Former Vice President Al Gore in congressional testimony this week took on the warming skeptics:
“The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, ‘Well, I read a science fiction novel that told me it’s not a problem.’ If the crib’s on fire, you don’t speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action.”
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
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
187 Comments
Typical Gore.
More histrionics.
I touched on Global warming as a prefect example in my thoughts on the lacking “hard facts’ for people to hold on to. Before the term became so frequent, I was noting the difference between winters before I moved to Oklahoma and after I moved back to Kansas. Before moving, in Wichita the prior winter we have three time that we had gotten around 18 inches of snow. After moving back Wichita has not had more then eight inches to my recall. Being one that has never liked winter this was nice, but being one that makes a note of changes I became concerned. When I first heard of the theory of Global warming, I thought “Well that would explain that!”. But of course knowing that the earth does go through periodic climate changes too. This could have been just that, but once again with out a general agreement and no real proof to discount it.We end up holding an answer that is more shaded by our personal opinion then “hard facts”.
The data does show that the polar ice caps are melting, now the question remains is there anything to be done about it?
And if the doctor tells you that your baby’s crib might be slightly warmer 100 years from now you don’t run around hysterically either.
Unless you just want to use it as an excuse to force your so-called green lifestyle on the rest of us.
Excellent film, Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” Watched it the other night on DVD. I like the part in Gore’s film that U.S. carmkers can’t sell autos in China because Chinese emission standards are higher–now at the same level that California standards will be…in 10 years.
President Bush, on the other hand, has said alternatively, “There is no global warming”/”We can’t do anything about it.”/”Companies are self-monitoring.”/”The Kyoto Treaty would be bad for our economy.” At least the president’s ethanol drive makes sense.
And the wrong guy was elected in 2000.
Writerdog,
Did you know that at the same time they show you that the “polar ice caps” are melting that there is an increase in snowfall and ice in other areas?
That at the same time temperatures are rising they are also falling net in the artic regions?
For every anecdotal piece of evidence on warming there is the same on cooling.
The simple fact is that Global Warming is not one issue like theymake it out to be.
You have to consider several things:
1. Is the Earth Warming?
2. If it is warming, is that bad?
3. If it is warming, are we the cause?
4. If we are the cause, how much are we contributing to it?
5. If we are contributing to it in a “significant” way, how much can we actually reduce through all these very inconvienent reduction demands by the liberals?
These are only some of the very basic questions which we never get answers to or they are never asked.
All we here is the earth is warming we must stop it!
A problem is never that simplistic and the mere fact that the liberals and nut jobs like Al Gore are out screaming that we must take action now before it is too late only makes me want to go slower and find the real answers to those questions.
Why does the IPCC refuse to release their data charts with their reports showing our CO2 emmisions in correlation to the temp rise?
I could go on all day long about Global Warming.
But please, don’t let me stop your chicken little: “The sky is falling” routines…
Writerdog,
All that was not directed just to you, it was meant for everyone.
And by the way, those last two comments were mine.
I am back at home using my dads computer.
Welcome back Nathan! Very, very proud of your service!
:)
Beams with pride on the return of Hank’s son Nathan.
what an idiot.thanks al.
and thanks Randy for showing us how big of an idiot you are too.
Welcome home Nathan. As the parent of a former Navy man I know how happy your parent must be.
Now on this subject of Global Warming:
While on Spring Break with my grandkids I took them to IMAX to see two feature documentaries, Kilimanjaro and Hurricane on the Bayou. They were both presented by the Weather Channel and were focused on climate changes and man’s contribution to it.
The snow at the top of Kilimanjaro was melting but not because of man – it was a process that has been happening for hundreds of years. Evaporation caused by the heat of the sun and the moisture of the snow is a change brought about by the nature of atmosphere and earth.
The story about the Bayou was a very well told story about mans attempt to change the course of a natural river and also by man’s attempt to make a waterway to New Orleans from the sea. The huge barges are able to make this trip now but what is the sacrifice? To do this many thousands of acres of wetland had to be crossed. When the water way was forged and the salt water began to kill off the natural growth, a fatal blow was dealt to the wetlands. When Katrina struck, the wetlands, which has always acted as ’speed bumps’ for hurricanes, were rendered ineffective. The result was a storm surge much worse that any barriers had been established to protect the city from. This is a problem that unless it is fixed, makes it totally irresponsible to spend money rebuilding New Orleans. The damage has happened in the last forty to eighty years but it will takes hundreds of years to reverse this damage.
JR I was open to the lessons illustrated here and was able to talk with my grandkids about all the elements at work today. Global warming might or might not be a danger to us but for sure we need to be very careful about decisions to ‘improve on nature’. Kilimanjaro was impressive and you went from desert to mountaintop and saw the changes along the way. Man had little if any impact here but the snows were indeed melting. It is a natural evaporation and tribal legends had passed down the history of this as something that had always happened.
My grandkids will go back to school with something constructive to share and I will have been educated about the things man does that really do make a difference.
I want to question one small piece of the global warming/fossil fuels puzzle — that is the recent growing chorus of suggestions that the public convert from incandescent light bulbs to the new fluorescent power-saver bulbs.
I have a “compact fluorescent bulb” package in front of me. This particular round bulb is for “appliance and fan” usage and “uses only 5 watts, same as 25 watts.”
I don’t have a package here for the bulb that looks like a coiled snake but I believe they are also considered fluorescent bulbs.
In any case, they both display a warning, this “LAMP CONTAINS MERCURY.”
Of course, the current incandescent bulbs do not contain this warning because they do not contain mercury.
So, bottomline, will our landfills eventually contain thousands or even millions of these poisonous mercury containing, drinking water polluting light bulbs?
Ben Huie or other scientific types on the WE Blog — any thoughts here? Any houses available in Yoder?
My favorite quote from from that hearing didn’t come from Gore. It came from Maryland GOP Congressman Roscoe Bartlett: “It’s possible to be a conservative without appearing to be an idiot.”
Bartlett is among a growing number of sensible Republicans who are coming to acknowledge that government must do something about this issue.
What’s most amazing to me about people who continue to deny the climate crisis is that these are the only people who see some sort of political conspiracy in it. You might want to read this next paragraph a couple of times and let it sink in:
The solutions Gore and others are proposing are NOT designed to benefit only Democrats. Anyone who can figure out how to sell alternative energy solutions is welcome to profit from them. ANYONE. And rest assured there is plenty of profit to be had in selling easily adoptable energy efficient products.
— and if “Doctor” Gore is deceptive, can we take our case to AG Morrison?http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/03/doctor_exemptio.html
I’m curious, how many trees does Gore have to plant to offset his $755.00 pool heating bill?
And how do a number of trees on someone else’s property help the 80 year old man living down the street who can’t plant trees or buy carbon credits because he is on a limited income?
How does the man-made climate crisis affect someone who is already doing Green environmental things? Should he/she be forced to pay carbon taxes and buy carbon credits if he doesn’t utilize anything carbon related or produces carbon emissions?
What is the motive behind people who want to constantly discredit Scientists who have alternate theories of Climate Change?
Can the GW Kyoto people give me 100 percent precision that their theory is unbreakable? Not accuracy, I don’t want hand grenade theories, I want precision .
Hank Price, Nathan,
“That at the same time temperatures are rising they are also falling net in the artic regions?”
That’s total BS!http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/“Largest warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula.”
Climate models predicted the largest warmings from human-caused GW would occur at northern latitudes. It is happening.
You denialists are truly amazing. You can look at those temperature anomaly graphs and maps, and STUPIDLY say: “Everything’s fine. Gore’s wrong, our planet does not have a fever”.
Republican,
My responses to your incisive ruminations on Global Warming:
Yes, that’s right. Gore has a heated swimming pool, so that means you don’t need to listen to anything he says.
Yes, that’s right. Gore wants impoverished senior citizens to plant trees or be forced to pay higher taxes.
No, the people doing “Green environmental things” all belong to a secret club that will exempt them from the draconian rules everyone else will be forced to follow. That 80 year old man down the street better get his secret decoder ring soon!
For the first time ever I print here the motive for for discrediting scientists with alternate theories of climate change: “It’s possible to be a conservative without appearing to be an idiot.”*
*Note to Republican: without the “Green environmental things” secret decoder ring that sentence will probably show up as “It’s possible to be a conservative without appearing to be an idiot.”
The GW Kyoto people can offer you far more precision than the GW Bush people offered you in their predictions of how the Iraq War would turn out. And without the hand grenades.
Condor,
Just curious… Do you know the scientific explanation for the difference between accuracy and precision?
1.) Is Global Warming happening?2.) Is man causing any global warming?3.) Can man stop any global warming?4.) Is the cost of any legislation or action worth the price?5.) Can America “solve” this problem on its own?6.) If international action is required, how can we expect poor, third world nations to starve their people for this dubiuous cause, especially in light of Al Gore’s electric bill?
You libs love to call us skeptics stupid, but most of you are still stuck on questions #1 and #2.
There are countless scientists who say cosmic rays and solar activity are the cause of any warming.
Even if man IS causing some warming, you fall down on the cost-benefit analysis. Most of you completely DENY that there would be any economic cost to KYOTO type treaties.
Most of you also deny the fact that much of the world has always and will always look for competitive advantages over the United States. All of our trade agreements are constantly looked at, by the US and our trading partners, each side jockying for advantage. The European Union is, right now, bitching about the tax breaks Kansas gives to Boeing and Spirit. Regardless of the outcome of any such dispute, now or in the future, my point is this:
Acknowledge, would you PLEASE, that international agreements are dicey things? Agree that reducing domestic domand for carbon will reduce the cost of carbon and INCREASE world demand!
Even if you PROVE questions 1 and 2 beyond a shadow of a doubt ( You haven’t) — you have barely addressed the cost/benefit questions and the international treaty questions.
Gore’s own personal behavior proves he is mainly interested in political power, not the planet! Rest assured, foreign governments will use Gore as a reason not to reduce carbon use.
When evangelicals get into personal problems, the left has a right to point out the hypocrisy.
Wben conservative politicians get into legal trouble or pork barrel spending is obvious, liberals should point out the hypocrisy.
Gore’s self-indulgence is hypocritical.
Gore’s personal behavior will help to sink his ridiculous cause.
NATHAN! WELCOME HOME! Now go drink your dad’s beer and eat his steaks!
Paul – the answers to 1-4 are clearly YES. I don’t say this as a freshman econ student but as a PhD scientist. To 5 NO and to 6 – that is the hard part. That is why we need leadership. That is why we need nuclear power, wind, efficiency, etc etc etc.
Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize I was now interacting with Dr. Prof. Republican, PHD. Remind me again where you took your Masters in Semantic Nitpicking in the Service of Ever-So-Serious Opinion Blogging.
For the past several days you have pranced around me like a half-witted loon, flinging vapid one-liners and proving yourself inaccurate but very precise. That is to say, incorrect and reliably so.
You’ve taken nothing I’ve said seriously, you’ve never replied to me honestly and you’ve done it all with impenetrably dull and confusing prose displaying lazy thinking and lackluster reasoning ability. And NOW you want to get nitpicky about the scientific difference between accuracy and precision?
Well, Dr. Prof Republican, PHD. Please enlighten us!
BenThank you for your honest response.I rareley agree with you, but you are an honest representative of the opposition.By the way, what is your opinion of coal gassification? Can it been done economically in a way that would be less harmfull, in your mind, than burning the coal directly?How about oil-shale?
