Some hopeful news amid the global warming gloom: The latest report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that controlling global warming is both doable and affordable.
According to the study, the world’s nations could get greenhouse gases under control by 2030, with a modest investment in new technologies, auto fuel standards and other anti-warming measures.
The fixes would add about $100 to the cost of every ton of carbon dioxide pumped into the environment — or about an extra $1 for a gallon of gas.
The Bush administration immediately rejected the costs as provoking a worldwide recession, but the report argues that many of the strategies would actually stimulate the economy by fostering innovation and jobs.
And the longer we wait, the report said, the costlier the fix will be. “If we continue doing what we are doing now, we are in deep trouble,” said Ogunlade Davidson, co-chairman of the group.
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
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
182 Comments
Supposedly, the carbon taxes will be at the highest of corporate levels. You know, corporations who never pass down their costs to consumers (rolls eyes.)
The only thing a carbon tax will do is turn our capitalist society into a bilge water bloated balloon of socialistic pork.
It will also kill off tens of thousands of elderly and the ill when they can no longer afford to turn on their air conditioners or heat their homes.
Bad idea, – shoot the revenuers-
Who will manage this tax?
The United Nations?
Will it be run like the corrupt “Oil for Food” program?
Will the funds raised from such carbon taxes be spent on corrupt government hand outs, much like our “ethanol” pork-barrel projects, which do little for the environment?
Will these programs be run like the corrupt “carbon credit” or “carbon offset” schemes?
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2068397,00.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
Global Warming hysteria is based on a desire, by liberals, to control human activity, regardless of the positive or negative effects of that control.
It is the control, itself, that matters most to liberals!
Any attempt to “cure” the false disease of “global warming” fails on the world economic level.—–Again:
1.) Is global warming happening?2.) Is man causing global warming, or is it simply a natural event?3.) Can man stop any warming that is happening?4.) Is the Cost of any “cure” worth the price? Do we get real value for any sacrifice?5.) Can the United States solve this “problem” by itself?6.) How can we convince a starving, shivering world to cut back on energy while Al Gore and most other “green” Democrats waste as much energy and burn as much carbon as they want to?—-
Even if you prove the first 3 points, beyond a shadow of a doubt, in favor of the “warming” camp — you STILL have NOT justified draconian government mandates or “carbon taxes.”
For one thing, anything the United States does to reduce the use of carbon will only INCREASE international use of carbon.
If we reduce demand, 3rd world demand will more than pick up the slack.
Starvation and death will be the result in any slow-down of world economic growth. Economic growth feeds the world, vaccinates the world, heats the world, refrigerates food and medicine, transports food and medicine.
One other thing: If world treaties are going to enforce all these “green” rules, will we go to war with any country that violates the rules?
If a country violates 17 UN resolutions concerning the environment, can we get rid of that countries dictator?
These are real questions.
You greens are asking good, Democrat, Union steelworkers and oil refinery workers to give up their jobs, same with coal miners.
They do this for the good of a “world” that sees China building a new coal fired plant nearly every week.
The United States, alone, can do nothing towards the dubious goal of reducing carbon use.
The United States, in collaboration with the “world” or the United Nations, can only give us another, worthless treaty that nobody would ever have the guts to enforce!
There would most likely be a carbon trading program to encourage polluters to become more efficient and clean. Since there’s money to be made in carbon trading those consumers that would be affected by high prices are only those who continue to do business with the polluters.
For some reason the pro-pollution crowd thinks increased energy efficiency is bad for the economy. Perhaps the economy of those companies that make money off of people’s wasteful habits. I’m doing pretty well paying only $13 a month for electricity, how am I going to be better off paying more?
The pro-pollution crowd tends to ignore the costs associated with pollution. Ruined crops, depleted fish stocks, asthma and other illness, etc. Don’t blame them though, they’re shortsighted and always whine about the costs of doing anything even though it never costs as much as their fear mongering claims suggest.
1.50 per gallon has been added during the Bush regime, and what do we have to show for it?
Our biggest mistake has been the ‘globalization’ of the source of the problem. Instead of being responsible and updating manufacturing technologies, we export manufacturing to a country where their primary energy source is coal.
Global warming is not going away unless we do something about it. Energy is going to cost more, and the cost will continue to increase, especially for gas, as long as we keep feeding our addiction to it.
Alternative, renewable, energy sources are going to have to be put in place, ethanol made from corn not being one of them (it really is about the water on that one).
We’ve raped this planet for a long time. It’s time to pay the piper and correct the damage we’ve done. If that means an energy tax, then so be it.
I realize the naysayers, such as the two in one above, have a problem coming up with anything useful to add to this argument, but who cares? Burying ones head in the sand is not going to make it go away. This is a world problem, and needs a world solution. But it is going to have to start someplace, and with us being one of the major energy users, and carbon producers, on the planet, it might as well start here.
Many of us here are simply looking at this issue logically.
Take for instance Econ 101’s questions, specifically the first few.
The Global Warming chicken littles sit here saying that Global warming is happening so we must act now before it’s too late!
Yet people like Doug turn around and say that our looking at the cost/benifit ratio is “fear mongering claims” about what this is going to cost?
What irony. While spreading your own doomsday predictions about Global warming and how we must act now you say we are the fear mongers?
The simple fact is that even if you do conclude that we are indeed effecting Climate change and it is “bad enough” then just how much of an impact can we have to stop it vs the cost?
Of course we have JM Walker here ready to sacrifice America first regardless of what anyone else is going to contribute.
Once again, even if we do get to the point of deciding that we must enact change, what is fair? Who is going to monitor it?
Simply saying that America should sacrifice economically first while other countries would be in complete disreagard or simply not effected that much is a sham.
There are so many levels to this debate yet all we get from the chicken littles is:
There is Global Warming, we must act now before it is too late!
Right….
And next week when egg yokes or whites ( I never know which, because science keeps telling me different every couple of years) are bad for me I will make sure to follow right along like the good little ignorant person you all expect me to be…
What is getting me is not the debate over whether the human race caused it or whether we should do anything about it or not? It is the fact that it will cost this or effect the economy of that! That argument boils down to the question can we afford to live or not? If the real question is IF the human race want to live or not? Regardless of the cause, regardless of the cost, if the intimate outcome is the extinction of the planet and life on it. How much do we want to spend if the end result is the survival of the species? To argue the cost and the effect upon the economy of the world imply that the human race is not worth the cost!
Perhaps if the argument is the cost then we as a species is really not worth that cost.
Well said Nathan. Some in our nation are blindly following the doomdayers over the cliff. And they try to say Christian radicals are gullible.
The American economy is still the strongest in the world even though China is making great strides to dislodge it from that position.
We haven’t raped this planet. It is still going strong. I do my part and encourage others to do theirs to keep the planet clean and to replant forests and other renewable plants. We are only limited by our own ideas.
A carbon tax going to who knows where, advocated by politicians like Algore and entertainers like Cheryl (save the tissue) Crow has to be one of the stupidiest ideas I’ve seen to date.
Writerdog read your post carefully. No one has made the link between man and the distruction of the planet. Even the most strident scientists say that even if we could prove that the warming?? is man made they are not sure we have the ability to stop or reverse it.
The carbon tax as stated here is what is known as a feel good tax. It won’t do a darn thing but we’ll sure feel good when it is added to the cost of fossil fuels. At least some will.
Writerdog,
You prove my point perfectly!
“That argument boils down to the question can we afford to live or not?”
The doomsday preaching begins again.
First off, you have to realize that in the history of our World there have been periods of cooling and warming before we ever started contributing CO2.
It makes perfect sense to look at the cost/benifit of the proposals many on the left are crying for.
If we currently contribute X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere, and the draconian measures many want to take will reduce it by Y amount of CO2, and it will cost Z amount of dollars while onlying actually effecting climate change by A amount, speculatively.
