By the way, is there something you want to share with us?
It is reassuring that the public is coming to see this threat realisitically.
Hamk? You and outie and the fundies? I say you’ve no buisiness commenting on this issue at all. Seeing as how you are waiting for the rapture and all. MOST Christians are coming to see that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of creation. Most of us are concerned with THIS world.
To the rest of the deniers? I want you to tell me how I explain to my kid that destroying the planet is no big deal.
There is absolutely NOTHING to be lost in addressing this issue practively. Save maybe the bottom line of the fossil fuels people. And I can’t get to tore up for them.
Chuckle…JR, no one is waiting on the end of the world. Otherwise, why would I have contributed to an IRA all these years?
It’s just a stupid left wing talking point. If it doesn’t make sense, you don’t have to repeat it.
GSheridan,
Are you “slow”? Oil is part of “fossil fuel” industry.
You said list ONE scientist re oil. Lindzen got book funding from OPEC. You want to claim OPEC is NOT “Big oil”?http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17
GSheridan: “That only proves that we are in a warming cycle, but it does not bear out the missing data of six thousand years, which is what the model is assuming.”
Computer climate models predict global warming *IF* the amount of GHG’s rise. The models predict the warming to be faster at northern latitudes.
GHG’s have risen, and BOTH of those predictions are NOW being observed.
SO….
Why weigh in at all then?
Addressing global warming as real and human caused can only have POSITIVE outcomes. Or are you just against the environment in general?
It is by successfully modeling the past 6000 years (and more) that we test the models.
““it (model validation) provides useful insights for further applications such as the study of man’s impact on climate and climate forecasting at the annual to decadal time scales. Mitchell claimed that the warming effect of carcon dioxide may interact with the astronomical prediction by interposing a superinterglacial, with global mean temperatures in the next few centuries reaching levels several degrees higher than those experienced at any time in the last million years (remember that this is happening close to a climate optimum). Provided the climate system does not jump into a new very warm equilibrium state, the next ice age would have to wait until this CO2 warming has run its course, more than a thousand years from now” (Berger1988)”
W.S. Broecker, 1990
“The inhabitants of planet earth are quietly conducting a gigantic environmental experiment. So vast and so sweeping will be the impacts of this experiment that, were it brought before any responsible council for approval, it would be firmly rejected as having potentially dangerous consequences. Yet, the experiment goes on …”
…ponders which came first the heat or thermometers…:-)…
OK JR. Here is my standard answer on global warming issue. If it makes too much sense, look away or you could be converted.
So, we wreck the economy, spending untold money to try to fix something that we may not be able to fix. Then we have a big volcano erupt, or a few nukes go off in the Middle East throwing dust up everywhere. Or a small asteroid hits the earth in Gaphturkistan. So much for our efforts. We will be wishing for global warming.
Common sense reductions in greenhouse gas production and conservation make sense. But to do anything drastic is short-sighted and arrogant. Arrogant because we think that our puny efforts can maintain planetary equilibrium.
GSheridan,
“Now, kindly get back on topic and tell me why SEVENTEEN THOUSAND SCIENTISTS should be unilaterally ignored?”
Here’s why,http://timlambert.org/2004/05/oregonpetition
I’d add that the Oregon Pettion is almost a decade oil — research, data, and evidence since then offers much stronger proof of AGW.
Outlander
You may or may not be arguing straight from Limbaugh. You make all the same points.
Who is talking about wrecking the economy? Al Gore sees the US as becoming the world leader in EXPORTING enviro friendly technology.
And your final point is rather silly. If I tell you that X might burn your house down are you going to ignore my warning because Y might burn it down anyway?
Even you acknowledge that addressig emmissions is common sense. Wouldn’t it be just more common sense to improve energy efficiency and conservation?
Outlander,
The same fossil energy groups that confuse you re AGW are also confusing you on the economics.
It takes an investment of only about $12 to save EACH barrel of oil. Compare that to today’s $50-60/barrel cost, plus our military costs in the M-E region.
Volcanoes (Pinatubo) or nukes cause a cooling for only a year or so — then AGW resumes.
“Arrogant because we think that our puny efforts can maintain planetary equilibrium.”
No, it’s arrogant to think we can’t upset climate equilibrium. And it’s STUPID to ignore the natural, positive feedbacks that would magnify our impact.
“Wouldn’t it be just more common sense to improve energy efficiency and conservation?”
JR: I believe that would be included in what I just wrote. But don’t panic, I’m sure we can argue over the degree of such.
GS:”You DO eat, don’t you?”
Speaking of troubled functioning, do you ever sleep?
GSheridan,
“What is not publicized is the fact that the entire global warming fiasco is based upon the computer model one scientist made trying t determine what the history of warming and cooling has been for thousands of years – when we only have about 150 years of concrete, recorded data.”
There are multiple computer models. Examples,’Types of climate models’http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeltypes.htmlhttp://www.cgd.ucar.edu/research/models/http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/research/
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm“1896: Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2″
Oxygen isotopes and other methods provide “concrete, recorded data” waaaay back into Earth’s history.
“Volcanoes (Pinatubo) or nukes cause a cooling for only a year or so — then AGW resumes.”
For your perusal Cosmos.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6169717.stm#maphttp://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050308_super_volcano.html
Obviously, it would depend upon the size of the event.
Cosmos – first, just because the oil industry is a subset of the fossil fuel industry, does not mean fossil fuel is synonmous with Big Oil. You have failed to substantiate your claim that the scientists were linked to Big Oil, which in modern terms means drawing money from the large Oil Barons.
So far – nada on that front.
Cosmos – first, just because the oil industry is a subset of the fossil fuel industry, does not mean fossil fuel is synonymous with Big Oil. You have failed to substantiate your claim that the scientists were linked to Big Oil, which in modern terms means drawing money from the large Oil Barons.
So far – nada on that front.
outlander – that mechanism is similar to what we think ‘did in’ the dinosaurs – bolide impact. A nice piece of evidence is the Iridium layer. Also, the oceans got really screwed up – I was the term “Strangelove Oceans” in a paper looking at it.