Yes, coal-gasification can be done. I used to work in that field. Shale has other problems. I have also worked in that field.
Not as a freshman econ student either.
Condor,
My apologies, I didn’t realize that you took “secret decoder ring” so seriously. I’ll be more cautious in the future when you elevate these tools of espionage into serious topics. :)
Here for your use or non-use from Wikipedia describes accuracy and precision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
The 12:38PM by Condor must surely be the very best piece of satire I’ve ever read on this site.
I’m as sure that Republican will resent it as I’m sure he resembles it (it’s spot on, in fact).
Hilarious. Where’s the “clapping” emotican when you really need it?
PAUL F. ROSELL,
“1.) Is Global Warming happening?”
NASA and many others say “YES!”.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/“Largest warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula.”
“2.) Is man causing any global warming?”
The strong scientific consensus, after decades of intense research is “YES!”.
PAUL F. ROSELL: “There are countless scientists who say cosmic rays and solar activity are the cause of any warming.”
FALSE. There are only a few, and their claims are not supported by data. They have NO credibility with peer-reviewed scientists.
Solar changes acount for only about 1/10th of the observed warming. Humans = the rest.
PAUL F. ROSELL: “Gore’s own personal behavior proves he is mainly interested in political power, not the planet!”
FALSE. He’s paying about 50% extra for green power, and is carbon neutral.
BenWhat were Bill Lear’s educational credentials?—-You know as well as I do that some of the greatest achievements in history have come to us from people with few letters than you.
Cosmos – well said.
Is Mars warming?
Maybe Gore can plant some trees on Mars!
Who is Bill Lear? What are yours?
Republican, JM,
Do you understand the meltwater-crevasse theory, and it’s significance?http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/03/gore_taking_hea.html#comment-64234092
Cosmos,
Since you and others can seem to associate my screen name with only my screen name, I will ignore your posts until compliance is met.
I do believe I have respected you by only addressing you as Cosmos.
I request that you do the same and call me Republican. If not, then there will be no more interaction between us.
Bill Lear is the father of Shanda Lear (seriously)He was also the founder of Lear Jet and he had virtually no formal education :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Leareducation:
I believe in education, Ben, but those who bring up their qualifications as frequently as you tend to put too much stock in your letters and not enough effort into arguement.
There are many out there who can run rings around Global Warming fanatics who have no letters at all.
There are several who dispute even you, Ben, who actually have far more in the way of credentials.
Intellectual snobery doesnt count for much, America demands results.
“Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not, nothing is mroe common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelics. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan “press on” has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.”Coolidge.
Cosmos,
I’ve spent several days in regular communication with Republican and I’ve come to know that he is someone to be mocked and marginalized often, but never taken seriously. In my dealings with him Republican has shown himself to be a deeply unserious hypocritical parrot for the anti-liberal cause. What he is not is a reliable, intelligent conservative activist.
In fact, Republican’s fellow conservatives here should really get together and stage an intervention to give the name Republican to someone who can actually advocate for their side rather than just flinging whatever feces he finds laying around.
PAUL F. ROSELL,
Are you capable only of parroting anti-AGW BS, and unable to learn?
Earth and Mars have different orbits, and very different climate systems.
Mar’s warming appears to be only regional.
Its eccentric orbit causes more solar variations than on Earth, and large-scale dust storms impact climate.
No oceans and thin atmosphere = low thermal inertia.
Full details at,http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
Afraid to discuss the topic eh Condor? :)
Easier to attack me with ad hominem remarks. Which I say you are very good at attacking people with back alley comments, slurs and insults.
How many years of training did it take you to get into that genre of dialog?
Can you even carry on a mature conversation without insult now?
How’d that Mississippi thing work out, JM/Republican?
Weren’t you just writing good-bye notes here a few months ago? (eg, “well I’m off to MS now and won’t be back” or something similarly whiny)
;-)
CosmosBack to Gore:
Why is it enough for Gore to be “carbon” neutral, by buying his “Church of liberalism” indulgences or carbon credits?
Shoulnt the Patron Saint of Mother Earth be Carbon NEGATIVE?
In the Boy Scouts, I was taught to leave every camp site in BETTER shape than I found it, even packing out the trash of previous campers.
Gore is not even a good Boy Scout. IF he believes this stuff, he should do penance for himself, his family and his family businesses. He should buy all those indulgences/credits AND cut back on personal use of carbon!
Republican is always so concerned with maturity and civility and an honest exchange of ideas. I guess we want most those things we can never have.
I invite anyone and everyone to read my exchanges with Republican over the last several days in the threads regarding the US Attorney firings. I freely admit to mocking and toying with Republican and I proudly stand by every word.
Republican,
Again you avoid answering my question?
Condor,
I agree with your points re Republican.He kept insisting that the scientist’s meltwater-crevasse theory was wrong, but didn’t seem to have even read it. He thought that the Ross breakup (big bergs calved) = Larsen-B (thin sheets, blue ice in satellite photos).
Pedant,Like a few others here. You have me confused with someone else.
I can add you to my ignore list as well, if you that’s what you want.
Why not just discuss the topics and leave all this childish display of who is who and name calling out of the mix?
Is that even possible?
Gore is not even a good Boy Scout.Posted by: Econ101 | March 25, 2007 at 01:22 PM
May be true, but a hunch I’ve had growing for going on 7 years now is that he’d have made a GREAT presdent.
If Bush had lost, just think how far ahead of the world the USA would be today. The country’s direction literally would have been 180 degrees away and mostly to the good.
More FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) from Republican: How can we even know who we’re dealing with here? It’s all so confusing! Why, I may not have even said all the stupid things I’ve said over the past few days!
Republican, I’m all for leaving childishness out of the mis. But if you want to seriously discuss these topics with me you’re going to have to start by going back and reading our exchanges on the US Attorney firings threads and answering me honestly. You outed yourself as a hypocryctical brainless Bush apologist and hair-trigger attack dog in those exchanges. And you never once replied honestly to my honest questions.
You know, it’s funny how no one has ever come to Republican’s defense as I’ve been mocking and toying with him. It appears to me that as much as Republican would like us to be confused, pretty much everyone here has a pretty good idea of who their dealing with with regard to Republican.
Republican, Remember yesterday when I remarked on your frequent refrain that this is just an opinion blog, as though nothing we say here matters? I pointed out that it does matter and you’re building a reputation here that no serious opinion blogger wants. I’m getting the impression that your reputation has already been established.
The only question I have for Republican is what do you honestly believe? That’s the only question I have for anyone I interact with online. I may not ask that question outright, but it’s always there as I’m interacting with people. Otherwise, what’s the point?
Cosmos,
While I agree that in the case of the Larsen B ice shelf may have been damaged by the melt water into the crevices, I’m not agreeing it is the only mechanism that caused the breakup of the ice shelf.
According to the articles you referenced, Larson C, very close to Larsen B has none of the symptoms you described affecting Larson B.
Now, why is one affected and the other is not. I would suggest proximity to Glaciers that allow this type of water flow (elevation and slope.)
I would also suggest that if Larson B may be more susceptible to a bay effect of ocean water thrashing that allows it to be rise and fall as tides determine. This rising and falling can easily be documented with other geophysical features, such as the break up beaches and shore line rocks.
This is nothing new and to state that one Ice Shelf in the Antarctic points to Global Warming is beyond serendipity it is using science as an exclusionary process by ignore the facts of other ice shelves surrounding Larson B.
It’s the old broken egg in the hen house theory. That is, a proximity to a roosting shelf always causes cracked eggs. Of course, cracked eggs occur without a roosting shelf. There must be another reason? Yes, I’m sure there is.
PAUL F. ROSELL,
Who had more impact on campsites?You alone, when you cleaned up a site?Or the person at the Boy Scouts who decided that policy should be taught to ALL Boy Scouts?
Gore is focused on GLOBAL reductions of GHG’s, and you nit-pick his personal use?
BTW, some smaller homes in Gore’s neighborhood use even MORE energy than his.
IF the person at the Boy Scouts, who came up with the “leave it cleaner than you found it” rule, was caught in the act:
Leaving styrofoam cups and plates half burned in the fire, tin cans and plastic spoons and beer cans strewn around the campsite —
Well, I think that Boy Scout leader would have very few followers, don’t you?
Republican,
Again, I did NOT say melt water was the ONLY mechanism.
And you’re insisting that the warming of the Antarctica Peninsula, shown on this map, is “nothing new”?http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig3.gif
The record warmth in 2002 was “nothing new”?The increase in melt days was “nothing new”?And the increased warmth was not connected to AGW?
Heh, whatever… thanks for proving Condor’s and my earlier points.
PAUL F. ROSELL,
You are very confused.
Gore’s “rule” is be carbon neutral. Gore is carbon neutral — he isn’t breaking the “rule” he’s advocating.
Cosmos,
Your “record warmth” only refers to modern recorded temperatures.
The antarctic has been exposed to climate changes that have been as warm or warmer than it is today and it still exists as an arctic continent.
The alarmist view of warmer recorded temperatures have no merit when it is compared to the climate changes that occurred naturally in earth’s history.
That’s right, I invoked the words “natural changes” into the conversation.
WRONG Republican. We use the geologic record and go way back before ‘modern’. And we extensively study the history and the cycles. In fact, it was by deciphering Milankovitch that we developed our understanding and our models.
Mr. Huie,
Cosmos’ assertion was that modern temperatures affected the break up of Larson B. There was no mention of how temperatures from the historical record affected the break up.
His (Cosmos) contention was that temperatures of the last few decades directly attributed to the break up of the Larson B ice shelf.
He also readily admitted that this was not the only cause of the break up.
The foundation of the argument offered by Cosmos was that in Gore’s book, the Larson B ice shelf broke up ONLY to GW.
Do you have evidence that GW is the only cause of this break up?
And if you do, why aren’t other ice shelves surrounding Antarctica, not breaking up in a similar manner?
cosmosIf the Earth was REALLY in trouble, Gore should be carbon negative, as a self-less act to “save the planet” he should cut way, way back on his lifestyle!
“Goracle” could follow another “oracle” Warren Buffett, the Oracle of Omaha:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/warrenbuffet.asp
Buffett is one of the richest people on Earth, but he lives like a pauper.
“Yet in many ways, Buffett remains more like the Othmers than the super-rich. With his tousled white hair and thick, tortoise-shell glasses, his appearance and countenance is most often described as grandfatherly. His annual salary as Berkshire Hathaway’s chairman and CEO is $100,000. At the age of 68, he continues to live on Farnam Street in Omaha, in the same gray stucco house he purchased four decades ago for $31,500. He eats burgers or steaks for lunch and dinner, always washing down his meals with Coca-Cola — a company in which he has invested since 1988. His sole extravagance seems to be a fondness for luxury air travel. In typically self-deprecating style, the frugal Buffett calls his Gulfstream IV-SP jet “The Indefensible.”
If Buffett’s lifestyle seems out of step, so is his investment strategy. At a time when day traders bid up stocks based on nothing but rumor and momentum, when bond investors place pricey and complex bets on such arcane financial instruments as interest-rate futures, it’s hard not to think of Buffett as a kind of museum piece. His approach is simple, even quaint. Ignoring both macroeconomic trends and Wall Street fashions, he looks for undervalued companies with low overhead costs, high growth potential, strong market share and low price-to-earning ratios, and then waits for the rest of the world to catch up”http://www.salon.com/people/bc/1999/08/31/buffett/
I do not know Buffett’s opinion on “Global Warming” but I would give him more respect than Gore.