But once again, it is either live or die, don’t look at the numbers says the man behind the curtain…
I’m for reducing pollution. But if this is going to be selective, meaning that only the US and Europe will provide the cost for scrubbing CO2, but China and India gets a pass, like the defunct Koyto is, then NO!
Nobody should get a pass!
Boy. This place is a smorgasboard of stupidity this morning.
I love watching a bunch of unqualified, non-scientists dismiss peer-reviewed science that doesn’t agree with their market-based worldview. I especially love Republican’s insistence elsewhere that increases in CO2 are inevitably an effect, not a cause, of atmospheric warming.
Seriously. You people are moronic when you try to dismiss environmental concerns as quasi-religious. Get a new argument, OK? The casuistry ain’t cutting it.
Plausible deniability may work as a right-wing political strategy for winning elections and getting away with criminal activity: but it’s laughable to watch the more extreme among you Wingnuts try to make it do the work of peer-reviewed science.
The science is in, kids. The Globe’s warming up. And your theological insistence on the need to maintain “competitiveness” at all costs is going to have to get with the program if the oceans rise the predicted twenty feet.
My, my, my – such sanctimonius Christians saying there is no such thing as global warming and it is not man’s fault if there is such a thing.
I wonder what these so-called Christians will tell God when He asks them why they did not take care of the world that He gave them to take care of? and especially when they let the world go to crap just for a dime more in profit?
If the US economy is so great, then why are we a debtor nation? All we do is consume and rarely conserve.
This is a recipe for disaster. China already has the US over the barrel in terms of money. As I recall, after 9/11 – George W. told the Americans to go out and shop. That pretty much sums up the way we Americans perceive life.
Nice way to try to twist what we are saying.
CF2K,
Do you atleast admit that there are many scientists who disagree with the IPCC findings and much of the rhetoric by others?
The science is not in.
Yes, there may indeed be warming.
The problem is that once again you have to ask yourself the questions:
1. If the Earth is warming, is that bad?
2. If it is bad, how bad?
3. What is causing it?
4. If we are causing it, how much are we actually contributing to the problem?
5. If we are going to fix it, what are the REASONABLE and WELL THOUGHT OUT measures to doing so?
But once again, you people here go from point A to Z skipping all the others:
The Earth is warming, we are all going to die unless we act now!!!
Nathan,
The science is absolutely in, unless by “science” you mean “something that fundamentalist Christians who espouse capitalism and believe in creationism will find acceptable.”
It’s in, dude. The scientific consensus has been reached. Are there some dissenters? A few. But so what. Science is a consensus product. And if anything, the predictive models have been LESS severe than what we’re currently seeing happen, such as the accelerated melting of the Antarctic ice shelf.
Your fundo skepticism is way, way, way out of the loop, Nathan. You have ZERO to contribute to any debate that challenges your assumptions.
I wish that putting all that carbon in the atmosphere didn’t raise ocean and air temperatures. But it does. And given that the nature of change isn’t linear but instead follows the logic of plateaus and tipping points, we don’t have much time, whether time is measured historically or geologically.
You can refuse to admit there’s a problem all you like, Nathan. But I refuse to allow your denial to stop the rest of us from facing reality and responding intelligently.
I gotta figure out a carbon offset business so I can help folks who want to purge the guilt brought on by the all the sky is falling talk. Maybe get rich doing it.
What a service. Provide a feel good non-solution to a problem that may not have much of anything to do with man’s activities. A self contained industry. If the climate starts to cool, claim that your solutions worked. If not, claim that it would have worked if you only could have done more. But your opponents wouldn’t let you.
None of which is provable. What a deal.
CF2K,
I am trying to have a well reasoned and logical discussion.
Yet all I get in return from you and others it the same typical degineration of me as a person or why my thoughts don’t count.
You absolutely refuse to actually engage in an intelligent discussion.
Nathan,
Your father never listed the “respected scientists” on his side. Can you list them?
Hank Price: “The truth of the matter dear cosmos there are a lot of respected scientists on both sides of the argument. A lot.”
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/open_thread_3.html#comment-68527030
Maybe Paul F. ROSELL can help you list them?
Ok,
So now it is merely a popularity contest then?
It is about who has more scientists on their side to form a consensus?
I must have missed that in my K-12 education.
Oregon petition project was signed by 19,000 professionals and scientists who don`t agree with the idea that we are causing climate change.
And since I know the Gorites are hell bent to silence anybody, because of their religious encapsulation of Global Warming fears.
Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.
I’m sure they will find any way to defunct it. The Goreites try their best. They might find a few names on the petition and then say it’s bunk. But when people look at their list, especially the IPCC, they defend every last one of them, when many aren’t scientist or professionals, but government bureaucrats.
Cosmos refuses to watch the “Global Warming Swindle”, because of accounts of one scientist out of the many on that documentary has some problems with it.
Albert Gore is the Jesus Christ of leftist Global Warming death religion.
Nathan,
“So now it is merely a popularity contest then?”
No, it’s about science… and integrity.
Your father claimed that “a lot” of “respected scientists” support his side. He said it, so who are they?
Joe Williams,
The OISM petition is out-of-date, a bogus scam, and a joke.
And the ‘Swindle’ film is NOT based on science.
Geez, even I am insulted by this comment.
“Of course we have JM Walker here ready to sacrifice America first regardless of what anyone else is going to contribute.”
Uh, Walker is a decorated Viet Nam war veteran and a true patriot. To attack him on his patriotism is in part laughable. The other parts are contemptable. But then, that’s what you cons do. Smear and fear, the two favorite tactics of the reich wing.
Hell, even germie is insulting DD and others today. I thought she believed she was a paragon of “civility”.
Walker IS putting America first. It’s deniers like republican, germie, nathan and paulie that put America at risk.
I’m glad I dont have to answer to YOUR god for YOUR actions. Or lack of actions would be a better term.
Oh but please feel free to tell me that the sin of destroying the planet with our “stewardship” ranks much lower on the sin scale than the love I share with my girlfriend…
Jesus wept!
I arrest my case Cosmos.
Just like many accounts on Albert Gore’s film is false and he himself isn’t a Scientist and he is out of date as well.
The Global Warming Swindle was based on Science.
The is no Global Warming.
Even is there is, it’s good for us.
If it’s bad, we didn’t do it.
If we did it, there’s nothing we can do about it.
If we can do something about it, it will cost too much.
If it doesn’t cost too much, we still shouldn’t have to pay for it.
Therefore, there is no Global Warming.
Doug,Try to stay on point, none of the things you cited are directly linked to “global warming.”In fact, warming, if it is happening, will probably INCREASE crop yields!”The pro-pollution crowd tends to ignore the costs associated with pollution. Ruined crops, depleted fish stocks, asthma and other illness, etc. Don’t blame them though, they’re shortsighted and always whine about the costs of doing anything even though it never costs as much as their fear mongering claims suggest.”
KFG,
I don’t recall saying one thing about JM’s patriotism.
I see the standard Democrat line of feigning an attack on your patriotism is still alive.
CF”oceans rise 20 feet?”
Your own “scientists” are not anywhere near agreement on that point.
That some scientists support a few of your points does not give you leave to make ridiculous claims!
You seem to think that some, limited, agreement on “warming” verifies every nut-case scenario ever spouted on the issue. We on the “skeptic” side would have more respect for you greenies if you distanced yourselves from the true nuts on this issue!
DougThe “carbon trading programs” you speak of are a complete fraud.
We will see many people go to jail in the carbon-trading industry, if it ever really gets the legal attention it deserves!
Be careful Nathan! The farmgrrl also brought her significant other into the debate. Back off or you’ll be labeled a gay basher also.
Pa
Algore wept.
“In fact, warming, if it is happening, will probably INCREASE crop yields!’