Sorry – double post.
Ben – why, if the computer model is proven do expert scientists question it, such as Richard Kerr who stated in Science magazine, “Climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable”?
That doesn’t sound like a proven model to me.
You DO eat, don’t you?
“cows are the single largest contributor of man-induced climate change.”
They are “A” source, not the largest source. Care to substantiate your claim this time?
Still waiting …
So – is there something you want to share with us?
I’d like to see that one GS – science is a good mag.
re “double post” – getting that crazy “capcha check” thing or whatever?
GS:
Here is a link outlining Richard Lindzen’s connection to big oil. Lindzen is the right’s favorite global warming skeptic.
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
What was it Gore said in his movie? “It is easy to not see the evidence of something if your paycheck depends on not seeing it.”
Do I understand correctly, that this visual problem applies to you too?
GSheridan, I followed your link to the petition signed with the names of 16K folks. Thank you for providing that link.
Many of the signatories are listed as MDs. What particular expertise do MDs have in meteorology?
Would you mind pointing out which of the Kansas signees are meteorologists?http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/listbystate.htm#KS
GSheridan,
“You have failed to substantiate your claim that the scientists were linked to Big Oil, which in modern terms means drawing money from the large Oil Barons.”
What would you label OPEC?http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17“a speech he wrote, entitled ‘Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,’ was underwritten by OPEC”
Are you also claiming that “Big Oil” offers zero funding to the places where Sallie Baliunas “publishes”? CEI, TCS, American Petroleum Institute, etc…?http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=3
CSA,
You might want to read, http://timlambert.org/2004/05/oregonpetition
There is something wrong about that petition, as CSA points out.
Looks like just about anyone could have signed it, regardless of what their qualifications are.
There are multiple problems in the Oregon Petition, besides who signed it.The deceptions, errors, etc explained athttp://timlambert.org/2004/05/oregonpetition
Hehe, GS was banking on that nobody would actually look into her study there.Good job Cosmos
Or GS is gullible?
The link to PR Watch at TimLambert’s page is no longer valid.This page gives more info re OISM, funding by Scaife, etc,http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
After just a bit of googling on the Kansas segment of those 16K (or was it 17K?) signees of the petition GSheridan was pinning his/her hopes upon:
Tad B Albright, – no relevant hitsArly Allen, – - no relevant hitsHarrison C Anderson, – MD,Thornton Anderson, – Oil ProducerErnest Angino, PhD, – KU Prof – Civil EnggCliff Bale, – no relevant hitsMark J Bareta, – no relevant hitsNeal Barkley, – BS Chem EnggTodd R Bart, – BA Accounting, employed by PennzoilLynn S Bates, PhD, – KSU Prof, Grain ScienceJoe Bazzelle, – no relevant hitsCurtis M Beechan, PhD, – Sterling College, Chem ProfDelfin Beltran, MD,George D Bishop, – no relevant hits
GSheridan, why do you support this petition, whose signees don’t seem to have any relevant background, over the research performed by experts in the field?
**************cosmos, I’ll check out those links when I get the chance. Wonder if this petition will start to look like it was put together by the Discovery Institute . . .
CSA (and anyone who wants some good laughs)
This link describes Art Robinson, main author of the Oregon Petition, and has links to some of GSheridan’s “60 Leading Scientists”(sic) — funding (Exxon), other research, etc.
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1067
And note Philip Morris memo re Fred Sietz: “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice” — 9 years BEFORE Sietz wrote Petition’s cover letter!!
And Richard S. Courtney is a coal industry spokesman! ROFLhttp://www.desmogblog.com/node/1095
Thanks for the laughs, cosmos!
Next question . . . why would anyone accept this ‘petition’ over the advice of physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, or environmental scientists?
CSA – very simple reason – because it says what they want it to say.
Time to concede defeat GS.
It is not so bad to be on the side of protecting the Earth.:)
“So, we wreck the economy, spending untold money to try to fix something that we may not be able to fix. Then we have a big volcano erupt, or a few nukes go off in the Middle East throwing dust up everywhere. Or a small asteroid hits the earth in Gaphturkistan. So much for our efforts. We will be wishing for global warming.”
Outlander,I’m curious. Do you throw your money away on health insurance?
Why?
GS,
Yes, it’s January, and in KS, it sometimes snows in January. And February. And March. Even April.
I don’t know how old you are, but I can think back over nearly 50 winters. The climate has changed. Not immediately, but slowly, over a period of years.
Maybe it’s a freak winter. Thinking back to November this year and counting up to now, we’ve had almost a half-dozen snow/ice storms, with the majority of them measurable. The weather is changing. Maybe I should just sit back and be thankful for the moisture.
Remember seasons? 4 of them? Even the changing of the seasons has…changed. I’m still trying to figure out what happened to spring and fall.
Maybe you don’t agree with me or have given it any thought. Whatever floats your boat. :)
I just saw a correlation, Outlander, so I asked. No harm intended.
Ben,
GSheridan claims that “cows are the single largest contributor” of AGW because http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece“Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.”
Just because “livestock” is more than “transport” does not prove it’s the “largest”.
Assuming “transport” is slightly < 18%, that still leaves 64% (or more) from other sources.
It’s likely that “stationary” sources (coal power plants, etc) put out more than 18%.
I caught that correlation too RD.: )
And over MY 40 some years, I too have noted changes. This is the first time in MANY years we have had long term snow or ice cover.
And I am seeing species of insects in Summer that I do not recognize. My son and I look them up and they are North of where they are supposed to be. This is true of armadilloes also.
It’s important to keep reminding the stubborn or uninformed that it IS Global Warming but the result is overall regional climate change.
Thanks cosmos …
JR – we now have armadillo in Kansas. Now, that in and of itself isn’t TOO bad, they can be a bit od a nuisance but no big deal. However, if their only predator follows them THAT would be disaster!
TEXANS!
Ben,
That last one was hysterical.
Armadillo births are only 4 identical quadruplets. I remember reading that there is an evolutionary advantage for such births, but I am not recalling the details.