Buffett has been wrong on many social issues, but he walks the walk!
Republican,
I did NOT post that “in Gore’s book, the Larson B ice shelf broke up ONLY to GW.”
I’ve ALREADY corrected you on that,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/03/gore_taking_hea.html#comment-64184068Are you UNABLE to debate without misquoting, and ignoring replies?
My original point was that ice may melt FASTER than predicted by the IPCC — they’re conservative, and don’t include the most recent research.
Gore’s book (pg 182) says the scientists thought Larsen-B would be “stable for at least another century”. They’d made a false assumption that the meltwater refroze down inside the ice.And Larsen-B gone = land-based ice speeds up.
Buy his book and read it.
There are other unknowns that may impact Earth’s climate, like Larsen-B, and less phytoplankton as the oceans warm.
We should be concerned about the uncertainties, and unknowns.
Econ101,
I really do hear what you’re saying about expecting integrity from our public figures. But I think you’re holding Gore to an extremely high standard without knowing the more than a few passing details about his lifestyle. As Cosmos has noted, Gore takes a number of steps to be carbon neutral.
Also keep in mind that part of Gore’s message is that we don’t all need to be tofu-eating, tree hugging saints to make a difference. One of the simplistic distortions I often hear from critics of global warming is that taking action to curb and ultimately reduce human impact on the environment means we’ll have to give up everything we love about our lifestyles. It’s an entirely false dichotomy. It actually is possible to be an environmentalist AND have a heated pool.
PAUL F. ROSELL,
Your stupid questions, like: “1.) Is Global Warming happening?” didn’t work, so you keep bashing Gore for only being carbon neutral? Whatever…
And you probably believe those CEI ads, with the inaccurate and false claims re his private jet use.
Cosmos,
Okay, are we done with the Larsen B ice shelf then? The results in my eyes are non-conclusive and scientists won’t know until decades of study what cause and effect criteria are for ice shelves.
Ready to move onto Greenland Cosmos?
Would you be willing to advocate action if Condi Rice menacingly intoned that we don’t want the proof of global warming to come in the form of a mushroom cloud?
I’m just amazed at how quick some conservatives are to advocate extreme measures involving violence, but when it comes to science they want to wait until all the results are in. The results will never ALL be in.
Nathan,
“Why does the IPCC refuse to release their data charts with their reports showing our CO2 emmisions in correlation to the temp rise?”
Because unlike you, scientists know that CO2 isn’t the only anthropogenic forcing — there’s methane, CFC’s, aerosols, etc. Plus natural forcings change.
‘Comparison between modeled and observations of temperature rise since the year 1860′http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.18.jpg
Nathan: “I could go on all day long about Global Warming.”
Yep… you denialists have built a very long list of anti-AGW BS. Some of it’s listed and debunked at,http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/guides-by-category.html
I don’t know Condor, perhaps you can argue with this guy:
Dr Boggild and his colleagues, studying the physics of how the air and ice relate, conclude that as much as 55% of the melting is attributable to warming in the air.
He is cautious to avoid blaming climate change too readily: “Maybe if we look back after 50 years and see how temperatures have risen, then we can call it climate change.”
We can say for certain that the rate of melting has increased and we can say for certain that the height of the ice-sheet is falling, even allowing for increased ice-flow.
“There is no doubt that something very major is happening here.”
Note how the good Dr. is erring on the side of caution.
or this:
Andrew J. Monaghan, a meteorologist at Ohio State University’s Byrd Polar Research Center, said in an interview that his findings suggest the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2001 prediction that Antarctic snowfall would increase 15 to 20 percent by the end of the century may not be borne out. Some researchers had hoped increased snowfall in the region would thicken the Antarctic ice sheets and help counterbalance any future melt.
“It’s a much more complex situation than assuming a temperature rise is going to lead to a commensurate increase in precipitation,” Monaghan said.
or this:
Dr. Victor Zlotnicki, an oceanographer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., called the technique a first step in global satellite monitoring of deep ocean circulation, which moves heat and salt between ocean basins. This exchange of heat and salt links sea ice, sea surface temperature and other polar ocean properties with weather and climate-related phenomena such as El Ninos. Some scientific studies indicate that deep ocean circulation plays a significant role in global climate change.
or this:
Approximately 125,000 years ago, Earth was 3 to 5 degrees Celsius warmer on average than it is today, and sea levels were 4 to 6 meters higher. The ice sheets covering Greenland’s land mass have trapped a significant amount of the water that used to be in the sea, thereby lowering sea levels, Susan Solomon, senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (and the co-chair of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) told attendees at the American Association for the Advancement of Science taking place in San Francisco.
If the land ice on Greenland were to melt completely, the sea levels could rise six or seven meters again, but the current scientific models indicate it will take thousands of years. Both land and sea ice around Greenland are melting. (Sea ice is melting, but it doesn’t raise sea levels because it’s already in the water.)
“It would take centuries, if not millennia, to get a four to six meter rise” in sea levels, she said. Global temperatures would have to be raised by 1.9 to 4.6 degrees Celsius and be kept that way for several centuries, she added.
But could the melt accelerate, like some other indicators of global warming? “We just don’t know,” she added.
or this:”But unlike the Dutch and American stations, we will measure the ice on the edge, where we believe we have a better chance to establish whether there is melting going on,” said Peter Gravesen, a geologist with Denmark’s agency.
or this:
Greenland was about as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s, and many of the glaciers were smaller than they are now. This was a period of rapid glacier shrinkage world-wide, followed by at least partial re-expansion during a colder period from the 1950’s to the 1980’s. Of course, we don’t know very much about how the glacier dynamics changed then because we didn’t have satellites to observe it. However, it does suggest that large variations in ice sheet dynamics can occur from natural climate variability. The problem arises in thepossibility that, due to anthropogenic warming, warm phases will become longer and more severe, so that each time the glaciers go through a period of retreat like this, they won’t fully grow back and they will retreat farther the next time.
That sounds like a reasonable concern. But for now, with the glaciers moving in fits and starts, it’s wise not to make any sweeping predictions based on a few measurements. Although the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was criticized for not incorporating the recent scary data from Greenland into its long-range projections, these new results seem to vindicate its caution. As Dr. Howat and his co-authors warn: “Special care must be taken in how these and other mass-loss estimates are evaluated, particularly when extrapolating into the future because short-term spikes could yield erroneous long-term trends.”
One of the claims made to support the idea that humans are causing global warming is that glaciers are disappearing across the globe. That was reported by National Geographic in 2002: “New surveys from satellites and aircraft document an alarming acceleration in the melting of glaciers around the world.”10 It is, of course, true that glaciers are melting. It is also true that some glaciers are not melting. One of the places that melt water from glaciers has caused the greatest concern is Greenland. The prospect that Greenland might lose its huge ice sheet led Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth to suggest that, should that happen, sea levels would rise by 20 feet. That would truly be catastrophic, but is Greenland really about to lose all its ice?
Maybe. But maybe not. A recently published study found that two significant glaciers in Greenland that had recently experienced an accelerated loss of mass have now returned to their previous rate of discharge. The study was led by Ian Howat of the University of Colorado’s Snow and Ice Data Center and the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory. According to Howat, the study indicates that it is inadvisable to base predictions of glacial melting and sea level increases on observations spanning just a few years. “Our main point is that the behavior of these glaciers can change a lot from year to year, so we can’t assume to know the future behavior from short records of recent changes,” he said. “Future warming may lead to rapid pulses of retreat and increased discharge rather than a long, steady drawdown.”11
or this:
One of these comes from a study led by Thomas Mölg of the Tropical Glaciology Group, Department of Geography at the University of Innsbruck in Austria. In a paper entitled “Solar-radiation-maintained glacier recession on Kilimanjaro drawn from combined ice-radiation geometry modeling,” published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 2003, Mölg and his fellow researchers argued that their study “qualitatively demonstrates that solar radiation is the main climatic parameter maintaining modern glacier recession on Kilimanjaro summit, but also suggests that retreat on the inner ice cap margin might have been supported by a secondary energy source.”13 In other words, the sun is the main cause of melting on Kilimanjaro.
As for a secondary cause, some have suggested deforestation at the mountain’s lower elevations as a significant factor. In a news item in Nature magazine on November 24, 2003, reporter Betsy Mason wrote: “Although it’s tempting to blame the (Kilimanjaro) ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit.”14 Such deforestation, it has been alleged, changed the moisture content of the local atmosphere, upsetting previously existing conditions suitable for glaciation. There also may have been other regional climactic factors that started the loss of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers. George Kerevan, the associate editor of The Scotsman, a Scottish newspaper, suggested what some of those other factors might be. According to Kerevan:
or this:
What else? A researcher with Ohio State University’s Byrd Polar Research Center recently reported to the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that temperatures in the Antarctic have not been rising as predicted. “It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” professor David Bromwich told the AAAS meeting according to the online science news site PhysOrg.com. “Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It’s very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth.”
Even so, Bromwich emphasized it was hard to find evidence of man-made global warming in Antarctica as a whole. “The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica,” Bromwich said. “We’re looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment.”17 This does not invalidate the standard theory of global warming, as Bromwich made clear to the AAAS audience. But, once again, it clearly illustrates that the science of global warming is anything but settled.
Man made GW hardly seems settled to me.
Republican – the data I have seen directly implicate GW in the Ross breakup and also in ‘ice-quakes’ in greenland. Water flowing through and then under the sheets is accellerating the breakup.
There was a story on the news (Lehrer Hour) about a little town in Alaska that is being destroyed. It is on the sea north of the Bering Strait. Melting of the ice is allowing storms to batter the coastline; they have lost hundreds of feet. The town has been their for many centuries (I think they said 4000 years) but they are now being forced to relocate.
I don’t rely much on the ‘popular media’ for my information; I found Gore’s movie to be a bit boring and pedantic. Problem for me was that all that data he shows (that he correctly notes very few of his audiance has seen) was old news for me. The reason: I read the source literature.
The scary thing to me is that, in my professional opinion, Gore was too OPTIMISTIC. He spoke of the ice-albedo feedback loop but not mch about the carbon feedback loop. That one, I am afraid, will be even worse.
Glacial-interglacial cycles of the past million+ years have been triggered by Milankovitch effects. However, they are then driven by feedback loops. This is what we have learned by studying paleoclimatology. What I and other scientists see is that we are excursioning way outside the envelope of these cycles. This is triggered by anthropogenic CO2 but is beginning to accellerate due to the feedbacks.
Primary productivity in the oceans is decreasing. This has two effects: decreses food production in the oceans and also decreases CO2 uptake by the oceans. Similar effects are being observed in the terrestrial environments: disruptions of vegetation decreases CO2 uptake. This is an important feedback loop.
Instead of Gore’s movie I would recommend the Discovery Channel’s movie that came out a bit under a year ago. Two reasons: I think it is more complete and it doesn’t have Gore who is perceived as political.
condor – Actually, the State department has looked at national security aspects and they don’t like what they see. Anything that increases movements of people (refugees) increases unrest and insecurity.
The quotes you use really further the global warming argument. Most of them are erring on the side of caution, but all point to something going on, and it’s not understood fully. That something, by all evidence put out so far, points to more global warming than anything else.
While I am a skeptic on global warming, your post weakens your own argument.
Mr. Huie,Discovery Channel movie? Don’t think I’ve seen that one.