Paul – they might teach that in freshman economics but not in graduate climatology. While in some regions (Siberia and Canada perhaps) they may see increases in yields in most areas they will see the opposite.
Disruptions in rainfall patterns in latitudes below 50 degrees N-S will more than offset any possible improvements above 60N. Note that for all practical purposes there is nothing south of 60S.
Everyone needs to read this:http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000140.html
“I don’t recall saying one thing about JM’s patriotism.”
If this is not attacking one’s status as an American, I don’t know what is……
“Of course we have JM Walker here ready to sacrifice America first”
Read, nathan.
I didnt say you attacked Walker. I said you were a global warming denier. Care to dispute that?
And, as Clark pointed out, you did accuse Walker of “sacrificing America first”.
Yeah. I am so sure that is what he did with his service in Viet Nam.
I think you just revealed your true self, boy. Only SOME soldiers are patriotic.
The ones who agree with you, I guess.
Very good link, Bob, good stuff. A little tedious to read, but very insightful.
KFG,
There are many ways to “sacrifice” America.
From what JM posted it appeared to me that he indeed supported sacrificing America economically first.
It was not an attack on his beloved patriotism or service to his country.
On the other hand, you are the one who should be ashamed of yourself for using his status as a Veteran to try to make some cheesy and twisted political gain on a blog against me.
Of course, you don’t have any standards when it comes to these things though.
Thanks, it explains a lot.
KFG,
Instead of actually trying to engage in a somewhat intelligent discussion with me you choose to go the typical liberal route and label me with silly names like Global Warming denier.
I have said that the Earth may indeed be warming, I am not denying that it could be.
On the other hand, I am not out there playing chicken little like many of you.
Nathan,
Please. The last thing I would ever accuse you of is engaging in intellectually honest or informed debate.
As for Joe Williams’ borderline hysterical embrace of the Oregon Petition, well, here’s a little debunking of the project’s claims to various sorts of legitimacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Econ101,
And I might have some respect for you if you were ever to acknowledge evidence that runs counter to your theological/economic articles of faith. Your unwillingness to do so, pretty much ever, discredits you as a partner in dialogue.
All you Republicans have been believing your own plausible deniability and industry-manufactured lies for so long that you don’t know what to do when your rhetorical strategies fail. You think you can lie and bully others into submission.
Well, guess what: we have peer-reviewed science on our side, and we’re going to bludgeon you over the heads with it and win the political victory of changing our energy consumption patterns. True believers (Nathan) and whores for big capital (Econ101) have had your day.
NathanApparently, only the views of combat veterans who agree with the chicken-little global warming hysteria carry any weight.
Doubtless, when we find a decorated combat veteran, Phd who debunks the “warming” hype, that person will be viewed as mentally damaged by his war experience!
We cant win with these people.
Global Warming is a religion.
Their agenda is not up for debate.
To debate them is to label yourself an uncaring, even suicidal lunatic who wants everyone to burn up!
Think of the logic here: We have families, homes, businesses, investments. Yet, we are willing to let all of that go up in flames because of our greed? Would not the desires of self- interest weigh differently, if only the greenies could make a coherent case?
The Global Warming prophets of doom have excommunicated everyone who disagrees with them.
On this issue, I am glad that there is a “seperation of church and state” because Al Gore is not preaching science.
Over population.
CF”peer reviewed” huh?
Show me even 2 predictions, from your side, that match perfectly?
You can’t.
Try this, dig up predictions from 5 years ago, from 10 years ago, then dig up more recent predictions.
You folks are all over the map!
“DougThe “carbon trading programs” you speak of are a complete fraud.
We will see many people go to jail in the carbon-trading industry, if it ever really gets the legal attention it deserves!”
I don’t see how it’s a fraud since Alaska fisherman have had a system like this for years without trouble. It’s a simple concept really. The American govt. issues a number of credits which companies bid for. Every year the govt. can lower the number of credits it issues encouraging companies to become more efficient. How is this a fraud that people have gone to jail for especially since our govt. doesn’t have this plan in effect?
Perhaps this is another case of you not knowing what you are talking about.
Many years ago I became interested in OISM when I ‘learned’ that one of the members of my thesis committee (Nobel Laureate Bill Libby) was involced. I thought it would be VERY interesting to be involved with an entity involved in independent research for research sake.
However, when I asked Libby about it I learned that he was NOT involved and they subsequently retracted their claim about that. And, as time went by, I found that OISM was not really much of anything – has no research of any kind.
“The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as “a small research institute” that studies “biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging.” ”
Sounded very interesting. However, it is not that at all:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
Can’t post more than this because of DSL
Unfortunately, having DSL means sometimes you can’t upload, so I have been out of the mix.
Another expert that doubts the Global Warming fanatics:
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
What’s the matter with DSL?
Nathan, it did appear you attacked my patriotism by your statement. You are wrong on that assertion. I won’t go into my past, as it has been on display before.
Doug,
Even in the IPCC the “Cargon Trading” program is ridiculed. If you want to eliminate Carbon emissions, you cannot “trade” those emissions from countries that do not produce any carbon emissions to “sell” to other countries. It is just a rip off and we will continue to use carbon.
THE REAL answer is to allow the populations to be paid at the same rate that the corperations CHARGE for energy. The infrastructure is built and maintainsed with Taxpayer funds for the most part and the taxpayer replaces these in times of disasters anyway, so “power generators” should get equal access to the net so to speak. Small producers “home owners” as well as the larger power companies. There is no reason in the world not to allow this other than protecting the power generation companies.
Another issue is IF CO2 is causing this “global warming” which I personally do not believe, CHINA is the problem, and are the ones holding up the IPCC anyway. CHINA was the one that wanted different language, however the US got named as well, and thrown with CHINA, even though we agreed with almost everything anyway!!!
We still have not quantified WHAT causes global climatic change, whether it is cow farts, and swamps putting off more GHG’s, or if it is solare radiation cycles, which are at their highest activity over the last 200 year corresponding DIRECTLY to the increase in temp.
Further the temp will not just go UP. If will cycle between 2 extremes as nature always does before settling into the new equlibrium. Termodynamics and the biological principals both show that tendency. Nothing just goes to a different state without a few stages in tween. Remember evolution?
As for having the UN in charge of this tax, that is just palin dumb. THE UN is populated by a lot of little countries that thinks the US is to hand over sovereignty and money to them on a silver platter, whild theyu (the little countries) remain polluted, dictatorships, and deny human rights. OUr former UN Sec> Coffee’s country Ghana, was one of those, but old Koffee could lawy wht wood and clander to the ole US of A.
That has to stop. The little countries to do more as well.
What I would like to do is answer your questions:
1. If the Earth is warming, is that bad?
Yes, if it is caused by greenhouse gases. They tend to make the ocean much more acidic than it is now. Plankton can’t live in acidic water, so the main source of food for the ocean inhabitants would disappear, along with the majority of the ocean dwellers. Major problem for us as many countries rely on the ocean for food. .
2. If it is bad, how bad?
See above. Plus, the food belt will radically move, causing many nations to scramble for food, which could easily lead to territorial wars, including the United States, Mexico and Canada.
If global warning is real, mark my words: it can and will happen.
Great post, Clark, on all the excuses the denyosaurs put forward.
Mega dittos, CF.
Global warming is really too complex to argue about with the dixie cups and string of this WEB log.
So Nathan et al. are being wholly disingenuous when they argue that “we refuse to argue the merits.”
But to boil it down to the simple facts: sunlight is short-wave length energy. Short-wave lengths punch through things like walls. That’s why your cell phone works better designed at 900 MHz than it would at 45KHz. That’s why ham radio guys bounce their signals all around the world using wave-lengths that are 80 meters from the top of the sine to the top of the sine wave.
Now when those short-wave sunrays hit earth or water, they heat the object up. Heat waves are long-waves. They bounce back in the atmosphere so the average temp of the earth is a nice live-giving 58 degrees F.