Whenever a car runs over an armadillo they jump up and can really tear crap out of a car.
My folks live in the country in far Southwest Sedgwick county. They have armdillos out there. I would favor returning those animals to Texas; saying: “thanks, but you guys can keep them.”
Thanks Ben and cosmos for dispatching our friend GSheridan and her anti-science agenda. I knew you guys could do the job so much more quickly and thoroughly than I ever could.
Shouldn’t be laughing Steven.
The predators following the armadilloes will no doubt drive before it a surge of… Okies! (cringe) And global warming and wind changes may bring that damn red crap they call dirt with them!
What a great way for scientists to money grab for thier careers.
Global warming, make normal global climate change a basis of fear to the world and when it naturally changes to the cooler side they will be heros attributing all the money and regulations to the success.
Answer what caused Medieval Optimum and the corresponding ocean level? Can you explain why ocean levels have dropped in the Artic, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans?
Come on all you wanna be experts, answer the real questions.
Ocean levels have dropped? Who are you kidding?
So-called Medeivel Optimum was a minor LOCALIZED event. The Dust Bowl in Kansas was a LOCALIZED event. GCC is worldwide.
Go read the scientific literature; it’s all there. Not in multi-colored websites and not always easy to read but its there.
…notes libs like to gang attack whether they know anything about the topic or not…eyebrows rise as the city slickers are just now noticing armadillos – saw them as a small boy in Kansas many years ago…notes Cosmos still on attack mode not allowing people to have opinion…contemplates Cosmos hidden agenda…concludes that thermometers and those who rely upon them is the real Global Warming problem…:-)…
45 years ago, John Kappers and I decided that it would be fun to catch one of the armadillos near Winfield, KS and turn it lose in the local theater. We caught one near Strother field and proceded to bring it to town.
We were driving John’s dad’s brand new 1962 Chevy pickup. On the way in the critter kept trying to get under John’s feet while he was trying to drive. I got in on the floor on the passenger side and tried to hold it down with my feet. It crapped. It came out in a pencil thin stream that went every where. We spent about three hours that nigh trying to get that truck cleaned out enough that we could take it home.
The truck was never the same. In the winter with the windows up and the heater running memories of that armadillo penetrated the senses.
You can blame armadillos in Kansas on Global warming if you want, but they were common enough in Cowley County in the ’60s that two highschool boys could go and catch one on a whim if they wanted to.
Hank
Hank,That’s a freakin’ hilarious story.
More! More!
Ha,
“Global warming, make normal global climate change a basis of fear to the world …”
By “normal”, do you mean “natural”??
What’s normal/natural about humans causing global CO2 to increase from 280 ppm, to 380 ppm, by burning HUGE amounts of wood, coal, oil, etc?CO2 is now way ABOVE what it’s been during the last 650,000 years… and it’s STILL CLIMBING.
What’s normal/natural about humans increasing methane, with landfills, livestock, drilling, etc.
What’s normal/natural about humans adding Freon, HFC’s, SF6 and other weird GHG’s to our Earth’s atmosphere?
Tell us Ha, when DID the increases in the above GHG’s happen earlier, in our ONLY Earth’s “normal”/natural history?
…Ponders Cosmos statement – What’s normal/natural about humans increasing methane, with landfills, livestock, drilling, etc…has visions of cow tipping and squeezing, Nazis making human body landfills, La Brea tar pits, peat bogs and archaeological digs depending on human landfills…
Hank,
Were they also common in Illinois in the 1960’s?
‘Armadillos Marching North to Illinois’http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11916“Milder winters packing less long-standing snow and ice — the bane of armadillos who have little body fat, don’t hibernate and rely on their noses to root out beetles, grubs and earthworms — hasn’t hurt, either.”
…armadillo research (likes researching odd mammals)…The 9 Banded Armadillos are originally from South America. The first recorded document of armadillos was in 1849 Texas….A Florida carnival released Armadillos somewhere in the Southeast in 1936 after the carnival went bankrupt…Armadillos have been seen in Illinois as earlier as 1970…Counts of Armadillos in Southern Illinois is less than 200. Scientists surmised that the average temperature of 28F during the winter may not be conducive for armadillo reproduction…Conclusions by biologists say that the migration of the armadillo may have more to do with the soft soils (food source) than the popular Global Warming migration theories…Scientist also note that various insects, birds and mammals have migrated from Central and South America for thousands of years with no other reason than following food sources…tastes like chicken! hoover hog…:-)…
…,
Your point?
I know, you don’t have one…
…Your point Steven Davis?…I know, you don’t have one…:-)…
… pointless<— yes!
… stupid<— Yes!
… brain dead??? <— sadly, yes
… KSNutz <— maybe…
…Steven Davis is clue less and looks for confrontation…Bad guesser as well…:-)…
… <—–KSGolfnut
Re: open thread 30 Jan.
…popup! = Steven Davis…Both are bad guessers…:-)…
I think Davis has a crush on me.
KSGolfnut,
I’ll tell you another from my mispent youth, but then you’ll owe me one.
That single theater in Winfield was the center of our social life until we were old enough to get into the City Cigar Store and drink beer and shoot pool.
We had a skating rink and of course the drive in theater where we learned about life.
I worked for Ralph Wilson part time at the Winfield Body Shop. One of my jobs was to go to the salvage yard west of town and get used parts.
Virgil Dean Freed owned the salvage yard and he was an asshole. (sorry Julie that’s as clean as I can make it) The sign on the highway read “V D Freed SALVAGE” If you tried to haggle over prices he would fire up his cuting torch and simply cut what ever cherrished part you wanted in to several irreparable pieces.
I was out taking the front end off of a ‘56 Ford for Ralph when I noticed that his watch dog wasn’t tied up in her usual place. I asked ol’ VD where she was. “Keeping her up at the house, she’s nursing puppies.” Even at night? I asked. “yep” he lied.
I decided that this might be a good time to liberate the intake manifold and four barrel carburator off that wonderous 312 overhead cam V8 in that ‘56 Ford. I’d take it loose and come back and get it that night. No dog to worry about!