I’ve read briefly on the loopbacks and Milankovitch. Some scientists say Milankovitch was wrong because…(have to look it up I forgot (blush.)
Loopback appears to be a solid science, but there are some differences of opinions in what is the major factors that cause Loopbacks and feedbacks. Again, this is on the crevice of my limited scientific knowledge (pardon the crevice pun.)
I suppose the village in Alaska has its problems. No more or less than the people around Mount Vesuvius I would say. Building a house on the cliffs in California wasn’t exactly a brilliant idea either.
I look forward to further, more pinpointed discussion on these matters.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/education.asp
Don’t be put off by their name. I am old enough to remember the terrorist group names “Weather Underground” This site, then link to everything inside it, is a good place to start.
Then back out to their homepage and get your ski forecasts and other weather.
That town in Alaska had been there for a long time; that is a lot different from the California cliffs. (I have no sympathy for them either)
The Feb ‘07 IPCC summary report includes this in the sea level predictions:”… excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow”.
They’re admitting that they’re not sure what the ice will do. Hopefully the full report will include more details.
Ah, ski forecasts. I have friends I go skiing with rarely. They keep asking me if I’m in “full tree mode” as I tend to find those moving trees on every slope I try. :(
Thanks for the link on the education.
Yea, they need to pass a law prohibiting those trees from jumping out in front of us! ;^)
Republican,
“I suppose the village in Alaska has its problems. No more or less than the people around Mount Vesuvius I would say.”
WHY should they assume the ice would melt, after it’d protected the shoreline for so many years?
Good analogy tho… AGW = multiple Mount Vesuvius’, worldwide.
Hey look, everyone! Republican’s put on his “reasonable” and “learned” persona. I certainly look forward to more pinpointed discussion on these matters too! Especially now that Republican has taken a big long gulp of his smart juice for the day!
Gosh, how stupid are those stupid Alaskan villagers to live in a seaside town settled by their ancestors! They really should have seen the unprecedented rise in sea levels coming! You know what? They’re as shortsighted as the people of Pompeii.
I’m honestly trying to parody Republican’s points here, but they’re so inane it’s tough to rephrase them to make them more transparently inane.
Speaking of rising waters, Republican is clearly out of his depths here. No amount of “reasonable” and “learned” fancy talking from him will disguise that.
Condor,
I’m sure most Coastal Villages are well aware of natural coastal erosion processes. All one has to do is travel along the Greek Coasts and visit all the undersea villages that used to exist several thousand years ago. Perhaps they have had man-made GW because of the oil lamps they used. :)
Hydrolic cycles of the ocean cause a lot of damage to coastlines. Along with storms, tidal surge, natural geological formations that occur but were bound to decay because of their composition.
And how about that Land Bridge that scientists talk about. Did it succumb to Global Warming? Some scientists say that the sea level was as much as 120 meters below current levels during the last major Glaciation Period. Imagine that, ocean levels were lower when Glaciers were more active. :)
Now this land bridge was flooded was flooded about 11-15000 years ago, according to some scientists. What caused that?
Now according to modern day theory they are concerned about eroding shore lines. They point out one village that has been on the coastline for (what was that Cosmos 4000 years?)
Take a look at this movie:http://instaar.colorado.edu/QGISL/bering_land_bridge/downloads/beringlandbridge1l.mov
It seems to me, those people who lived on the coastline 4000 years ago,had to move several times as the movie shows how the coastline shifted and was flooded.
What? No record of precedent for flooding coastline? It appears to me that these paleo-climatologists may respectfully disagree with you on the reasons that coast lines disappear.
Republican – the shoewline had been stable for centuries. This has no relatinship with the old land bridge.
By the way, condor and cosmos. The problem at this point is not rising sea levels there but rather th loss of the ice then allowing storms to slam into shore.
What caused the flooding of the land bridge? Milankovitch. As I said Republican, that is what we study when we look at paleoclimatology.
Perhaps WSU will offer that capstone graduate level paleoclimatology class again. I don’t know if they would let you enroll (it has lots of pre-requisites) but it is a good course.
Why would I listen to a guy who spends most of his time jetting around the world wasting millions of gallons of fossil fuel and befowling the atmosphere. I can’t remember the last time I was on a plane, but I can remember how many times I’ve flown on a plane.
5 ….. That’s right five whole times. I in my 1600 square ft. house with my two older cars have to change how I live my life while Gore and his enviro- nazi cohorts continue to live life in the fast lane, burning up our oil reserves because….. they are rich enough and famous enough to get away with it. Oh yeah, and they’re liberals, and we all know liberals never lie.
Republican,
“I’m sure most Coastal Villages are well aware of natural coastal erosion processes.”
So you’re ALSO an “expert(sic)” on Alaska’s coastlines?
The sea ice USED to help protect the coastline from storms.And it’s NOT “one village” that needs to be moved.
‘Residents Seek To Move Town As Melting Ice Sends Sea Creeping In’http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/22/eveningnews/main1926055.shtml“The town has been the winter home of the Inupiat for 4,000 years, and became their permanent home only after they adopted Western ways with permanent housing. But there’s nothing permanent about the village now, with the sea swallowing up one home after another.
It’s because the protective sea ice that used to buffer the village against storms isn’t as massive or long-lasting now — the weather’s been too warm for too long. That makes the shoreline vulnerable to erosion at an average of 10 feet a year….If Shishmaref gets its $180 million, it will move 10 miles across a lagoon and two more miles to higher ground inland. But the problem won’t be over. Scientists say there are 180 more villages that need to be moved or they’ll be lost as well.”
seanmahair,
Gore flies commercial whenever possible. Are you claiming the airline would CANCEL their flight, if Gore wasn’t one of the many passengers?
Republican,
I just wanted to take a moment to give you credit where credit is due. For all the ridiculous things you’ve said to me over the past few days, you’ve never come close to the jaw-dropping innanity in seanmahair’s comment of 6:48 pm this evening.
And for that, I thank you.
Republican,
“It seems to me, those people who lived on the coastline 4000 years ago,had to move several times as the movie shows how the coastline shifted and was flooded.”
Guess again.’Changes in sea level during the last 9,000 years’http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Sea_Level.png
Mr. Huie,
“Republican – the shoewline had been stable for centuries. This has no relatinship with the old land bridge.”
Hmmm, maybe. But the flyovers in the late 1940s that show that erosion was due in part to:
“…most of the cities on the bedrock coastlines are located on“soft” sediments like deltas and alluvial fans and are subject to a plethora of coastal hazards, like avalanches, debris flows, tsunamis, earthquakes, and vol-canic eruptions.”
“Built on soft sediment deltas.” Does New Orleans come to mind with its constantly shifting and eroding coastline?
Cosmos,
Pouring over “bathy texts” of Scientists I found this:
“Barrier islands are temporary land forms in geologic time, subject to thepressures of storms and eustatic (i.e., post-glacial) sea level rise. This fact can-not be denied, even in the face of global change. The public relations initiativethat has propelled Shishmaref into the limelight should not deny this transi-toriness: no one goes to Atlantic City for evidence of global change. Shishmarefhostels over 600 people on the most active portion of a sandy barrier islandat the southern margin of the Chukchi Sea. The community has suffered blufferosion over the last 50 years; however, although the extent has not been estab-lished, possibly until this year a considerable amount of engineering has beenemplaced on the shorefront of Shishmaref (Fig. 2). The community was severelyimpacted by a 1974 storm, which led to the first serious discussion of relocat-ing the community. The Shishmaref community lies atop a low barrier islandthat is eroding on its western margin and aggrading to the northeastern.”
The ancestors of theShishmaref people apparently recognized the dynamic nature of the islandand situated their community on the most landward, safest part of the island.In the 1920s, to ease barge off-loading, Shishmaref shifted to its present loca-tion—on the very most active eroding face of the island. This is the crux of theproblem at Shishmaref. The second major problem is that a considerable part ofthe island, nearly one-third, is considered off the table for development becauseof a snow fence emplaced in the 1980s in order to collect (mostly) wash waterfor the town. Locating another water source would serve a critical need andopen the most commodious part of the island for development.The nature of bluff erosion at Shishmaref remains contentious. On theone hand, repeated anecdotal accounts by residents suggest that erosion hasproceeded rapidly, as documented in the Anchorage Daily News, APRN, andArctic Sounder press releases and news accounts.
A different perception arisesfrom inspecting aerial photographs from 1948, 1986, and the present; theseseem to indicate that erosion was not quite so severe until the present. Whatis different and what explains the difference? Storm frequency? Ice extent?Certainly the amount of engineering has increased significantly since 1983;first, a concrete block revetment that failed quickly and only fostered erosionuntil the placement of rocks onto the Shishmaref shore in 2002 seems to havesent the system into increased erosion. Another possibility is that as peoplerestored the 1983 revetment each successive storm eroded the reconstructedland surface, and erosion likely occurred as a series of divots into different lat-eral portions of the island.
About 10 years ago, the State of Alaska sent me to Shishmaref to exam-ine various alternative relocation sites, all on the mainland. In addition to thistask, I considered the means available to remain on the barrier island chain.With some flexible engineering such as moveable structures and dune trappingdevices (plants, fences, matting, etc.), I suggested that Shishmaref residentscould remain in sync with the barrier or groom a nearby island for futuresettlement. The approach favored in the last 10 years has been the opposite:increasing hard stabilization, with the rocks larger and the lateral distancesubject to seawalls longer. Further, the height of the wall is still far below themaximum storm surge limit, for reasons that I do not understand. In any case,it seems that Shishmaref is heading toward a fortress mentality, and I predictthat in 10 years the community will be a bastion surrounded by rock. Afterall, this “solution” will be cheaper than relocation. The consequences for theremaining barriers and the inlet may be dire.At the next site, Wales”
Cosmos,”Guess again.’Changes in sea level during the last 9,000 years’http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Sea_Level.pngPosted by: cosmos | March 25, 2007 at 07:06 PM
For some reason I can find anything on the Wikepedia site you hyperlinked about the issues affecting Alaska.
Are you saying all oceans and seas were exactly alike during the Holocene period?
Just exactly what are you saying Cosmos or are you reverting to the hyperlink methodology of discussing the GW issue? :)
seanmahair writes: “Why would I listen to a guy who spends most of his time jetting around the world wasting millions of gallons of fossil fuel and befowling the atmosphere.”
Condor replies: I have one word for you: chick magnet. Alright, that’s two words. Maybe one if you hyphenate it. Anyway, a guy like that just has to know all the angles. You’d be well advised to listen to him.
seanmahair says: “I can’t remember the last time I was on a plane, but I can remember how many times I’ve flown on a plane.5 ….. That’s right five whole times.”
Condor replies: And were you a good boy, seanmahair? I’ll bet the stewardess gave you your very own set of captains wings?
seanmahair says: “I in my 1600 square ft. house with my two older cars have to change how I live my life while Gore and his enviro- nazi cohorts continue to live life in the fast lane, burning up our oil reserves because….. they are rich enough and famous enough to get away with it.”
Condor replies: Don’t you ever change! I love you just the way you are.
seanmahair says: “Oh yeah, and they’re liberals, and we all know liberals never lie.”
Condor replies: Now that’s where you’re wrong. When I said I love you just the way you are, I was lying.
“So you’re ALSO an “expert(sic)” on Alaska’s coastlines?”Posted by: cosmos | March 25, 2007 at 06:51 PM
You quote from News Stories from CBS and I quote you from Scientists studying the problem in the area?