When we make the atmosphere thicker, we make it harder for the heat to escape to outer space. Consider Venus. It’s atmosphere is so thick that the surface temperature is hot enough to melt lead.
This is what earth would look like if we continue to reverse the carbon sequestration that has been going on for hundreds of millions–yes, that right, Nathan and Hank–hundreds of millions of years.
We burn coal and oil sequestered in the ground for geologic epochs and thus thicken the blanket that has kept us at an ideal temperature for human life since the last ice age.
*****
That’s the theory in a nutshell.
Alternative energy is a good idea whether one “believes” in global warming or not.
The only people who don’t like it are fossil fuel providers and their hired idiots-for-pay, the Republican Party.
3. What is causing it?
A combination of natural cycle and greenhouse gases. Approximately 6% of the gases in the atmosphere are caused by man. We need to reduce that and more, if possible.
4. If we are causing it, how much are we actually contributing to the problem?
See above.
3. What is causing it?
A combination of natural cycle and greenhouse gases. Approximately 6% of the gases in the atmosphere are caused by man. We need to reduce that and more, if possible.
4. If we are causing it, how much are we actually contributing to the problem?
See above.
Dyler Turden–
You forgot to put on your tin-foil hat.
5. If we are going to fix it, what are the REASONABLE and WELL THOUGHT OUT measures to doing so?
Reduce the carbon footprint of man to a net zero, or as close as possible to that. We can do that by alternative, renewable energy grids, of which corn based Ethanol is not one of them due to its water loving nature. But that’s a slightly different problem.
Want more?
“that match perfectly?”
Paul – show me any prediction of an economist that “MATCHES PERFECTLY”.
I have given some thought to the phrase “do you believe in … ” For example, do I believe in Merrill Teller when he does the weather forcast? Definitely theologically. He is NOT God, nor is he a Prophet. But when he says a tornado is on the way I check where my grandchildren are!
Same with my family Doctor. Although he is a good Catholic I do not view him as some sort of emmissary from God. But, when he says ‘do something about your cholesterol’ I consider him knowledgeable.
So it is with my view of my fellow scientists. They are NOT Gods, nor are they Prophets. However, they ARE knowledgeable in their fields. So, I “believe in them” in the same context that I “believe in” the local weather guy or my Doctor. Not as religion; simply as the best explanations we have of our observations of daily life.
And yes, fossil fuel based energy should be environmentally taxed. And yes, this tax should be applied world wide where practical, with the tax being used to control pollution in third world countries.
That is not selling out America, but attempting to save a planet for future generations. That includes your future children
And for a decorated soldier to another, calling me “chicken little” is about as disingenuous as it gets. You are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. My care for future generations hardly falls in the category of “chicken little”.
However, your unwillingness to look at the science behind the findings indicating global warming has at its core some man-made elements makes me wonder where your head is.
“What’s the matter with DSL?”
Ed, it’s all about the phone connection, from the switchgear to your phone.
CapnAmerica,
You assume that the earth is some lab with a controlled environment where if we keep adding things to it in millions of years things will be bad.
Do you know how preposterous that is?
The Earth is a complex thing with many variables.
We can hardly predict what the weather will be next week with certainty yet you sit here and act like you can say what it will be like millions of years from now?
Internalizing what are now external costs asociated with energy sources will dramatically change the economics of their use. For example; there are a number of costs with coal use that are borne by neighboring communities to strip mines, coal plants, etc. Internalize those costs and they would then be borne by those who benefit from it.
With nuclear (which I favor) the situation is more complex. Many costs that have already been incurred with weapons production can now be considered “sunk costs” if we now “recycle” obsolete warheads and depleted uranium into fuel for reactors. Then the future costs (maintainence, waste storage, etc) become more manageable.
Wind has external costs that must be considered; however they are more difficult to quantify. How do you value a view? Thus siting becomes a major variable.
Hank – if you are “lurking” – a question. How much do you know about shipboard reactors? I wonder about new ’small reactor’ designs for use near population centers.
So let’s get this straight. Republicans who do not believe in global warming do so because this theory brings no chance to make a profit? And no respecting Republican would ever admit to his people adding to or causing a problem with pollutants – right?
So if we could come up with a way for the few Republicans to make millions off global warming, then we would have that patriotic bunch eager to jump in there and save our planet. Is this the gist of it?
The real religion of Republicans is money, always has been and always will be.
The arrogance of the left always surprises me. As if we had the power to “fix” such a problem. I remember:Mount St. Helen- scientist and envro-nazi’s assured us it would take centuries to heal the scarred landscape. It of course didn’t. The earth has been going through such cycles for a very long time. It really does know what it’s doing. We as people are insignificant (which really drives these people nuts- they aren’t even remotely in charge here.)Exxon Valdez- even more than the above this was touted as one of the worst environmental disasters to happen EVER. Although assisted by people, the earth again managed to clean itself up. Would some animals have died without human intervention. Sure. Animals everyday die without human intervention. It’s called survival of the fittest, and it happens everyday.
Millions of years from now, Nathan?
I have no idea.
But I do know that when you’re trying to sleep and you are too hot, you don’t put on another blanket.
That’s what we’ve been doing for the past 150 years, and the effects are already obvious.
Sean–
The survival of the fittest may soon include humans.
The earth will always support life.
At the rate we’re going now, however, it may not easily support HUMAN life.
Capn: Where to start? Someone has to challenge your assertions.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/terra/changing_global_cloudiness.htm
From the above NASA article:
“Measurements made in the 1980s by NASA’s Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) satellite demonstrated that clouds have a small net cooling effect on the current global climate.”
To compare sunlight with radio waves is also erroneous. Otherwise, why would sunlight not penetrate walls? We would never have shade. A majority of the heat energy from sunlight would be reflected by clouds on a cloudy day. A net cooling effect
And comparing Venus with the Earth and drawing conclusions about the effect of cloud cover is not even remotely valid. Mercury is pretty hot too. How much cloud cover does it have?
But you are right when you say that global warming is complex. But please; lets try to stay remotely close to demonstrable fact in your arguments. .
Sean complains about “arrogance.”
What can be more arrogant that populating the most invasive species on earth–humans–to an unsustainable 7 BILLION and then claiming that it has no impact on the global environment?
“– or about an extra $1 for a gallon of gas.”
Is this what the GW Lefty/Hystericals call affordable?Who would get hit the hardest?The po’ folk. The same folk the Libs “say” they want to help.
outlander–
The mechanism by which light waves and radio waves are reflected or not has to do with wave-length.
That’s why the sky is blue, by the way.
It’s an analogy.
Venus is hot enough to melt lead at the surface because its atmosphere is so thick.
Mars is very cold (on the average) because its atmosphere is so thin.
These basic causes and effects are not in dispute and are very good illustrations for what can happen on earth if we don’t protect the only atmosphere we’ve got.
“an unsustainable 7 BILLION”
Sez who? There is plenty of room, plenty of resources.
Joe Williams,
“Oregon petition project was signed by… who don`t agree with the idea that we are causing climate change.”
You have a reading problem.
The old, 1999 text said:(emphasis added)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause CATASTROPHIC HEATING of the Earth’s atmosphere and DISRUPTION of the Earth’s climate.”
A person CAN believe that humans are causing “climate change”, and problems, — but not “CATASTROPHIC HEATING” and “DISRUPTION” (like Venus?).
There IS very strong scientific evidence that humans are causing climate change.http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
But Joe Williams uses a poorly worded opinion poll to try to deny the science.
Here’s a ROFL point about the OISM petition,
‘Art RobinsonMisleading scientist’http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1067“Oregon petition and big tobacco”It’s interesting to note that Fred Sietz, the author of the cover letter is also the former medical advisor to RJ Reynolds medical research program. A 1989 Philip Morris memo stated that Seitz was: “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.”However, 9 years later, it seems that he was “sufficiently rational” to lead the charge on Robinson’s Oregon Petition.”