Now the drive in theater was next to the salvage yard so that night I told my date during intermission that I was going shopping. I jokingly told her that if I wasn’t back in 30 minutes she could have my car. I climbed over the fence and had barely made it over to the Ford when I sensed impending death closing in on me. The damn dog was coming at a flat out run! I barely made it inside the Ford before this life-support-system for a rabid mouth full of teeth reached me.
All night I spent inside that car. Dog snarling and slobbering at my hiding place. Around 6;30 the next morning ol’ VD called for his dog. She wouldn’t leave the car. He yelled for her and finally came into the yard looking for her. I could see my future life being spent in the county jail. He came up to the car, dog snarling and slobbering, doing everything she possibly could to tell ol ‘VD that a desperate criminal was hiding under the dashboard of the Ford.
I kept my eyes closed real tight, because everyone knows that makes it harder for someone to find you, and as near as I can tell VD never looked into the car. He grabbed the dog by her collar and dragged her back up to his office.
After a short wait, I grabbed my manifold and carburator and climbed the fence. A couple of days later I was able to convince my date that I was just kidding about giving her my car.
Hank
Outstanding, Hank. That’s a priceless story.
…Likes Hank Price Story…Felt like he was there viewing through the minds eye…:-)…
…KSGolfnut?
my mojo beats your mojo
:)
Cosmos – your post with the link to OPEC qualifies as a link to “Big Oil.” I concede that point.
CSA – your observation that some of the ’scientists’ have an MD behind their name is also accurate. Some have no degree at all listed. I concede that point. I DO know four of the people listed on State of KS site – and they are all highly respected professionals. From what I understand – cards were sent to specific individuals and they signed and returned. Not just ‘net browsers’ are on there.
I have to hereby revise my claim to SEVENTEEN THOUSAND INDIVIDUALS – some of whom are scientists. That’s the best I can do on that one at this point.
Ben – The Kerr statement from Science Mag is only available as a quote – and from numerous sites. I checked briefly – and did not find it in its entirety – at least not at a free site. Here is one site that references the quote – towards the very bottom:
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3168
Yesterday, as I was researching/snacking I came across a site that stated Kerr has made a subsequent statement that there is a new model that doesn’t contain the flux-factor the ones he previously cast doubt upon. He claimed that model was more accurate – but that it also predicted a much milder warming outcome.
I don’t have the link for that site – but could probably track it down later today.
And what do you mean, “do I want to share anything?” I asked that of Cosmos to see if he wanted to share a degree in science. Are you asking me in that same capacity? Or are you being facetious?
GSheridan – gracious concession noted. Thank you. Be careful – there are a lot of pseudo-scientific organizations out there pushing their agendas; they prefer petitions & PR firms but avoid peer review like the plague.
The four ‘highly respected professionals’ on that list that you know – are any of them meteorologists or climatologists?
CSA – no – none are climatologists or meteorologists. All four are engineers. When I saw their names, I called one, the VP of a refinery and inquired as to how he got his name on the list. He was mailed a copy of the petition – and he agreed and returned it. I am supposing the other three may be similar accounts but don’t know them well enough to call.
His personal complaint was that the standard of emissions was being falsely reported in many newspapers and on TV. That’s what upset him the most.
He pointed to the Sierra Club as making false allegations where emissions were concerned. I have no hard data to back that up.
That said – let’s continue our warming discussion on today’s new thread about light bulbs. I have a 28 bps dial-up and this big page takes a long time to load now.
I’m still pushing the “Beano” for cows idea.
I read somewhere that methane’s heat trapping qualities are 20 times that of CO2. So this is important.
I’ll need some backers though. Any rich guys needing a tax write off out there?
Good stories Hank,My main objection to the language is the “C” word, it sets my teeth on edge like little else.
GSheridan,
Your link re Kerr and climate models is a joke.http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3168
* The column is dated 1998 — models, and computers have improved by HUGE amounts since then.
The author:* Falsely implies that the scientific consensus in the 1970’s was global cooling.
* Mistates the IPCC’s position then — and it’s outdated by IPCC’s 2001 report, AND the one coming out tomorrow.
* Mistates the satellite data, and CO2 stats.
* Has zero credibility.http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Doug_Bandow“Following revelations that he had accepted payments from lobbyist Jack Abramoff he resigned from Cato and was suspended from Copley News Service.”
Re bogus Oregon Petition,
GSheridan,
“… I called one, the VP of a refinery……His personal complaint was that the standard of emissions was being falsely reported in many newspapers and on TV. That’s what upset him the most.”
1) Employed by oil (fossil-energy).2) Global levels of CO2 and other GHG’s were/are NOT being “falsely reported”.
I find it interesting that someone just says “are you kidding” about ocean levels dropping when it is easy information to find.
The one who asked about normal / natural…. My point is that the climate will rise and fall despite what we do on the earth.
The one who spews Co2 data as if he is an expert forgets that there is evidence that the ice core samples are in error in testing to say that the levels were lower centuries ago.
If the midevil period example is a bad example due to it being a local event, then tell the ones you worship over this issue to stop talking about local weather patterns being a result of global warming.
If you wish to be in fear and be willing participants in a political rather than a scientific issue (which has not determined a conclusion for global catastrophy, be my guest,
Ocean levels are rising, not falling. As for “people I worship” i don’t worship anyone. I do respect their work. And they don’t highlight local events like you claim; they integrate it all into a totality.
I suspect that it is you who is in a political realm rather than me and my fellow scientists:
“I collected a list of climate change position papers put out by the major governmental scientific institutes of the world that deal with the atmosphere, ocean, and climate. All of these organizations (at least that I could find) agree that significant human-caused climate change is occurring:
United Nations IPCCAmerican Meteorological SocietyNOAAU.S. National Academy of SciencesNASAEPAAmerican Geophysical UnionNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchRoyal Society of the United KingdomCanadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Science, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Royal Society (UK)
Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK)
If anyone can find examples of governmental scientific organizations that deny the consensus position, I’d be happy to make a second list of links. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have long been hostile to international climate change negotiations, so their scientific organizations may well have official positions opposing the consensus. However, the Saudis are apparently changing their stance, as announced in May 2006 at a U.N. sponsored meeting in Germany. “I believe the petroleum industry should actively engage in policy debate on climate change as well as play an active role in developing and implementing carbon management technologies to meet future challenges,” said the president of the Saudi state-run oil industry giant, Aramco. In 2005, both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gases. However, the Protocol does not call on them to reduce their emissions.