Cosmos, please tell me you’re not relying on news story hyperlinks to prove the man-made GW theory.
Surely, you have some of “your” scientists up their studying the oceans and its effects on Alaskan coastlines.
Or are you Cosmos, an expert on the Alaskan Coastlines? :)
Republican,
Please tell me you’re not trotting out the phrase “Please tell me” in a sad attempt to sound like your insights on global warming are so powerfully incisive that you can do nothing but laugh – LAUGH, I TELL YOU – at the weakness of your opponent’s arguments!
Please tell me that’s not what you’re doing here!
Please!
No, really. Please.
Condor,
What are you, the resident Mockingbird?
Cosmos made a verbal slap when he asks if I’m an expert. He then refers me to a CBS News Story, which is not a scientific document.
Let me ask you Condor, why didn’t you ask Cosmos why he asked such a question? Hmmm?
Are you going to be a provoker of thought or a provoker of ill will?
Explain your participation in this thread other than pointing out things that you don’t like about people.
Don’t you have anything to contribute to the talk of GW?
Let’s hear some of your explanations for GW? Got any?
Republican,
Global warming skepticism is just so unbelieveably thickheaded that I think mockery is about the only worthwhile response. I admire Cosmos and Ben Huie’s patience, but I don’t share it.
The number of reputable people who actually still actively dispute the scientific conscensus on this issue is so small as to make their numbers irrelevant, and yet every damn day I hear about the “debate.” There is no real debate anymore.
Cosmos and Ben Huie do a more than admirable job of holding up the serious scientific end of this conversation. I think my talents are better used mocking the head in the sand crowd. Unfortunately seanmahair isn’t as eager as you to give me material to work with. I wish we’d hear from that corner again. That was an astonishing performance. He’s a powerful voice for the skeptic community.
Condor,
Thick headed eh? Maybe it’s due to my large sagittal crest which I use to attach my massive jaw muscles for the purposes of chewing up non-conforming human ideologies.
Geico has been calling me btw. :)
I have told my DR and subsequently his nurse my theories on nutrician and why I eat what I do. You see, I live a fairly high risk lifestyle, what with going to the sports bar and cheering for UCLA last night. So, injury is a reasonably high probability. Well, bleeding to death is both inconvenient and messy. So, I eat lots of greasy food – that way my blood vessels are self-sealing! Of course, DRs harp about clogged arteries and all that. NO PROBLEM! You just have to force the clots on through. That is why I put a lot of salt on my greasy French fries!
About that point the nurse put her head on the desk …
My point in relaying ths bit of silliness is that it reminds me of the ‘cigarettes are good for you’ and other similar skeptic arguements. And, I have to say, most of what I read over and over again against the science of global climate change. Especially the “swindle” movie.
I realize I am being disrespectful. Unfortunately, that is where I have gotten after a quarter-century of this.
Katie bar the door! Is Republican displaying evidence of true wit? Hold on! Hold on, just a second!
Now give ol’ Perfesser Comedy a moment as he puts on his reading glasses and tries to sort out the joke you’re attempting here. At least I assume it’s a joke. Forgive me if I’m wrong.
Now on close inspection it seems you’re making a humorous connection between the notion of thickheadedness and the presence of a large sagittal crest in advanced hominids. Yes! I think this is what one might reasonably classify as both a witty association and what’s known as a set up.
I’m very encouraged. Now! Onward in search of a punchline!
Hmmmmm. I’m afraid the results are somewhat disappointing. If your intention was to imply that your ideology was superior to your opponent’s (namely me) then you’ve kind of botched the job here. Given that the Geico characters are cave men, for a more accurate comedic skewering I think you should have asked me if Geico had been calling me.
Well anyway, it shows promise. Keep it up!
Republican,
“Are you saying all oceans and seas were exactly alike during the Holocene period?”
Oh, of course not! The sea off Alaska’s north coast went up and down by hundreds of feet during the last 4,000 years — while all the other seas varied by only a meter or so.
The huge sea level changes caused many difficulties for the Inuits! /sarcasm off
See the colored dots for Australia, Jamaica, etc at, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Sea_Level.png
Thank you for pointing out that Shishmaref is on a fragile barrier island. You made my point — the location was stable for 4000 years, until AGW reduced the ice that protected it.
And the other 180 Alaskan villages that scientists say need to be moved inland.
Your “scientist”: “no one goes to Atlantic City for evidence of global change.”
But they DO go to Alaska, because it’s warming much faster than Atlantic City.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
“Cosmos made a verbal slap when he asks if I’m an expert.”
You cited the Greek Coasts — those are NOT protected by sea iceYou said one village needed to be moved.You said “the coastline shifted and was flooded” during the last 4,000 years. Sea levels only changed a few feet.
I think most (probably all) people would say you’re NOT an expert.
Welcome home Nathan… Job well done Marine!
Cosmos,
Thanks for bringing up Sea Ice:
Alaska’s coastline and rivers are often subject to periodic, yet severe, erosion. The northern coastline is icebound for most of the year. The ice season lasts from November to April on most of the Bering Sea coast, longer along the Chukchi Sea, and still longer on the Beaufort Sea coast, where it usually lasts nine to ten months. Along this northern coastline, Alaska experiences some of the highest erosion rates in the world during its few ice free months. The high coastal erosion rates generally are caused by seasonal storm surges, the thawing of permafrost, and the breaking off of chunks of shoreline by moving ice. Some of the area’s barrier islands are moving landward at a rate of 23 feet per year.
Imagine that, chunks of shoreline broken off by moving ice. And this occurs seasonally. Maybe that sea ice needs some Polar Bear Captains to guide it away from shore.
Semper Fi
for some more views …
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html
“seasonal storm surges” But not for 4000 years before today.
Republican,
I brought up the ice issue long ago, 5:39 PM — pointed out that it protected the village’s coastline.AGW is causing a shorter sea ice season, and also increasing melting of the permafrost.Less sea ice also = more fetch.
Polar bears need the Arctic sea ice to not melt.
Ben,
A kinda funny column comparing comments made by skeptics on both ozone and GW. Singer also re tobacco. Also good graphic of guy with his head stuck in the sand.
http://www.desmogblog.com/deniers-evolution-from-ozone-to-global-warming
A very good explanation of the disinformation strategy + tactics.http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam
“AGW is causing a shorter sea ice season, and also increasing melting of the permafrost. Less sea ice also = more fetch.”Posted by: cosmos | March 25, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Post Hoc Ergo propter hoc Cosmos.
The waters adjacent to the exposed headlands of the Gulf of Alaska coast and the rocky Aleutian shores support much greater concentrations of plant andanimal life than the mud flats and silty beaches found along most of western and arctic Alaskan coasts. Phytoplankton and the large marine plants (e.g., kelp and intertidal seaweeds) are extremely abundant.
These arctic diatoms don’t appear to being paying much attention to your GW theories, now do they Cosmos? Extremely Abundant? My my.
Are we talking melting of permafrost inland Alaska or island permafrost which is relatively shallow?
Permafrost is soil that remains below 32 degrees Fahrenheit for at least two years. So what happens when permafrost is “melting” and creates an active layer of organic material and releases some of its gases. More Co2 and Methane I would say.
But also, what is one of the best insulators in the world? Organic material is one of the best insulators in the world, because of it’s matrix of ’spaced’ construction. This insulating quality will keep underlying permafrost from melting.
This negative feedback of the release of CO2 will cause a fertilizing effect for organics and increase productive growth.
And that’s a bad thing? I don’t think so. :)
The ebb and flow of Glaciers:
When Hannibal crossed the Alps, he confronted little in the way of ice to impede his flow. That’s odd don’t you think? I mean, modern day ice enthusiasts in the Alps say the Glaciers are retreating and we should be alarmed.
But wait…
Doesn’t that mean that Alpine Glaciers were smaller than they were today? That’s exactly what it means.
GW alarmists say “Hold on now, the 5,300 year old Stone Age man whose body was found in the Oetz Valley Alps. After all, how could his corpse have remained intact if the ice receded again and again?”
A fair question and one that requires some thinking. How, one might ask, could the Alps have been free of glaciers in the Stone Age?
If some how there was a way of proof. If we can prove that there were ancient forests where the glaciers are today, it means one thing in particular: that the climate can change more suddenly than we thought.
A few thousand years ago, there were no glaciers in the Alps at all. Back then we would have been standing in the middle of a forest. Joerin, a wiry Swiss Scientest digs into the ground with his mountain boot until something dark appears: an old tree trunk, covered in ice, polished by water and almost black with humidity. “And here is the proof,” says Joerin.
The most dramatic change in the landscape occurred some 7,000 years ago. At the time, the entire mountain range was practically glacier-free — and probably not due to a lack of snow, but because the sun melted the ice. The timber line was higher then as well.
Joerin admits his theory goes against conventional wisdom. “It is hard to imagine that the glaciers, as we know them, were not the norm in past millennia, but rather an exception,” he says while he and his companions dig out the tree trunk with shovels, axes and bare hands.
Nicolussi, professor for Alpine Research at the University of Innsbruck, Nicolussi is a dendrochronologist, something of a tree historian. He records the exact location of the find, carefully packs up the slab and labels it with a new name: “TSC-160″ — find number 160 of the Tschierva Glacier. Under the microscope, the thickness and the shape of the annual rings reveal a considerable amount of detail about the location and the climate conditions under which the tree grew. To date, he has collected and analyzed more than 400 chunks of wood.
Nicolussi’s assessment of TSC-160: It comes from a stone pine (Pinus cembra) that lived at least 538 years. “This is not unusual, pines grow extremely slowly, but become quite old,” the scientist explains. TSC-160 died approximately 6880 years ago, during the Neolithic Age, somewhere at the foot of Piz Bernina which is today covered with an impenetrable ice shield.
Somewhere along the line, the tree was buried by masses of ice and dragged into the valley where it remained until the glacier set it free again last summer — a secret message from the Stone Age at a place thought to be covered in “eternal ice.”
There you have it, sometimes our eyes do lie to us. The snow packed Alps with Glaciers hasn’t always been that way.
Knowing how the Alps were formed gives a clue to modern day viewings. Scientists say that 100 million years ago, the Alps were covered by a huge ocean. Glaciers occupied valleys high in the Alps from about 2 million years ago until about 10,000 years ago. As these glaciers moved downhill, they gouged the earth and rock, creating U-shaped valleys. Other geologic features visible in the Alps include cirques and cols. Cirques are bowl-shaped hollows near the peak of a mountain. A col is a high pass between two cirques. A hanging valley is a small valley that empties into a larger and lower valley. A stream flowing through a hanging valley may create a waterfall.
Back in that time, most of western and central Europe and Eurasia was open steppe-tundra, while the Alps presented solid ice fields and montane glaciers. Scandinavia and much of Britain were under ice.
Hmmm, frozen tundra…sound familiar Alaska?
The Ice Man frozeth about 5200 years ago. And just exactly what was that 5200 year old soft plant doing not decaying? I mean, it couldn’t have experienced warming, because it would have rotted.
And how did it get frozen in the first place?
Was it due to a Caveman named Al Gore? Is the Ice Man really an ancestor of Al Gore that failed to predict the impending frozen climate that stilled him in a sheet of ice?
I’m sure by having an abundance of soft plants and trees around him,it never occurred to Caveman Gore than changes in climate can occur rapidly and freeze him in place.
Wait wait, you say, this is not possible, this is all fake. Well, let’s see, peat bogs in Scotland.