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/12/oregon-deception-project.html
“good illustrations for what can happen on earth if we don’t protect the only atmosphere we’ve got.”
EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!! CAPN SEZ SO!!!!
So now we scientists are Nazis again. Thanks seanmahair for taking the discourse to an even lower level.
Godwin’s Law: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.[1]”
There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically “lost” whatever debate was in progress.”
So, a couple of days ago it was Joe Williams using the Nazi tactic; today it is seanmahair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_Law
Sean,The arrogance of the right never fails to surprise me. They run lockstep with anything that defines, and can bring, profit.
Please provide a link to your claims about, “Mount St. Helen- scientist and envro-nazi’s assured us it would take centuries to heal the scarred landscape.”
I don’t remember that at all, and I lived in California at the time. What I remember was just the opposite: Most predictions saying nature would heal itself quickly.
There are still problems associated with the Exxon spill, and will be for some time to come. A recent show on discovery listed the problems, which included oil still contaminating the rocky shoreline. But that probably doesn’t bother you as much as the loss of money due to the loss of oil.
Fleetwood–
There’s no way to estimate the cost of green energy on gasoline.
If we paid the true cost of gasoline, gov’t subsidies for roads and paying for the military to intervene in oil-rich sheikdoms everytime there’s a political crisis (Gulf War, Iraq War, etc.), gas would be much more expensive too.
If everyone drove a Prius, you’d expect the price of gas to go down, wouldn’t you?
So, Fleet, what would you do, just continue to deny that pollution and fossil fuels do not harm the environment? Pretend it doesn’t exist and even if it does, it’s good for us?
What is your solution other than to make ridiculous statements?
By the way, if we can give grants and credits to oil companies, we can give credits to low income people to off-set the costs of responsible energy use.
Fleettwood is the Aztec king who said, “pay no attention to those Spanish boat things out there in the harbor . . . “
So now we scientists are Nazis again. Thanks seanmahair for taking the discourse to an even lower level.
Godwin’s Law: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.[1]”
There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically “lost” whatever debate was in progress.”
So, a couple of days ago it was Joe Williams using the Nazi tactic; today it is seanmahair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_Law
So, we have one hundred years of seomwaht reliable temperature data. But how reliable were the thermometers and data recordong around the globe 100 years ago?
So, temperature has risen 1 degree celsius.
Where can I find reliable, non-biased data that says man has caused this?
OOPS! The dreaded double post … compliments of “captcha check”
Paul F. ROSELL,
“Try this, dig up predictions from 5 years ago, from 10 years ago, then dig up more recent predictions.
You folks are all over the map!”
Scientists run multiple models — then give the “standard deviation” and “mean” of the models.
I agree with Mr. ROSELL that the scientists were WRONG on these projections (see graph)
‘Arctic Ice Retreating MORE QUICKLY Than Computer Models Project’http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml“Arctic sea ice is melting at a significantly faster rate than projected by even the most advanced computer models, a new study concludes.”
But their projections of human-caused warming of air and ocean temperatures have been mostly correct.
John Galt – since it has now been established that we scientists are Nazis I guess such data is not available. However, if you are interested in seeing what Nazi science is saying you might start with this and then the links therein:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/education.asp
And, while not directly related, some coverage of Greensburg:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=665&tstamp=200705
Not politicallyrelated but they are both weather.
JohnG.–
The evidence is in. The conclusion is obvious.
The consensus is overwhelming.
The debate about man-made global warming has ended.
You lost.
Get over it.
Paul- a question: If a year ago I had asked you to predict the Dow’s close on May 4 and you had said 13260 I would be calling you a genious today. Never mind that you prediction was not “PERFECT”.
John Galt,
You could read the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ at,http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Then dig into the other reports at that link, if you want more details.
Hey Ben! You never answered the question about the single source you always post, which is Weather Underground.
Which I said that Weather Underground reminds me of the leftist terrorist organization and I ask if your link and the people behind that website affiliated with, somehow under the same flag as or why do they choose to name themselves from a leftist terrorist organization?
Joe,
If you took the time to go to the site, you’d find a page where they say why they chose the name “Weather Underground.”
I never saw your question. I do not know why they ended up with that name; however there is no connection. The terrorist group started with the name Weathermen and morphed into Weathr Underground. The professional meterological organization by the same name is not related in any way.
I find them to be an easy and convenient way to follow all sorts of weather-related stuff all over the place. Since I have relatives all over the countryI can see at a glance what is going on. Some people I know over there contacted me about our current bout of interesting weather.
Right now Florida is also getting hit with storms. Interesting thing is that theirs are going N to S instead of S to N which is typical here.
I would guess that they were trying to come up with a ‘cute’ weather-related name to show that they are independent from the US government weather service. Branding and all that. Something to help them make money; after all they ARE capitalists.
Check these out for some nice photos:
http://www.wunderground.com/wximage/viewimages.html
One thing I like about their site is that it is full of links to other sites (NOAA for example). Thus they are a good ‘portal’ to go elsewhere. They are no more a single source than GOOGLE is.
Of course, since they are scientists I guess that makes them Nazis!
Can you provide that link? Because I cannot find why they choose the same name as a leftist terrorist organization.
Joe,
I found it in under 30 seconds, and it’s not even a site I use. I’m not going to do your homework for you.
“Venus is hot enough to melt lead at the surface because its atmosphere is so thick.”
WRONG, entirely WRONG. Venus is hot for 2 reasons. 1.) it has a molten core that has not cooled yet, and molten cores tend to have “hot” planets, and 2.) Venus is REALLY CLOSE to the sun, and gets FAR more high energy radiation from the sun than the earth gets. IN FACT, some solar promonences actually intersect the orbits of mercury and venus.
You have to know what you are talking about
That’s cool! Nothing wrong with the site. Just whenever I see it just reminds me of it.
It’s like naming an organization like the New Association of Zoological International or better known as NAZI’s.
Just could have used a better choice I guess. ;)
Thanks Tom – I had missed that on their site.
“The growing Internet weather program was given the name “The Weather Underground”, a tongue-in-cheek reference to the 1960’s radical group that also originated at the University of Michigan.”
So, no ‘real’ connection; a ‘tongue-in-cheek’ (bad) joke.
I tenf to spend my time there looking at maps etc; not so much at personalities.
Well Tom! Since you cannot provide the link, I will have to call BS on you.
Joe,
BS on what? I took no position on why they chose the name “Weather Underground,” I didn’t defend it or attack it, I didn’t explain it, excuse it, or even describe it. All I did was point out to you that if you really cared, you could go to their site and find the explanation yourself.
Spend a little less time attacking, and a little more time listening, and doing your own research.
Thanks.
OK! Found it! Sorry about that Tom!
But I guess I’m right! They did name their site from the Leftist Terrorist Organization. Wow!
And they are proud of it.
Tyler – Venus’ core has little to do with its surface temperature. It’s closeness to the sun is part of it; it’s atmosphere the rest.
“Since both earth and Venus experience a greenhouse effect, why do the surface temperatures of Venus reach 475C (900F) when earth is very hositible? The answer is that carbon dioxide, which is a main contributorto the greenhouse effect, makes up 97 percent of the Venusian atmosphere …
Venus does not possess living organisms or a mechanism capable of removing atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
Earth Science, Tarbuck and Lutgens, page 618, Macmillan Publishing, 1994.
I guess you do not understand the “tongue-in-cheek”reference, Joe.
Grow up or end up like a fleettwood.
“JohnG.–
The evidence is in. The conclusion is obvious.
The consensus is overwhelming.
The debate about man-made global warming has ended.
You lost.
Get over it.”