In summary, there is an overwhelming level of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. Those who defend the contrary view are fond of pointing out that we shouldn’t stifle their opposing point of view, since heroes like Galileo with his sun-centered solar system view and Wegener with his continental drift theory both challenged the overwhelming scientific consensus of their day and were proved to be correct. That is true. However, Galileo and Wegener did not have the public relations staff of multi-billion dollar companies helping them promote their contrary views. I’m not too worried about the contrarian view of human-caused climate change being stifled, and would like to see the media stop quoting the contary views of such think tanks as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall foundation, and scientists such as S. Fred Singer of the SEPP. Getting one’s climate science information from these sources it similar to getting one’s news from a tabloid newspaper. Sure, some of the stories are true, but a lot of the material is of questionable quality, to say the least. The media should focus on getting their scientific information from leading climate scientists who regularly publish in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The best easily available source of this infomation is from realclimate.org, a web site maintained by some of the world’s foremost climate scientists.
Dr. Jeff Masters, Chief Meteorologist for The Weather Underground
http://www.wunderground.com/education/928.asp
“hA”,
“The one who spews Co2 data as if he is an expert forgets that there is evidence that the ice core samples are in error in testing to say that the levels were lower centuries ago.”
“hA”, you do NOT offer any links/proof re your claim of errors in CO2, so I’ll assume your proof is the same JM’s recent posts.
I’m re-posting a small part of my posts to JM. Please correct me, and provide links, if you have other evidence.—–You claimed that CO2 measurements from ice cores and scientific sites were/are wrong, because Beck found higher readings in polluted European cities.That’s a joke, scientifically. And Beck’s work not only wasn’t peer-reviewed, it was a draft.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/BeckCO2short.pdf“This is an unofficial extract of E-G Beck’s comprehensive draft paper and is for discussion not citing”
Suppose ALL of Kansas was under blizzard conditions, and almost all thermometers readings were below freezing.*WHY* would you want to average in obviously defective readings of 50, 70, etc degrees F.?http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
Medieval Warming? You can’t find a credible scientist that says it was global.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
…the listClimate Change…American Meteorological Society -
“Many processes are involved, including changes in soil characteristics (e.g., soil moisture, holding capacity), vegetation, radiative characteristics (e.g., albedo), and surface-atmosphere exchanges of water vapor, other gases (e.g., CO2), particulates (e.g., dust) and momentum. Some of these processes remain poorly understood and difficult to measure and model, and thus require continued research.
The full suite of potentially important feedback processes is yet to be adequately understood and quantified.
For example, although observations of global mean temperaturese duringle spotty and estima”…the listNOAAhmmmm Don’t seem to have their own opinion.”All figures linked from this page with the exception of global surface temperatures are from the IPCC 2001 report ‘Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis’.”…U.S. National Academy of Sciences -”In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations (including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) – and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action”…NASA -”In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group sponsored by the United Nations (UN), published results of climate simulations in a report on global warming. Climatologists used three simulations to determine whether natural variations in climate produced the warming of the past 100 years. The first simulation took into account both natural processes and human activities that affect the climate. The second simulation took into account only the natural processes, and the third only the human activities.
The climatologists then compared the temperatures predicted by the three simulations with the actual temperatures recorded by thermometers.
Only the first simulation, which took into account both natural processes and human activities, produced results that corresponded closely to the recorded temperatures. “…flips a dime into the air and it lands on its edge…:-)…
…popup! = Steven Davis…Both are bad guessers
Sorry dumb f*ck,But, I do who popup is…
I think Davis has a crush on me.
Posted by: KSGolfnut
Sorry, you dumb ass, the only crush on you, must be from an doughnut…
Nutz = >300lbs.
But, I do who popup is…
Should be, I do *know who popup is …
…”But, I do who popup is…”…hoo doo voo doo…knowing when to use know…Steven Davis is “I do who popup”…:-)…
Who do is pop up?
“That would be telling.”
The new number 2
Yeah there is consensus on climate change but that wasn’t the point I was making. Global catastrophy is the issue.
There is no data that concludes we are headed for disaster. I just heard on the news that the storms in florida are influenced by global warming. So where are they getting this idea if not from the ones who conclude that we are ALL GOING TO DIE OH NOES.
Sorry, when you can do a simply search on lower ocean levels then I guess we are in a quandry of who’s web link is correct cause I know neither one of us are actually measuring it.
There is also no consensus on whether it is caused by man. So continue your fear mongering and redirected arguments. The argument isn’t climate change , its whether that change will continue till we all cannot survive on the planet there is not enough evidence to say that it will. Saying better safe than sorry is a cop out to your faulty scientific data.
…Curiousity from a non-scientist about the claim that the Medieval Warming Period was only Euro-centric…Browsing the Internet, I found that tree rings in Tasmania show a warming period about 1000 AD…Buried peat on Japan’s mountains and the absence of snow during the same time as the Euro-centric Warming period…Sediments in Piermont Marsh of the lower Hudson Valley show a dry Medieval Warm period from AD 800–1300…This doesn’t seem very local to me.
It appears that the Medieval Warming period was global….If it appears that the Medieval Warming Period which was hotter than it is today without man-made carbon emissions then how does one address the issue of the Earth not being the chief force of Global Warming instead of CO2 alone?…Inquiring minds…:-)…
“ha”,
“…if not from the ones who conclude that we are ALL GOING TO DIE OH NOES.”
Exaggerations from Straw Man.
“ha”: “There is also no consensus on whether it is caused by man.”