That’s right, peat bogs in Scotland were formed in high latitudes after the retreat of the glaciers at the end of the last ice age some 9,000 years ago.
It’s beginning to sound like our friend the tree doctor was right about his tree rings. And perhaps that Dr. Joerin needs to be kicking up more tree roots so we can get to the bottom of this Global Warming conspiracy.
Nature’s conspiracy of changing climate becomes even more conspiracy bound when Under the right conditions, peat is the earliest stage in the formation of coal. That’s right…coal. Where did all that coal come from?
My friends, Al Gore has some explaining to do about all of these past climate changes that ebb and flow. Periods of frozen wasteland, forestation, peat bogs forming and before that coal formation which began as peat.
Now Al Gore, where did you park that SUV back in the day of Coal formation or even when cavemen were ripping treebark from trees high in the Alps?
Yes, yes…climate change…some one has lots of explaining to do. :)
Republican – all of that has been thoroughly explained in the scientific literature. As for the effect on eprafrost what is being observed is that as it warms and dries the organic matter oxidizes creating a POSITIVE feedback loop.
This is related to the studies of past ‘ebbs and flows’ that my fallow scientists have done.
Republican,
Your lengthy ramblings do NOT change the fact that AGW is happening today.
No credible climate scientist claims that more GHG’s would NOT = more warming.
Humans have added a significant amount of GHG’s to our Earth’s atmosphere.
As Ben said, GHG’s released from thawing permafrost is a POSITIVE feedback — it amplifys the warming humans are causing. Unlike our emissions, we cannot “turn it off”.
“Humans have added a significant amount of GHG’s to our Earth’s atmosphere.”
With all due respect, cosmos, Bullshit!
Define significant.
What percentage of GHG are contributed by humans? What percentage of the earth’s atmosphere is CO2? What percentage of the CO2 earth’s atmosphere is contributed by humans?
When you start looking at these numbers realistically and logically you soon realize what pantloads the Gorecal and his minions really are!
Hank
About a third of the total CO2 is anthropogenic.
Dear Ben,
I really don’t believe that it is that high.
Even if it is that high I don’t believe that our contribution is significant.
The amount of CO2 in the atmospere is around 1%. If humans contribute 1/3, that means that our contribution is .33% or .0033 of the earth’s atmosphere.
If the US cripples its economy and reduces its contribution by half, that means that since we contribute less than 25% of the total as a nation we would reduce the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by less than .04% or .0004 of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
These numbers in my mind are insignificant. And, they also depend on third world countries not increasing their contribution which we know isn’t going to happen!
Hank
Ben, you really do have the patience of a saint.
Hank, I’m glad you conceed that “these numbers in your mind are insignificant.” Tthe numbers in your mind are insignificant to me too!
Kidding aside, I have to note that your message is full of gloomy paralysis. It’s only been roughly 150 years since the start of the industrial revolution. It’s only been 100 years since the Model T went on sale. In the grand scheme of things, We built up all of this infrastructure in an astonishingly short amount of time. It is gloomy and hopeless in the extreme, not to mention unrealistic, to think that there’s nothing we can do about this issue without crippling our economy.
Well Condor,
You might be right. But….
You seem to grab onto an insignificant conclusion in my post and ignore the point.
But since you started down that path…
How much of the CO2 contribution to the atmosphere caused by the US comes from automobiles? Manufacturing? Feed lots? Human breathing?
And, did you know that when we clear cut land for crops that reduces CO2 significantly?
Hank
It’s a trick GW alarmists like to use that something is 8 times as much or 4 times as fast.
What they don’t say is the relevance of their numbers.
8 times as much when multiplied by a fractional number is not very much.
4 times as fast when multiplied by a very slow speed is not very fast.
Twenty years of warming trend is very tiny when compared to the planet’s history of Climate Change.
ARKANSAS RIVER FLOWS FURTHER EAST NOW -http://www.kansas.com/197/story/28834.html
Perhaps the GORICAL will attribute this to GW. :)
Hank,
Just as you don’t believe Ben’s numbers, I don’t believe yours. I tried to state that in a friendly kidding way.
Your questions remind me very much of President Reagan’s quote: “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.”
I’m sure Ben and Cosmos would be happy to answer your questions with detailed information. As for me, I’m willing to accept the general concensus that we’re facing a climate crisis created and/or exacerbated by human behavior and that it’s vitally important that we take steps to reduce our impact on the environment.
And unlike you, I’m not a gloomy pesimist. I believe in the power of American ingenuity. I believe that we can develop and market clean technology. I also believe that instead of the economic apocolypse you envision, our renewed commitment to environmentally responsible development will ensure our continued global leadership.
Since you’re so concerned with quantities and ratios, I’ll close with another Reagan quote: “All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk.”
Would you want that tiny amount of nuclear waste under your desk? It’s not just the amounts that matter. It’s the impact.
Condor,
And what impact is the nuclear waste having tight now?
Have I been missing the news reports of the supposed impact?
Last I checked Nuclear Energy was some of the best energy we can have.
How can you sit here and talk with such confidence about your views on Global warming while falling back on saying that you are simple following the “general concensus?”
The CO2 numbers really are insignificant when you start to look at the science behind what they call the supposed “green house effect” anyhow.
Nathan,
First, you’ve failed this morning’s reading comprehension quiz. I think if you read my comment again you’ll see that I wasn’t advocating for or against nuclear energy. But regardless of where you stand on that issue, I wouldn’t recommend you store nuclear waste under your desk.
As for your question about relying on the general concensus, I never thought of it that way. Come to think of it, you’re right. I really shouldn’t drive my car home tonight until I understand every detail of how it works. And when I take it in for a repair, I shouldn’t let the mechanic touch it until I too become a certified mechanic.
Boy, I’d better get busy. I may need major surgery some day and I won’t be prepared until I too become a surgeon with multiple specialties.
I think I’ll strip bare naked here in the office because I don’t know how my clothes were tailored.
Oh, jeez! Where do I even start with this computer in front of me? Is it enough to have a rudimentary understanding of the operating system? Or should I take a degree in inorganic chemistry?
Of course Nathan knows that I wouldn’t be so silly as to ask him for guidance here. Because I clearly don’t understand how his brain works.
Condor,
Kind of like speaking up at a science convention when your a vacuum cleaner salesman huh? :)
Hank Price,
“With all due respect, cosmos, Bullshit!
Define significant.”
I define “significant” as large enough to have a noticeable impact on Earth’s climate. Humans have.
Hank: “The amount of CO2 in the atmospere is around 1%.”
That’s irrelevant — like saying arsenic can’t harm you, because it’s a small % compared to your body.
What’s IMPORTANT is how much long-wave radiation a GHG absorbs, and it’s lifetime.
CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26% of Earth’s greenhouse effect, and remains in atmos for a century or longer.
CO2 is defined to have a Global Warming Potential of 1.Methane’s GWP = 62, over a 20 year period.Nitrous oxide = 296 over 100 years.
‘High GWP Gases and Climate Changehttp://www.epa.gov/highgwp/scientific.htmlHFC’s = 140 to 11,700 more GWP than CO2PFC’s = 6,500 to 9,200SF6 = 23,900
Republican,
“It’s a trick GW alarmists like to use that something is 8 times as much or 4 times as fast.
What they don’t say is the relevance of their numbers.”
FALSE. The AGW denialists do that, like Hank, above.
Yes, it’s EXACTLY like that, Republican. Except not at all.
Condor,
you can drive your car home without ever having to fully understand it.
But when you come to a car blog and start talking about why you think BMW is better than Audi and you simply say you go with the general consensus… that is a different story.
If you are going to go with the general consensus then go… don’t sit in a blog trying to talk about it when confronted with opposing evidence simply say I am going with the general consensus…
Please do continue with the over reacting routine.
Nathan,
“what they call the supposed “green house effect” ”
Do you not understand that without the GH effect, Earth would be about 86 degs. F colder? Do you think that might cause some differences?
Cosmos,
I understand how the atmosphere works, what I disagree with is the simplistic idea that more CO2 causes what is commonly referred to as the bad “greenhouse effect” trapping heat.
Republican,Nathan,
If I were to follow the script here I’d be obligated to ask each of you for your credentials. Whatever.
As Republican LOVES to remind me, this is just an opinion blog. And the topic of this thread is an important matter of public policy, about which I have an opinion.
I’m glad you enjoy my over reacting routine. I do two shows a night. Don’t forget to tip your server.
Nathan,
The peer-reviewed climate scientists who believe AGW is happening have solid evidence — like proving the quality of a BMW with road tests, etc.
The climate skeptics DON’T have evidence — it’s like they’re claiming a Yugo is equal, or better than a BMW.
Condor,
In the opposite regard, I do not have to be a certified auto mechanic to be able to change my oil, spark plugs, fix the transmission, or have a wonderful working knowledge of how one operates.
I can study and have a good understanding of how an automobile works without being a mechanic.
Same when it comes to science. I do not have to be a Climatologist to comprehend and study the Earths climate and how our contribution of CO2 may or may not be causing an increase in temperature or whether the increase is bad or not.
Condor,
I haven’t seen anyone’s credentials here on the Blog. I do recall reading somewhere that Mr. Huie is a science professional of some kind.
However, I have not read anywhere on this blog that anyone is a certified Climatologist or a scientist of that ilk.
With that said, the debate will go forward as we are all more or less on equal ground because there is no educational requirements desired or required on a Journalistic based Blog such as the We Blog is.
Cosmos hasn’t presented his credentials and maybe he doesn’t want to. It’s irrelevant as we are discussing and debating an issue.
Perhaps the GORICAL wants to lay down his scientific credentials? :)
Cosmos,
The very same evidence that is used to show global warming caused by man can and is interpreted differently by those who discount the idea of man made globabl warming.
Try reading this and tell me that there is no evidence to counter:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Nathan – the amount of additional CO2 (and other gases too) IS enough to shift the energy balance. It IS fully consistent with atmospheric science and is not simplistic.
I had to get some things out of my car a few minutes ago; noticed that Rush was waxing peotic about how there is no global climate change. As usual, everything he said has been fully refuted time and time again.
I suppose what frustrates me is that I have been reading the scientific literature instead of the popular literature on this for so long. Of course, I am old enough to remember the tobacco guys telling us cigarettes are good for you and not addictive.
Really Condor?
“And unlike you, I’m not a gloomy pesimist.”
So, your definition of a pesimist is someone that doesn’t believe is global warming?
Maybe I’m just a logical thinker. Maybe I’m an optimist! Maybe I don’t think man is causing global warming.
You want to talk nuclear power? I don’t think nuclear waste is a problem. At least not a techincal problem. The same alarmists that would have you believing that the earth ‘has a fever’ have made it a political problem but technically it isn’t.
So, I wuld recommend that you try and get a balanced view of these environmental problems. If you have read the Gorical’s two books on the environment you might want to pick up two by Dixie Lee Ray, “Trashing the Planet” and “Environmental Overkill”. Then come back and tell me who you trust.
Dixie Lee Ray was a scientist first, politician second. You should read her. It will make yo more sceptical of the politicians and more optimistic for the planet!
Hank
Replucian,
I think Gore first needs to reduce his own energy consumption before preaching to us to do so!
Ben,
Every single time someone doesn’t agree with the so called popular science doesn’t make them on par with those who thought smoking wasn’t harmful.
Nathan,
“what I disagree with is the simplistic idea that more CO2 causes what is commonly referred to as the bad “greenhouse effect” trapping heat.”