Sorry Cap’n, but if it is settled we could figure our the energy balances ot the radiation that is coming into earth and classify the degree of that raditaion, and how much is trapped.
In science we have “proofs” and “Theories”. Like the Religious Right doesn’t understand about Scientific “Theories”, and those idiots that wanted to drop Evolution as Science in our classrooms. Point being that these “Theories” and “proofs” are not done on “consensus”.
If the Science stood up AND if the know phenomenom were measured and cataloged, then determinations can be made on “thoery” and “proof”, but not on “Consensus”. IT was “consensus” that Blacks had inferior intellect to whites. IT is “Theory” that intellect is independent of race.
It is my opinion that the total degree of the sun’s influence and the solar cyles have a much greater effect on than man made effects on climate.
TBS, I am all for alternative energy, provided it is correct. The Hybrid cars for instance that are all the rage, are harder on our environment to produce than what a HUMMER does throughout it’s life. THE BATTERIES are the problem and ethanol is not much better. What we need is more fuel efficient autos. or electric cars powered by Wind, solar and nuke electric generation.
I also believe that the only way to offset all the oil and coal use is to let the consumer have tax breaks on good solid energy efficient and energy production technology at 100% of cost.
IF you think Global warming or energy conservation is TRULEY an issue …. then a 100% tax break is the way to grow. We want to grow the alternatives and not the government. We want to grow the self sufficiency and not the government.
AND we certianly do not want to pay the UN for the privilige!!!
My opinion of the name – I think it was stupid of them to adopt it. They obviously took too many science classes in college; they should have taken a communications class. Then they would be experts in EVRYTHING!
“The Hybrid cars for instance that are all the rage, are harder on our environment to produce than what a HUMMER does throughout it’s life.”
Care to substantiate that with anything?
You don’t see the irony of it Clark.
It’s like calling your self Al Qaeda and selling Nachos.
Just a poor choice of words to name yourself.
Ben! I believe because to produce a Hybrid undergoes a series of production steps and components that are made for the Hybrid are coming from all over the world being transported by ship and plane, basically having a huge carbon footprint than a Hummer.
I’ll try to find the research article on it.
Here is a quick search of one.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/study-a-hybrid-consumes-more-energy-in-lifetime-than-a-hummer.html
But I’ve seen one that was really detailed. A researcher tracked down every single component of a Hybrid vs the Hummer. Down to the factory in which it was produces or assembled and where it went from there.
The debate about Global Warming is hardly over. Especially the part on how to approach the problem. I for one never denied Climate Change. I just say that there is more than meets the eye here and I think nature is so huge as compared to man, that man’s influence is very tiny.
We still need to look for alternative fuels and sources.
La Brea Tar Pits – Natural WonderExxon Oil Spill – Man-made disaster
Two Atomic Bombs explode in Japan – The end of manThousands of Volcanoes explode during the history of the earth – natural occurrence.
The Blizzard of 1996 was a nor’easter that paralyzed the U.S. East Coast with up to four feet (1.2 m) of wind-driven snow over a three-day period from January 6-8 in 1996.
= Must be a weather anomaly in the so-called GW period.
Percentages can be deceiving. GW alarmists say X percent increase or xx percent ocean rise or xx percent decrease in glacier surface decline.
What is the deception about this is that the rise in temperature is minutely small and the difference between the highest temperatures recorded in the 20th century (2006 and 1931) are about .38 degrees.
Percentage in ocean rise is calculated in centimeters (2.5 cm to the inch) rather than the GW Alarmist values of feet. They speculate on a worst case scenario with a 20 feet ocean level rise. This would take centuries if it were even possible, which it is not as the cyclic change will cool the earth as it balances itself.
Glaciers reducing in size… No kidding, Glaciers do this since day 1 of the Ice Ages. The UN propagandist display this by measuring declining Glaciers, but fail to mention the ones that grow.
Melting ice flows in the Antarctic a seas will cause a sea level rise? Absolutely false… The ice flows are already floating in the water. Don’t believe this won’t cause a sea level rise? Take a glass of water, put ice in it and let the ice melts. See if your glass of water over flows. It won’t… and neither will the ice flows around around Antarctica cause a sea level rise.
Scientists are just now finding out that plant roots emit CO2 is massive quantities. huh? Where is this mentioned in the IPCC report – it isn’t.
The propagandist paper writers at the UN are not Scientists. They take the research of Scientists and “re-word” it to make it sound more dramatic.
The real scientific never ever conclude that they are certain or have high probability that some climate event will continue to occur. Why? Because they are scientists and won’t make statements about stuff they cannot possibly predict.
Be prepared for energy source change, but don’t buy into the voodoo Science representation of the IPCC Global Warming Alarmists.
I can’t even figure what he is saying – “$2.28 cents per mile”? Is that 2 dollars per mile or 2 cents per mile? He gives no methodology for his conclusions.
“It’s like calling your self Al Qaeda and selling Nachos.”
They “sell” weather, hence the reference to weather in their name.
There is no point in trying to make a political statement out of it – the two organizations are obviously not related.
And only Joe would link AQ to the Weather Underground…
“voodoo Science”
Another example of Godwin’s law practiced by a non-scientist slamming science.
I suppose Joe is just using a varient of his Godwin’s Law approach:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_Law
“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.[1]”
Just change the name …
Is “voodoo science” anything like “voodoo economics?”
Read this folks, another EXPERT who disagrees:
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
Actually voodoo science is accurate after the IPCC non-scientists get a hold of the real scientific papers and translate it into their own words.
No doubt Econ101, Cosmos will find a way to belittle this distinguished Scientist even though he has more knowledge about climate change in his little finger than Cosmos could ever hope for in a lifetime.
“Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?
Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…
A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”
That first 30 feet is also re-radiated. The problem with CO2 is that it extends further up the column. That is how is compounds the absorption.
He is CORRECT that in Milankovitch cycles CO2 FOLLOWS temp rather than the other way around. Milankovitch tiggers an ice-albedo loop that then triggers a CO2 loop. then the whole thing reinforces itself.
I remember the first time i read Milankovitch. I found it very hard to accept that a subtle change in the distribution of solar insolation could cause such large changes in climate. In fact, it was only after going a lot deeper into climatology that it finally made sense.
According to most of what I read on PALEO the climate is much more sesitive than we had thought. That is why such a subtle change in insolation could throw things off like that. It is from studying all those past cycles that we have developed our understanding.
One of Murphy’s Laws:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
So, those who cannot comprehend it label it voodoo.
There was a time that the phonograph was considered magical.
Now DVDs are magic …
Blu-ray, Ben, you’re a step behind.
The avalanche of technology never stops.
Hey Ben,
I was going to point out to you that Paul F. ROSELL’s “expert” uses the “first 30 feet of the atmosphere” to con people, but you beat me to it.
That’s probably one of the funniest pseudo-science deceptions I’ve seen.
It sure is easy to con people like ROSELL…
WSC – Blu-ray is evil … black magic …
Cosmos – I read a long discussion abojut what happened to Paul Gray written by his colleagues. They were vary saddened about it.
The diffuse scattering on dust and gas molecules of radiation is also why the sky is blue speaking of scattering radiation.
Outside the tropics, annual receipts of solar radiation generally decrease with increasing latitude. MINIMUM values occur at the poles. This pattern is primarily the result of Earth-sun geometric relationships and its effect on the duration and intensity of solar radiation received.
- On average 50 percent of incoming radiant energy from the sun is absorbed on the earth’s surface.
-19 percent is absorbed by clouds.
- 20 Percent is reflected by clouds.
- 6 percent is reflected by atmosphere.
- 4 percent gets reflected back by surface.
Only about 70 percent of the 6 percent longwave radiation into the atmosphere is absorbed (a little more than 4 percent.)
Latent heat from scatter radiation can travel hundreds of miles to heat up another area of the earth.