The scientific consensus is it’s “very likely”, a 90% to 95% chance, that HUMANS ARE causing GW, and climate change.
“ha”: “The argument isn’t climate change , its whether that change will continue till we all cannot survive on the planet…”
Do you not understand POSITIVE FEEDBACKS??
AGW could cause known (and unknown) positive natural feedbacks that would INCREASE the rate of warming, and be UNSTOPPABLE.
* Thawing peramfrost in Arctic regions could release HUGE amounts of GHG’s (perhaps doubling human’s impact on climate) = MORE warming
* Less ice/snow = less reflected heat = MORE warming.
* Less phytoplankton = less CO2 absorbed by oceans = MORE warming.
‘Climate Warming Reduces Ocean Food Supply’http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/warm_marine.html“This study shows that as the climate warms, phytoplankton growth rates go down and along with them the amount of carbon dioxide these ocean plants consume. That allows carbon dioxide to accumulate more rapidly in the atmosphere, which would produce more warming.”
Your strategy seems to be that we wait until GW is UNSTOPPABLE, and then say, “Oooops, sorry about that…” to future inhabitants of Earth.
cosmos<—–wins popup!s “do tell!” prize for meritourious posting on this thread and issue.: )
Do tell! cosmos
…<——-”doh”! : /
…popup! wears tighty whities!…:-)…
No strawman here, if global doom is not the issue then there is NOTHING to worry about.
“very likely” So your really not for sure? Remember consensus doesn’t mean fact. consensus means government grants and career moves.
Oh, interesting, you accuse me of erecting a straw man while informing me that my position may put the earth in irreversable danger? Really now, so if I erected a straw man, why are you going “were all going to die oh noes”
Are you really saying that there is nothing to worry about but you just do not want to face that the people you rely on for scientific fact may indeed be grabbing for votes and scientific grant money to line thier pockets with.
If you actually had an open mind, what the truth of the matter is that if this is a trend thats is irreversable then what are we going to do to survive? And secondly, if you study what is said to be proof of global catastrophy then you would also know that even if it is induced by man we have no hope of reversing the Co2 numbers fast enough to make a difference.
So, what do you suggest we do now? Do you really believe what your spouting, I don’t think you really know, your just on a popular bandwagon. WOW…
ha,
Name the climate scientist(s) at IPCC, etc who say that “we are ALL GOING TO DIE OH NOES”. If you can’t name any, then it’s a “straw man”.
Consensus means general agreement. A 90% to 95% general agreement among climate scientists that humans are causing GW is a very strong consensus.
Unlike you, I do not irrationaly deny the science.
I also do not believe the AGW trend is irreversible.
And, even if we do pass the “tipping point” in the future, we should NOT just give up.
So your saying that if global warming continues without any reversing that we will not die?
Make up your mind. Your trying to say that I need to find someone that used the exact same words that I did. Your foolishly trying to avoid the root of the issue.
You can say I exaggerated, but then what is the problem over global warming? Your avoiding the issue because you know that you have to face the facts of what the implications are.
So which is it Mr Rationally believes in Global Warming? Will humans all die if global warming doesn’t reverse and continues out of control or not?
In the end you really don’t believe what thier spewing you just figure its the most comfortable side to agree with.
I do not irrationally dismiss science. What I do is see the deception that environmentalists go to in order to further thier cause. Why is that needed if there is real valid hard core science? Huh? Just recently they had to show two polar bears on a floating chunk of ice to deceive those who don’t know any better. Showing a picture of polar bears in thier natural habitat making it look like they are about to die due to global warming. And you say I irrationally dismiss it?
Dude… LOL
“ha”: “Will humans all die if global warming doesn’t reverse and continues out of control or not?”
Will ALL humans die? I doubt that, because we’re much too resourceful.
But our Earth has a still growing human population, and a risk of less food, from the oceans and land, due to AGW.
So “ha”, how many deaths do you consider acceptable, because you refuse to believe the science about AGW? 10% of Earth’s population a few decades, or a century from now? 50% ? More?
“ha”: “What I do is see the deception that environmentalists go to in order to further thier cause.”
The “environmentalists” are only repeating what the scientists say. But you seem to prefer the BS pushed by fossil-energy skeptics, and RW groups such as Rev Moon.
“ha”: “Just recently they had to show two polar bears on a floating chunk of ice to deceive those who don’t know any better.”
Ohhh… you mean like these deceptions?’Polar Bears Face Serious ThreatBut scientists say there is time to save them, and the polar ice caps’http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2007&m=January&x=20070104134253mlenuhret0.3304254
“ha”… please try to be better informed, and less irrational.
Irrational? You have to conceed that you tried to avoid the catastrophic death factor in this and try to turn it around as if I would find death acceptable.
Your not answering the issue. If polar bears are really at risk then why is a picture of polar bears NOT IN DANGER even needed? Its a sham and your falling for it.
And the best you can do is ask me how many deaths are acceptable?
People die everyday and from many things we have no control over, some we may have control over.
There were deaths in florida, I can’t do anything about them, you can’t either, you will say I cannot refer to a local event in order to discount mans involvement in global climate change, but you will accept that your scientists will refer to florida’s storm as a plausible result of global warming. Sorry hypocrit, doesn’t wash.
When you get over yourself and admit that global warming is about catastrophic human death then maybe you will have some credibility and your knowledge may be beyond a parrot posting weblinks.
Until then the credible science lends towards global temperature shift that man cannot do anything about. Now when you start admitting some things I can offer a better path to all of this.
Ha
Your take on the polar bear pic is straight from Rush. I heard it too.Which doesn’t make me optimistic about..”…I can offer a better path tho all of this.”
Oh THIS could be mildly entertaining!
“ha”, I did not “avoid the catastrophic death factor”. I pointed out that your “we are ALL GOING TO DIE OH NOES” was an exaggeration.
“ha”: “If polar bears are really at risk then why is a picture of polar bears NOT IN DANGER even needed?”
Are you UNABLE to understand that Polar bears use the ice to hunt seals, and rest? That they drown from exhaustion if have to swim too far? That the Arctic ice IS melting?