Huh??? More CO2 = no effect? How do you explain that, when CO2 causes 9 to 26% of the GH effect?
Or explain the ice age thought to be caused by a drop in CO2, due to minerals in the Appalachian Mountains?
Speaking of qualifications:
Citing a politicized agenda and misrepresentations of climate science, prominent climate scientist Chris Landsea on January 17 resigned his post as a participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Landsea is one of the world’s leading hurricane researchers, specializing in seasonal and climatic relationships of Atlantic tropical cyclones. He served as chair of the American Meteorological Society’s (AMS) Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones for the years 2000-2002. He was recipient of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Climate and Global Change for the period 1995-1996.
In his resignation letter, Landsea documented how the IPCC had sanctioned a “misrepresentation” of hurricane research and issued “unfounded pronouncements” to the media that “subverted and compromised” the scientific assessment of the IPCC’s hurricane researchers. According to Landsea, statements made by the IPCC to the media demonstrated “preconceived agendas” that are “scientifically unsound.”
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricanes will likely be quite small.
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.
Read my link
Only 600 scientists (of the tens of thousands of climate and climate related scientists who COULD have been involved) were involved in writing parts of the technical report (namely the 1500 page main science document), a document we will not see until May. Among those 600, only 30 were involved in writing the draft of the executive summary, the final version of which (i.e. the SPM released on Feb 2) being assembled by government bureaucrats and representatives of industry and environmental organizations. The vast majority of those 600, many of whom disagree with each other on various significant science elements of the issue (as we will see for sure in May but as we have seen in all past technical reports), would not have seen, let alone endorsed, the executive summary. Among the thousands of scientists who reviewed the IPCC documents, many disagree with them entirely (let alone the summary which would be even more flawed in their opinion, I am sure).
there is no consensus about the causes of the past century’s modest warming or future climate change, cooling and warming, either within the small fraction of world climate-related scientists who actually take part in the IPCC’s work, or in the general body of scientists who work in the field. The IPCC is an exclusive club that pre-selects its participants and then screens the input these participants give. The notion of consensus in this field is a myth.
Tom Harris, Executive DirectorNatural Resources Stewardship ProjectOttawa, Ontario
I’d wager that the odds are something like 998/1 that the following accounts for why “conservatives” such as Republican, the Prices, and Econ101 choose to swim upstream when it comes to global warming:
“But the financial relationship doesn’t quite explain the entirety of GOP skepticism on global warming. For one thing, the energy industry has dramatically softened its opposition to global warming over the last year, even as Republicans have stiffened theirs.
The truth is more complicated …: A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement.
Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course, neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-chait25mar25,0,3748551.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
**************************************************
In other words, the “conservatives” among us here swim upstream because they’re led meekly upstream by the alphas among them.
It’s pretty simple, really. >shrugs<
Nathan,
Think of a very complicated topic or process that you have almost no knowledge about. Would you KNOW if someone misinformed you about it?
Read this link and compare it to what junkscience claims.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing
Junkscience uses pseudo-science to deceive people. His claims don’t stand up to scrutiny.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com“JunkScience.com is a website maintained by Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute – right wing think tanks with long histories of denying environmental problems at the behest of the corporations which fund them.”
‘FACTSHEET: Steven Milloy, Founder and Publisher, junkscience.com’http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=881
Type “milloy” in search box at,http://desmogblog.com/
Interesting Pedant,
You reference an Op-Ed in the ultra liberal LA Times! Written by a left wing senior editor of the New Republic. The New Republic being nothing more than an opinion magazine. Liberal opinion magazine. You use this to bash conservatives?
Doi you have any idea how incredibly retarded you are?
Hank
I forgot to add:
>shrugs, rolls eyes<
Hank
Interesting cosmos,
But it doesn’t bother you that most of the proponents of global warming are left-wing think tanks?
Hank
Hank,
You think this group of scientists are mostly from “left-wing think tanks”?
‘Contributors to the IPCC WGI Third Assessment Report’http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/558.htm
Yep!
Left as left can be!
The real Inconvenient Truth that GW alarmists won’t talk about:
1. The group of scientists at the Max Plank Institute of Meteorology in Germany, who create the models that the UN and the IPCC use to make their decisions, state that the amount of water that would be released into the oceans by the ice sheets or glaciers is negligible at best for global sea level rise.
2. Dr. Keith Shine, one of the leading authors of the IPCC reports, described the editingprocess of the IPCC reports as follows: “We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it’s presented …. They don’t change the data, but the way it’s presented. It is peculiar thatthey have the final say in what goes into a scientists’ report.”
3. Dr. Stephen Schneider, a leading prophet of man-made climate warming, stated this bluntly:”To capture the public imagination… we have to… make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have…. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest”.
4. Temperature records: Some
were taken with inaccurate hand-painted thermometersthat moved around a lot. Some were taken in the sun, some in the shade, some over land, some overwater, some at higher altitudes, some at lower altitudes, some in high solar-activity years, andsome in low-solar activity years, some on tall boats in high wind, some on low boats in low wind, the list of data problems is endless.
5. The Commerce Department announced that U.S. surface temperatures in 1999 were thesecond-warmest on record. What the department failed to mention is that it has other surfacerecords in which 1999 falls below 1934, and that NASA ranks 1999 as the 14th-warmest-year of thecentury. In the global atmosphere, satellites show 12 years warmer than 1999 and 8 cooler, whileweather balloons show 15 warmerand 27 cooler.
6. Preposterous presumption that the weather is a finitely measurable thing.
Climatic systems has too many variables to exactly factor into any model to get a perfectprediction. Plus the climate is not homogeneous even in the same location.
There are meso-climate (large-scale) variables andmicro-climate (small-scale) variables and they all effect each other and can result in widely different climactic effects on both scales.
There are thermodynamic factors, atmospheric fluid dynamics of the various gasses in our atmosphereand how they react at different altitudes, geological factors (friction), electrostatic factors, pollutant (natural and man-made) factors, planetary (Coriolis effect) and solar (electromagnetic and thermal) factors, all of these and several more have many different variables that must beaddressed in order to get evena slightly accurate view of the weather.
Has anyone every heard of an accurate monthly or yearly weather forecast? Or how about even a weekly forecast that was notconstantly being modified from day to day? Most forecasters cannotpredict with 100% accuracy what the weather will be next week let alone the next century.
Republican,
You cut and you paste and you cut and you paste and you cut and you paste…
And you never bother to differentiate between your thoughts and those of the individuals or organizations you’re cutting and pasting from.
And so much of what you’re pasting is self-evidently the work of people who are arguing with the voices in their own heads. To pick one obvious example “6. Preposterous presumption that the weather is a finitely measurable thing.”
No one is arguing that the weather is a finitely measurable thing. No one. Absolutely no one.
“No one is arguing that the weather is a finitely measurable thing. No one. Absolutely no one.”
Does that mean my rain guage is faulty?
Hank
Hank,
Is anyone just kinda liberal anymore, or are we all ULTRA LIBERAL?
And please don’t call people retarded. I don’t mind, but Republican is such a delicate flower! He sobs inconsolably whenever anyone even hints at being incivil.
Hank,
I’m going to generously assume you were joking about your rain gauge being at all related to the point Republican cut and pasted and I refuted.
Republican,
Thank you for the help.
Chris Landsea says he does NOT doubt that a portion of ocean warming is due to greenhouse warming. He’s NOT on your side.
And you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel quoting Tom Harris, 1:09 PM.
Harris doesn’t seem to have any proof of his claim “The vast majority of those 600,… would not have… endorsed, the executive summary.
‘Still Waiting, Tom’http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/search/label/IPCC%20report
Maybe instead of copy/posting here, you can help Harris out? Can YOU find the names for him? His qualifications and credibility do NOT look too good.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Harris
Search on “tom harris” at http://desmogblog.com
cosmos=one trick pony
fleettwood,
I’d post on other issues, but instead wasting time dealing with Republican’s and others garbage.
A good example of Republican’s anti-AGW technique.
Compare his quote from Dr. Schneider, #3 upthread at 2:03 PM — with Schneider’s full quote, and complaint about being taken out of context.
APS News Online August/September 1996 Edition’Don’t Bet All Environmental Changes Will Be Beneficial’http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/sch_quote.html
And note that it’s a decade old… climate science has much stronger proof of AGW now.
Of course Cosmos science credentials are well known -
Wait, they’re not. :)
Dear Condor,
I apologize for the ‘retarded’ remark. I thought of several words to describe what I thought about Pedant’s hypocritical criticism of conservatives and retarded seemed to be the least offensive.
Hank
“A good example of Republican’s anti-AGW technique.”
Or the Lib technique, “A pig will fly out of my butt 50 years from now. Prove it’s not true.”
And most descriptive!
Hank
Republican,
Have you found the names of the scientists for Tom Harris yet?
Please keep looking — or admit that his claim that you posted was false.
blah blah blah ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Who is Tom Harris? I never used any quote from him.
Oh wait, I need to be more like Cosmos…
Let me start by discrediting his link:
That link you gave me is from a Neo-Lib Website that has the credibility of a pirate.
Then, I need to state without backing up any claims that he is wrong.
Cosmos you are wrong, misinformed and out of touch with reality.
Oh yes, and the common theme of constantly asking trapping questions:
Cosmos, do you really want the world to go broke because of your poorly documented and manipulated science reviews?
Now I’m getting the hang of the Cosmos way of Pravda style of communication.
Republican,
You keep using this term “neo-lib” and I do not think it means what you think it means. I’ve been letting it slide now for several days, but you put it front and center in your last post in which you used it to jokingly discredit a source.
I suspect that you’ve heard people use the terms neo-con or neo-nazi in a pejorative sense and so you think you can just stick neo in front of lib and it will make liberals cry. But neo isn’t like adding “gate” to the end of any old term to indicate a scandal.
Neo-liberalism is a real term. If you’re going to use it, you might want to figure out what it means first.
Failing that, you can always look to Hank for guidance. Since he apparently views the word liberal as insufficiently scary, he’s taken to using the term ULTRA LIBERAL.
Republican,
“Who is Tom Harris? I never used any quote from him.”
You didn’t post at 1:09 PM ?http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/03/quote_of_the_we.html#comment-64415782
Or maybe you don’t even read what YOU copy/paste?
Harris doesn’t seem to have any proof of his claim “The vast majority of those 600,… would not have… endorsed, the executive summary.
‘Still Waiting, Tom’http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/search/label/IPCC%20report
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Harris
Search on “tom harris” at http://desmogblog.com
Republican,
Your #5 at http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/03/quote_of_the_we.html#comment-64420932 seems to come from http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1083.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
OISM’s Art Robinson, and ““quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.”” Fred Sietz.http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1067“Robinson “acknowledges he has done no direct research into global warming.”
You make anonymous, unattributed, not-credible, undated, old, out-of-context copy/pastes.That’s a very WEAK way to debate.
I prefer to instead rely on credible scientists.http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Nope Condor, I think I have the new defintion of Neo-Lib down just fine:
Neo-communist political movement, a tipsy-topsy, infantile perversion of the Marxist-Leninist model, global in scope, beginning in the post-cold-war, unipolar 1990s, led by the ’60s neo-liberal baby-boomer “intelligentsia,” that seeks power without responsibility, i.e., that seeks to dilute American power by concentrating power in said ’60s neoliberals while yielding America’s sovereignty to the United Nations.
That pretty much defines You and Cosmos.