Longwave radiation is the primarily the way the earth is heated.
As the Earth’s temperature would cause the oceans to evaporate greater amounts of water, causing the atmosphere to become cloudier. In other words, the warmer it gets, the more clouds that will be formed.
Clouds cause less solar energy being absorbed at the surface, the effects of an enhanced greenhouse effect can be counteracted simply by cloud formation. This is undeniable.
In recent history Greenland had warmed significantly in the 1920s without the benefit of man-made greenhouse gases.
This is referred to as Northern Annular Mode/North Atlantic Oscillation. This occurred without a significant anthropogenic influence!!!
The 1920s demonstrates that a large and rapid temperature increase can occur overGreenland, and perhaps in otherregions of the Arctic, due to internal climate variability of the Northern Annular Mode/North Atlantic Oscillation.
Sorry folks, they leave out the interesting parts that the heating of regions has already occurred without any assistance from man.
Alarmists…
Republican – no, they haven’t left out the oscillations. Both the NAM/NAO you mention and the better known ENSO.
Sure they did Dr. Huie. Otherwise they would have mentioned that warming occurred in Greenland without the influence of anthropogenic influence.
Why do you think that is? Is it because it doesn’t fit into their theory of Climate Change.
I find all of this exclusion extremely dishonest.
Republican,
“Actually voodoo science is accurate after the IPCC non-scientists get a hold of the real scientific papers and translate it into their own words.”
Looks like Republican believes that he knows more science than Dr’s. Solomon, Alley, et al..
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html‘Technical Summary’ (14.0 MB)http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_TS.pdfCoordinating Lead Authors:Susan Solomon (USA), …
Lead Authors:Richard B. Alley (USA), …—–SOLOMON, SusanCo-Chair, IPCC WGI, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth System Research Laboratory, USAhttp://cires.colorado.edu/people/solomon/
ALLEY, Richard B.http://www.geosc.psu.edu/people/faculty/personalpages/ralley/index.html
It fits in. We know that the North atlantic has been especially volatile due to the influence of the Gulf Stream. We have found that its magnitude can vary due to thermohaline variations. That, in turn, has a regional effect – Greenland, Britain, Europe, and to a lesser extent N America.
However, what we are seeing today is far outside the ‘envelope’ of the oscillation.
This may not be detailed in the lay publications but is all there in the technical ’stuff’
An interesting paper on global warming:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Republican,
I suggest you download the TS and Chpt 3 from,http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Then search for “oscillation”.
Outside the ‘envelope of oscillation’ Dr. Huie?
Isn’t that like explaining snow when the sun is shining as outside weather occurrences?
Perhaps I don’t know more science than the PhD’s that Cosmos mentioned.
What I do know that in the Scientific papers, they seldom refer to probabilities and use terms like might be, could be, maybe or perhaps.
This is a far cry from the absolute certainties that the Global Alarmist keep crying wolf with.
No more than 100 climatescientists are listed among the IPCC report’s signers. Even fewer climate scientists would have been listed as endorsers of the report, however, if they had known their views were going to be misrepresented. Significant changes were made to the report after these scientists endorsed it.
Most of these IPCC endorsers were NOT scientists, but social scientists (i.e. socialengineers), economists, public relations experts and government functionaries.
From the IPCC introductory education modules:
“Climate varies from place to place, depending on latitude, distance to the sea, vegetation, presence or absence of mountains or other geographical factors. Climate varies also in time; from season to season, year to year, decade to decade or on much longer time-scales, such as the Ice Ages. Statistically significant variations of the mean state of the climate or of its variability, typically persisting for decades or longer, are referred to as “climate change”.”
What that means is you can interpret Climate differently depending how long and where you stick a “moist finger” in the air to test it.
It also means, that Climate is relative to decades, multiple decades, centuries and even thousands of years.
What that means to you is when Global Warming alarmists say so and so will occur in the next 10 years…so what! Looking a tiny spike in a decade says absolutely nothing in long term climate change.
“Outside the envelope” means just that. We have seen ranges of conditions that go from “low” to “high”. What we are seeing now is bayond those. For example; CO2 has varied over the past million+ years by about 100 ppm; todays CO2 levels are ANOTHER 100 ppm higher than the top of that range.
Yes, they included many others in the IPCC report; they must do so in order to come up with workable solutions. Nuclear power, for example, is outside of the field of climatology. However, it will likely be a part of the solution.
Republican,
“No more than 100 climate scientists are listed among the IPCC report’s signers.”
I’d estimate over 600 scientists were “Contributors to the IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report”, in the annex at, http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.htmlAnd also a large # of expert reviewers.
And that’s just WG1. Do you want to do a “character assassination” on ALL of them, in ALL groups?
Republican: “Even fewer climate scientists would have been listed as endorsers of the report, however, if they had known their views were going to be misrepresented.”
I didn’t hear that. I only read that scientists had complained that bureaucrats had “watered down” their science during final editing.
So please inform us, and back up YOUR claim, by listing ALL the names of the “endorsers” who complained that their views were “misrepresented”.
And please list the scientists who support your opinion. Hank and Nathan seem unable to list anyone.
Cosmos always wants me to do his work for him if it’s not in his Bible of Global Warming talking points.
Adulteration of facts is misrepresentation or otherwise known as lies.
I’m not giving any Scientist needs for the character assassins to destroy. That is what you do isn’t Cosmos.
You don’t have a clue about science, but somehow you anoint yourself as the purveyor of truth.
Just admit that your a journalistic assassin Cosmos and be done with it.
Or you can remain hidden and totally held as unbelievable because you flaunt the work of others.
You have nothing to show anyone Cosmos. Maybe you should go back to school and get your high school degree, so you won’t have to use so many hyperlinks.
Well. I see the Right Wing Google hacks keep restocking the smorgasboard of deliberate stupidity, again and again.
And, as cosmos correctly points out, their wont over these last thirty years consists largely of character assassination, ad hominem attacks, and false analogies.
Y’all are intellectual hacks who are out of your depth. Way out, in fact. Witness, for example, Republican’s uncredited use of the following website in his 6:24 PM post.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Earth’s_energy_balance
When I call you a liar and a hack, Republican, who is unqualified to discuss anything other than his own dishonesty and hackwork, I’m sure you’ll understand why.
The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
Yep, social scientists every one. Ya really got it going on, republicant.
Republican,
So you are unable to back up YOUR claim at 7:40 PM that the IPCC reports “misrepresented” the views of some scientists?
And you admit that the people who push your opinion are unable to withstand scientific scrutiny.
And you AGAIN falsely attack my education, and profession.
Thank you very, very much for proving that I’m right, and you’re wrong.
I was surprised to hear the other day, that an area the size of Kansas is cleared in rain forest every year. One would have to think that might have a global impact.
steve – it does. Changes in rainfall patterns in Amazonia have an even larger impact.
The sad irony is that laterite soils are quite weak (unlike prairie for example) and agriculture tends to be short-lived.
Ben,
There you go, flaunting that “expertise” again! Just because you have a terminal degree and a couple dozen peer-reviewed publications, you think you’re so smart!
Sorry, Ben; the stupidity ’round these parts has been, well, a bit contagious.
Here’s the real statements from the three organizations that CF2K references:
From the American Meteorological Society Council
The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability” (National Research Council 2001a).
Let me repeat that…
“…we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability”
“Water vapor feedback is the most important positive feedback: warm air can hold more water vapor, which is itself a natural greenhouse gas. Albedo feedback in regions of surface ice cover is also an important positive feedback resulting from increasing surface absorption of solar radiation as ice cover decreases. Some of these processes remain poorly understood and difficult to measure and model, and thus require continued research.”
While there is general agreement among the various climate system models that significant global warming will occur in the next 50 years, many crucial details of magnitude, timing, and specific regional responses-especially for hydrological variables, such as precipitation-are still very much in doubt.