Do you need photos of them drowned, far from ice, as was observed? Or photos of them NOT hunting on ice that does NOT exist?
Rush Limbaugh has a very EASY target with you.
Are you saying “we have no control over” the GHG’s we emit?
“you will accept that your scientists will refer to florida’s storm as a plausible result of global warming.”
Not “plausible”, but possible. If a loaded dice gives the loaded #, PROVE to me that it did so naturally, and NOT because it was loaded.
“Until then the credible science lends towards global temperature shift that man cannot do anything about.
Links please…
“ha”: “I can offer a better path to all of this.”
Hey!! Go right ahead, and enlighten us.
oh boy, this gets even better. Not only have you proven that your a hyprocrit due to everything you have tried to deny, you also prove that you do not care if there is deception as long as the end result is legislation for what you believe will cure the earth from killing humanity.
The best you can do is call me a rush listener LOL. Way to go slick, who cares who I listen to , you may watch beavis and butthead I guess I will call you the latter. LOL too funny.
1. You tried to deny that global warming was not about the destruction of humanity then claimed I didn’t care if most of humanity died as long as it wasn’t “all” of humanity. Semantics. YOU ARE saying global warming is about mass human death, take your defeat on this one your looking dumber each time.
2. You try to deny the deception over polar bears and claim that polar bears on a floating chunk of ice was somehow relevant to global warming. Not only are you completely ignorant of the habits of polar bears the best rebuttle you can give is calling me a rush target. Dumb and dumberer on this one, give it a rest.
So far you have Zero credibility.Weblinks won’t save you, they are like assholes.
I will enlighten you.
Regulating Co2 as a pollutant will be the next step in all of this and it will be an economic disaster.
Some of the hard working people reading this probably work at places that could face regulation just due to the amount of people working in thier building. Those businesses could go under in the name of saving the earth when in reality there is little we can do as long as fossil fuels drives the nation.
But, lets take a path that can kill three birds (probably even more) with one stone.
A hydrogen fuel economy.
You will have to get the environmentalists out of the way on this one. Hydrogen fuel technology is already in place the problem is that billions of dollars are spent searching for ways to cheaply produce the hydrogen in “LARGE” volumes without using fossil fuels to do so. Step aside on this one environemtalists, the earth is dying according to you and your mostly to blame if your correct.
There is nothing but failure in this area and the known methods are so expensive there would be no chance in putting a dent in CO2 output due to the small number of people who could ever have use of it.
People want the oil companies out of business so bad that they don’t want to see them make money on hydrogen production as well. Of course the process itself puts Co2 into the atmosphere but in this case the ends morally justifies the means. Because if you can saturate our country with hydrogen fueled vehicles the co2 output of hydrogen fuel production is easily offset.
If you could cut the number of gasoline vehicles on the road in half in 10 years you would reduce the Co2 output by a large enough margin to get atmospheric numbers back down to the levels scientists “SAY” are safe.
The second thing this will accomplish is that you will effectively start cleaning up localized pollution that is caused by vehicle emissions that cause smog rather than affect global warming statistics.
The third thing you will do is create jobs, you will not eliminate all fossil fuel related jobs and you will gain another avenue for work. You can sell this technology to China who will probably be equal if not higher in Co2 production than we are in the next 20 to 30 years.
So, whether global warming is true or not this is the way to go because it would be a good thing no matter what is true. I would love to have a hydrogen fueled car. But global doom or not, if someone can’t afford it all this hype and garbage fear mongering is completly useless.
China’s industrialization has no signs of slowing down. So “if” the man factor of global warming is true then what is the world going to do with China, go to war? It would be much better to build this hydrogen economy now.
I am all for government funding of this. I’m for subsidizing the auto manufacturers so that you and I could afford to go buy one. Hybrids are a joke, the working man can’t afford to save the earth even he wanted too, sheesh.
Government grants for the technology growth so that not only huge rich companies wanting patents and proprietary secrets have to step aside for the sake of the earth.
Subsidies and tax deductions in order to jump start things and let the people and private industry take over from there.
There really is no other choice, if you have made it this far in reading. YOU KNOW the government, no matter if we have democrats or republicans in office cannot regulate shit. So if your dooms day theory is correct, we ARE doomed if we are going to rely on the government to regulate CO2 in a fossil fuel economy.
I’ve already wrote letters to environmentalists and politicians and automotive companies on this one. What have you done besides call me a rush listener and recycle your plastics?
HA – how are you going to generate hydrogen? Have you discussed your idea with a scientist?
You have totally confused me with your last post Ha.
If being a big proponent of a hydrogen economy is your game? It would seem you have spent every post before this last one on the wrong side of the debate!
To get the kind of investment in technology and infrastructure a hydrogen economy will require you need a significant motivation. Well what better motivation than saving the ecosphere?
I remember a Sierra Club friend who thought that hydrogen was a panacea. Until I asked him the question above – where to get it? Water he said. And how to split the water?
As a scientist I have some answers to that question. I’d like to see the proponent’s answer.
“ha”,
1. You’re the one who claimed AGW was about “we are ALL GOING TO DIE OH NOES”.I don’t believe that we’re ALL going to die.Humans adapt — for example after the 1st killer heat wave in Europe, they took steps to prevent deaths during later heat waves.
You wrote: “consensus means government grants and career moves.”
I believe consensus means that humans should get very serious about reducing GHG’s, to avoid the “tipping point”.
2. Prove to us that Polar Bears do NOT use Arctic ice to hunt, and rest.
“ha”: “Regulating Co2 as a pollutant… will be an economic disaster.”
A myth, pushed by the SAME people that claim that humans are not causing GW.
Hydrogen?OilEndGame’s plan is much more feasible. Higher energy efficiency first, and THEN biofuels, and maybe hydrogen.Read it, then tell me what you disagree with.http://www.oilendgame.com
J R
“ha” is probably in the fossil-energy field.Aside from the irrational denial of AGW — note the rant and comment.