“You reference an Op-Ed in the ultra liberal LA Times! [etc.] You use this to bash conservatives?”Posted by: Hank Price | March 26, 2007 at 01:33 PM
LOL
If the LA Times *were* “ultra-liberal,” it would seem to be a rather natural sorta bashin’ tool for conservatives, doncha’ think?
But hell, who’s bashing? I’m just politely pointing out that y’all are led around like meek little geldings with rings through your noses!
Nothing personal!
Awwwwww… poor baby Cosmos cannot read something without source. And looks what happens when I do give source, again what do you do:
Cosmos method: discreditCosmos method: discredit
Of course Cosmos the mystery un-scientist is fully qualified to discredit scientists he never met, doesn’t have a clue how to do the science they do or even attempt to eek out a formula because he doesn’t know how.
Yeah, Cosmos, you go … not.
Republican,
Remember earlier in this thread when I gave you credit for never equaling the jaw-dropping innanity in seanmahair’s comment?
Congratulations! You just posted something even more innane.
Did you make up that definition of neo-liberalism yourself, or did you cut and paste that from an unrevealed source too?
Condor,
Who died and appointed you judge?
LA Times is ultra liberal.Global Warming is a crock.The end.
Republican,
No one died and appointed me judge. I’m merely pointing out that when you use the term neo-lib with the intention of demeaning liberals, you’re actually demeaning yourself.
Think of me as the kind of friend who would tell you that you have spinach in your teeth or toilet paper stuck to your shoe… or a boneheaded proclivity toward using using words you don’t understand.
Love, Condor
It’s not demeaning it’s very true.
Cosmos is part a clueless elitist movement that is seeking power without responsibility while yielding America’s Sovereignty to the UN.
That, by it’s very definition is the premise of the Kyoto Treaty.
It is Taxation without Representation and you know what REAL Americans think about that.
Republican,
“Awwwwww… poor baby Cosmos cannot read something without source.”
The source is PART of the information.
Just because YOU PREFER to believe people who’ve done NO climate research, and have NO credibility, does not mean other people do, or should.
I don’t need to discredit people like you, OISM, and Tom Harris. You do it to yourselves, by spreading falsehoods.
Have you found the names of the scientists for Tom Harris yet?
Please keep looking — or admit that his claim that you posted was false.
Well, based on our exchange this evening I have to assume that REAL Americans think they’re able to make up their own nonsensical definitions for well established terms.
What do neo-real Americans think, Republican?
Cosmos,Have you do real climate research? No, I didn’t think so. Get off your high horse and try and discuss like a real man, if that’s possible.
Condor,
I can identify baiting when I see it and it is what you’re trying to do to me.
Either you are young and stupid to think I would fall for such a trick or you are completely sold out Neo-Lib.
do=done
Republican,
You’re my favorite wingnut ever!
Yes let’s all get off our high horses and be real men!
Just one question. Are real men allowed to use words they don’t understand just because they think they sound cool?
Hi Ho Neo-Silver, AWAY!
We’re done Condor, since you haven’t discussed one thing about GW. You just want anarchy in this Blog and I ain’t falling for it.
So, buh-bye, you’re history in my book.
Republican,
Oh, so we’re involved in serious opinion blogging again, are we?
What I want in this blog is for intelligent, knowledgable people such as Cosmos to be given credit when they point out that you’re carrying on like a rambling drunken old uncle that needs his medication and a good nap.
What I want is for you to know the meaning of the words you use. That’s especially true when you’re using a word as an insult.
What I want most of all is for wingnuts to stop ranting and carrying on about how incivl and unhinged liberals are when this thread gives you all the evidence you’d ever need to disprove that.
Finally, I have, in fact, seriously discussed my thoughts on the climate crisis in this thread. But you were doubtless too busy figuring out the keyboard shortcut to speed along your brainless cutting and pasting operation.
“You’re my favorite wingnut ever!”
“…you’re carrying on like a rambling drunken old uncle that needs his medication and a good nap.”
“I want most of all is for wingnuts to stop ranting and carrying on…”
Theeey’rre baaack!
Fleetwood,
I’m not baaaaack from anywhere. I am and always have been Condor and no one else. But I’ve been here long enough to see repeated references to the great schism that occurred some time ago. And I don’t really care what happened before I came here.
Now that Republican doesn’t want to play with me anymore I’m looking for someone else to have fun with. Tell me, do you like using well established terms incorrectly and then getting all breathlessly outraged when people call you on it? Cause I like that in a wingnut.
Republican,
Have YOU done real, peer-reviewed climate research in the last decade or two? No?
Why don’t you be a “real man” and admit that you posted falsehoods from Tom Harris… or, name his IPCC scientists?
And be a “real man” by backing up your claim that AGW is bogus.
Please name 12 credible, peer-reviewed scientists, who in the last few years said that NONE of Earth’s recent observed warming is caused by human-added GHG’s — it’s all from solar, cosmic rays, aliens, or whatever.
Your intense dislike of Al Gore, the consensus of credible climate scientists, Kyoto, and carbon taxes does NOT prove your opinions are correct.
It actually proves you’re VERY biased, and lack objectivity — and that’s the complete OPPOSITE of the scientific method.
Cosmos,
Your consistent statements prove that you are a UN repeatist Neo-Lib, only interested in personal gain and glory.
You are an apologist for the failed flailing of GW alarmists and your goal is to further their tax of doom which will cause financial ruin of the United States.
Republican,
What in the hell is a UN repeatist?
Also, I think your continued usage of the term neo-lib is the PERFECT example of your willfull ignorance. Twice I gently pointed out that it doesn’t mean what you think it means. And your response is to stamp your feet and whine… and then continue to make a fool of yourself by using the term incorrectly.
I guess you might say you’re a neo-repeatist.
Republican,
Thank you for so clearly proving that my 9:08 PM post, you’re the “complete OPPOSITE of the scientific method”, was 100% correct.
I’ll add my nic to those you “intensely dislike”, and are UNABLE to debate rationally.
We’re still WAITING for your proof that AGW is bogus. And Tom Harris?
Cosmos,
You know who Tom Harris is, stop playing games.
It’s in your department for character assassination, so go ahead with your assassination, discredit him and whatever it is you do.
So go ahead, do what you do best, take the low road.
You don’t have real science, what you do is character assassination and preach the Gospel according of the Kyoto Treaty and the UN Alarmists.
Republican,
Here are two facts:
FACT 1: You’ve brainlessly cut and pasted all sorts of things into this thread, often without even knowing what you’re cutting and pasting. Cosmos has definitively established that several of your sources are actually arguing AGAINST you. And at least one of your sources, namely Harris, is not a credible source at all. Cosmos points this out and you accuse him of character assasination.
FACT 2: You continually use the term neo-lib without understanding that it doesn’t mean what you want it to mean. Neo-liberal is a well established term with a meaning that has NO relation to the meaning you want it to have. I pointed this out and rather than admit your mistake, you MADE UP your own new definition for neo-lib. And you’re actually proud of your willfull ignorance on this point. I point this out and you throw a little fit and refuse to speak to me again.
These two facts completely destroy any credibility you may have had prior to this evening.
As you’ve told me many times, this is an opinion blog. And you’re perfectly welcome to your own opinions, no matter how odd they may seem to the rest of us. But you are not allowed to have your own facts.
You could have avoided this meltdown with just the slightest bit of humility. An occasional willingness to admit when you’re wrong goes a long way.
Republican,
“You know who Tom Harris is, stop playing games.”
No, YOU are the one “playing games”. Either defend Harris… or admit that his claims that YOU posted are FALSE!
Thank you again, for so clearly proving that my 9:08 PM post, you’re the “complete OPPOSITE of the scientific method”, was 100% correct.
Cosmos,
Okay, I know the game now you’re playing.
I will keep repeating as you will about Tom Harris.
Except I will keep repeating over and over, your failed attempts on explaining the Larson B Ice Shelf.
You did misrepresent the real reasons behind the Larson B failure and pointed to Al Gore’s book as the source.
I will repeat that over and over and over and over.
You won’t like it.
Want to stop playing games now? Or be subject to your own failure?
Republican,
Games have rules. When you use words you don’t understand…
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/03/quote_of_the_we.html#comment-64434824
…and then choose to make up your own private definitions for them rather admit you’re wrong,…
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/03/quote_of_the_we.html#comment-64447430
…you’re not playing by any rules I know.
Most people, when informed that the term they’re using as an insult doesn’t mean what they think it means, would simply stop using the term. But not ol’ head in the sand Republican. No! To admit being wrong would be to show weakness!
Whatever
I’ll give you a make up definition. A neo-liberal is one who has moved away from the Democrat party roots and have put both feet into the Socialist ideas of Karl Marx. Your attempt to make this into the more correct definition of economic neo-liberalism is false and childish. I suspect you are the opposite of an economic neo-liberal, being a Socialist and all.
Repbulican,
“I will keep repeating as you will about Tom Harris.”
My 10:47 PM re Harris was a REPLY to your 10:09 PM re Harris. Where’s the “game” in that.
Are you trying to avoid admitting that Harris made false claims? That’s immature.
Republican: “You did misrepresent the real reasons behind the Larson B failure and pointed to Al Gore’s book as the source.
I will repeat that over and over and over and over.You won’t like it.”
No, I’ll enjoy it. Prove the meltwater-crevasse theory is wrong (blue ice in photos, more melt days, etc).Prove that scientists were NOT suprised by the 2002 breakup (pg 182 in Gore’s book).
Please write a scientific paper on it, and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Republican,
Kenneth Green wrote your #4, “hand-painted thermometers” post (2:03 PM yesterday).
It’s at rppi.org — does JM Foundation, Scaife, etc = scientific, unbiased and accurate info?http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation
‘FACTSHEET: Reason Foundation, Reason’http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=63“Reason Foundation has received $381,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.”
Green also wrote the letter offering $10,000 cash.
‘Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study’http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html
Republican,
Re your #1, about sea level at http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/03/quote_of_the_we.html#comment-64420932
Isn’t that based on IPCC’s very out-dated 2001 report?
All of the IPCC reports lag a few years behind the LATEST observations and theories.
And scientists today are STILL trying to understand recent changes in ice-shelfs and glaciers.
They’re still trying to develop models of what happens to Antarctic and Greenland ice when temperatures rise.
And there are also many other UNKNOWNS, like the positive feedbacks from thawing permafrost, warmer oceans, etc.
Rising sea levels, warmer air and ocean temperatures, etc could have a HUGE, IRREVERSIBLE impact on humans in the future.
A WISE civilization WOULD try to reduce human-added GHG’s as much, and as fast as possible.
Note the scientific “weasel” words in last sentence.http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf“Models used to date do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, because a basis in published literature is lacking. The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993-2003, but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future. For example, if this contribution were to grow linearly with global average temperature change, the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios shown in Table SPM-3 would increase by 0.1 m to 0.2 m.
Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise.”
Note how I put Cosmos on permanent ignore because he cannot discuss without discrediting or belittling people.
When you want to come back and discuss matters without being a character assassin, let me know.
Republican,
If you were interested in accurate, up-to-date, scientific information, you’d THANK me for pointing out Harris’ falsehoods, Green’s bias/funding, and IPCC’s time lag/uncertainties.
But instead, you ATTACK me, and accuse me of “being a character assassin”.
You have PROVEN that you’re ONLY interested in pushing anti-AGW falsehoods, NOT in debating AGW science, and facts.