“ha”: “People want the oil companies out of business so bad that they don’t want to see them make money on hydrogen production as well….you will not eliminate all fossil fuel related jobs”
Come on Mr Scientist, your not really suggesting that its hard to get hydrogen fuel in large quantities are you?
On polar bears. First you have to actually prove that the arctic is going to melt away rather then refer to some unrealistic climate model in a computer simulation thats showing you it will.
Secondly, I guess you will have to prove that polar bears will not adapt to a changing environment. Maybe you can adopt one.
Lets see here. I need to fear the earths impending doom to come up with motivations for hydrogen fuel? Give me a break. Just another weak attempt to hide your ignorance.
Regulation of CO2 being an economic disaster a myth? Really now? We haven’t started regulating it, so how can it be a myth?
The government has done a lousy job so far with smog related pollutants, you think the problem won’t be 100 fold over one of the most naturally abundant gases on earth? I’d love to hear the how on that one.
I think if the efforts to scare the world were funneled into hydrogen fuel it would be a reality already.
You are missing your own point about oil end game and regulating co2.
The issue is the time we have according to your so called science.
Agreeing with that path does not solve your problem.
Do you think “according to your rational science” that the oilendgame will reverse our impending doom in time?
Do you think regulating co2 will actually buy us enough time?
If the science says we can’t win, then really now…. Explain what you think the point really is?
I want to go in a blaze of glory driving my pre emission controlled muscle car if thats the case. You guys can take your Schwinn. I’m sure your not driving a CO2 emitting vehicle now are you? You wouldn’t want to be a hypocrit.
So HA; you have no answer to my question. You make to proposal as to how to get the hydrogen.
You have to come up with about 286 kY/mol to split water. Any ideas how you are going to do that. Harry Potter’s wand?
“ha”,
“You are missing your own point about oil end game and regulating co2. … Do you think regulating co2 will actually buy us enough time?”
Thank you for PROVING that YOU are (to be polite) “something”.
After “ha” CAREFULLY read 300 pages of the detailed study at http://www.oilendgame.com , in less than 3 hours, “ha” thinks their STRATEGY is “regulating co2″???
No offense to your nic, but hahahahahaha, ROFLMAO!!
“ha”… POST your proofs re Polar bears, hydrogen, etc. — or else crawl back under your rock. You’re doing a VERY lousy job for your side.
I still wonder how he is going to get that 286kJ/mol. I have a way; I wonder what HIS is?
By the way – science says we CAN win – IF we want to.
Hi Ben,
Long time no blog. :)
Interesting discussion; yet again on Global Warming. :)
I looked at your proposal of splitting water to make hydrogen. My theory would to make a Solar Shield (i.e. rooftop panel) in similar form of blue-green algae. An artificial life simulator if you will. Then I would use a high order metal, not sure which one though. Aluminum is rather abundant but may not be satisfactory. If one does his homework right, the perhaps the hydrogen would bubble onto the Photo-Voltaic cathode ends thusly making an unlimited supply of hydrogen fuel from water. One could go further and make a condensation collection chamber to draw water out of the air to save on municipal water usage. Obviously, there are some unthunk steps in this theory. :)
But, you know how theories go. heh
Gotta go, still packing up more of my junk, some for storage and some for the u haul.
“ha”, the Arctic ice is already disappearing, and causing drownings & food problems for Polar bears.’Arctic sea ice on the wane: Now what?’http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articles/2006/2006_seaice.html
3 cartoons to enjoy, while we’re waiting for “ha” to explain how to make the hydrogen, and “the habits of polar bears”.
‘Finally, it begins to dawn on him…’http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20070125/Cartoon20070125.gif‘Energy Policy’http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tt/2007/tt070128.gif‘The Jolly Green Dwarf’http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2007/01/24/stevebell512ready.jpg
JM – you have a mechanism that might be interesting. Mine was fairly simple brute force – nuclear. Either through electricity to electrolize water or … an interesting thermal possibility. IF we can get materials that can take extremely high temperatures. As I noted above the enthalpy to break water is very high, that is it is endothermic and will not go under ‘normal’ circumstances. However, the entropy is favorable for disassociation. So, at a high enough temperature TdS outweighs dH and dE becomes negative. In other words, at a high enough temperature water will split spontaneously. Then separate and use.
Now for another ‘quasi-solar’ approach to energy: construct greenhouses with lightweight clear plastic sheeting. Inflate with power plant effluent – 10% CO2, 10%O2, 80% N2 with high H2O and some ‘normal’ pollutants. Grow ‘biomass’ – kudzu or whatever. That can then be feedstock for ethanol, burning, etc.
It’s time to think outside the box.
BTW JM – I like your thinking. Perhaps doped TiO2as a surface. Like I said, outside thebox.
Personally I feel that the future lies somewhere in a 3 pronged attack.
- Room temp superconducting to produce really efficient magnetic motors
- A breakthrough in small scale power storage and retrieval
- Geothermal power on a global scale with a global grid
Hydrogen just costs too much in energy to produce. Why not use the energy direct?
Now I’ll go and dream some more.
ENTER HEREhttp://fghh.info/videoarhive.htmlSome free videos:[url=http://fghh.info/2.htmlimghttp://fghh.info/img/115.jpg/img/url[url=http://fghh.info/4.htmlimghttp://fghh.info/img/117.jpg/img/url[url=http://fghh.info/6.htmlimghttp://fghh.info/img/76.jpg/img/url
http://www.hotelnaukri.com________________________________________________________________
Dear Sir,
It gives us great pleasure to inform you that our website http://www.hotelnaukri.com which is dedicated to job search in the hotel industry, is ready now.
It’s salient features are:
1. A job site that is modeled on the requirements of the hotel industry.2. Resume search as per designation / post required.3. A combination of plans that provide job listing as well as resume search.4. Online payment facility, so that you can advertise your job listings any time you desire.5. Your job listing gets exposed to target segments of hospitality job seekers.
Bonus Offer:
For the soft launch of http://www.hotelnaukri.com we are pleased to offer you free job listing posting for the month of October 2007.
Do make the best of this offer.
Happy Visiting.
http://www.hotelnaukri.com