In other words, they don’t know.
The relationship between climate change and many crucial aspects of these events is poorly understood and research in this area is exacerbated by the dearth of reliable climatologies of these episodic phenomena.
In other words, they don’t understand it.
Only a portion of natural climate variability is predictable, and the inherent degree of predictability is not yet well understood.
They still don’t understand how it all works.
Extensive multidisciplinary research is needed to narrow the many formidable knowledge gaps.
Oh! So, the science is not complete! How interesting!
The American Geophysical Union
“The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur, exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take place.”
Or is Frame looking at things that might go wrong with anthropogenic contributions, more severe than what’s happened in the deep past, and James looking at the longterm climate record, so they’re disagreeing by choosing different original facts and assumptions?
…Or credible American Geophysical Union societies coming up with different conclusions.
“nobody really knows what the hell would happen, what sort of tipping points & “feedback loops” would come into play etc.”
“…nobody really knows what to expect in a future climate that has risen a few degrees (”clathrate guns” may pop up etc).
So after reading all these responses from the Scientists in these organizations, one thing stood out:
Climate Science is not clearly understood.
To me, that means there is clearly not a consensus. These three organizations represent over 100,000 Scientists.
So CF2K, what now?
I remember living in Oregon, and driving down the I-5 many times. For a several-mile zone around Albany, home of a paper plant, the otherwise pleasant experience was spoiled by odors of hydrogen sulfide and mercaptan emitted by a paper plant.
We also looked at some really nice homes just east of Portland whose prices seemed unexplainably low, but for one thing: the noxious smell being emitted and carried across the Columbia by a Washington paper mill.
They were using sulfur-containing chemicals to break down wood to paper pulp. They could have installed emissions-prevention technology, but didn’t want to make the expensive investment.
People didn’t like the noxious fumes, but the paper companies threatened plant closures and thousands of jobs terminations. They used fear tactics. The interesting thing is, they were COSTING people tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in property-value reduction. In other words, the paper plants were sited on relatively small pieces of property, but their spewings polluted multiple-times their own property.
This is true on large scales. The communities of eastern Los Angeles County, along with San Bernardino and Riverside Counties have lovely natural climate. Without the smog generated by western LA County, their property values would be much higher. Plus they have and other Americans have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars annually for asthma and emphysema medical-treatment costs.
In Hawaii, sugar cane field burning generates tens of millions of dollars annually in asthma-treatment costs. I know this because my wife treated the victims.
Pollution has high costs that pollution producers haven’t traditionally had to pay for. They’ve just cost-shifted things to others to pay for.
Perhaps Oregon taxpayers should help pay for paper mills’ toxic air-pollution elimination. Perhaps Hawaiians and U.S. taxpayers should pay for research and subsidization of sugar cane plants to biofuels conversion, or composting to make fertilizer.
On global warming, the use of combustable minerals to make cheap fuel is an 18th-19th century idea. Maybe it’s time to think different.
Yes, Republican, it is complex. Even to us scientists. However, as has been noted time and time again, we DO understand enough to take needed action.
I doubt that my doctor really understands 100% of everything we are doing in regards to my health. However I DO listen to him. He spent a lot of time learning to be a damn good doctor; that is what I pay him for! And, I believe that I will live a longer and healthier life as a result.
Dr. Huie and it’s always a good plan if your are diagnose with a serious illness to get a second opinion. I’ve known several cancer patients after getting the grim news from their Physician, went on to get treatment and living normal lives.
According to Cosmos no one else can be correct or have a different opinion, even the 100,000 Scientists that were previously referenced.
We have second, third, fourth … opinions. Many more in fact …
“So after reading all these responses from the Scientists in these organizations, one thing stood out:
Climate Science is not clearly understood.”
Correct, to a point. The one thing all these societies of scientists agree on is: global warming is happening, and man is adding to the problem. So while it is happening, the likes of flee, repube, et al, will stick their noses in the air, put on rose colored glasses, and call anyone who disagrees with them “chicken littles”.
Never mind it is possibly the future on man at stake; hell they’ll be dead and gone and it’s only their kids that will be left to fend for themselves as this species fights for survival.
I really hope they are correct that global warming will do nothing, but science tells me otherwise. Unfortunately, I probably won’t be around to say I told you so.
Okay J M Walker, name calling is it. Your credibility is zero now by not addressing my name correctly. What a low life move.
I said before many times Climate Change is occurring. What I disagree with is that man-made contribution is not as great as the Alarmists make it out to be.
Yes Republican, we are all aware you are ignoring the science and you believe all this extra CO2 just appears like magic. Do you still put your teeth under the pillow waiting for the tooth fairy?
Hey Doug – do you always speak out your ass or is that a ventriloquist act?
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth’s greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor).
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics
Percent of all greenhouse Gas -3.618%Percent Natural – 3.502%Percent Man-made – 0.117%
Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources (CO2,CH4,N2O, CFC’s, etc.) the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).
Even if imposed equally on ALL countries around the world, this would only reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035 percent.
This is far less than the natural variability of Earth’s climate system of gas emissions.
The Alarmist leave out of all of their Computer Models that water vapor accounts for 95 percent of all greenhouse gases.
Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect — perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth’s total greenhouse effect. The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other “minor greenhouse gases.
There has been some claim we are ignoring “self-evident” positive feedbacks, which we’d be delighted to highlight if only someone could point to any such empirical measure. The bottom line, however, is that the IPCC estimates a trivial 0.6 °C ± 0.2 °C warming during the Twentieth Century and both the GHCN-ERSST Data Set and the HadCRUT2v Data Set record the period of the 19-teens through mid-1940s as having a global trend of +0.13 °C/decade for a net warming of 0.45 °C — leaving a mere 0.15 °C ± 0.2 °C net warming potential for the post-WWII period of significant carbon emission from fossil fuel use. It is evident, to us at least, that if positive feedback mechanisms exist (entirely plausible) then their effect is negligible or mitigated by negative feedback mechanisms (equally plausible). Unlike modelers, who alter their virtual worlds at whim, we can only measure what the world actually does, and there simply isn’t room in the measured change for the existence of significant unmitigated positive feedbacks.
- The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
- The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century – perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.
- There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend — global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
Water vapor and carbon dioxide are major greenhouse gases. Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%. Much of the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide is active are either at or near saturation. Water vapor absorbs infrared over much the same range as carbon dioxide and more besides. Clouds are not composed of greenhouse gas — they are mostly water droplets — but absorb about one-fifth of the longwave radiation emitted by Earth. Clouds can briefly saturate the atmospheric radiation window (8-13µm) through which some Earth radiation passes directly to space (those hot and sticky overcast nights produce this effect – that is greenhouse but has nothing to do with carbon dioxide). Greenhouse gases can not obstruct this window although ozone absorbs in a narrow slice at 9.6µm. Adding more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated bandwidths has no net effect. Adding them in near-saturated bands has little additional effect.
It is estimated if we did everything that the Global Warming alarmists wanted us to do, we would reduce the temperature by 1/20th of a degree by the year 2050.
Meanwhile, the fat cats of the Environmental Religious Left would have made trillions of dollars of personal wealth.
CARBON CREDITSorHow to trade in Hot Air.
Considering the US emissions based on CDIAC data:
Atmospheric persistence is derived from CDIAC’s calculated 173.6/441.5 or roughly 39.32% persistence in the atmosphere (that means the atmospheric carbon increment, 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv x 2.13 Gt = 173.595, divided by the calculated carbon emission over the period 1850-2000 — the calculated emission is made up of land-use changes: 154 Gt; fossil fuel use: 282 Gt; cement manufacture: 5.5 Gt, so 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5).
The offset as carbon dioxide we converted to carbon (input x 12/44 since the atomic weight of carbon is 12 and oxygen is 16, thus carbon (12) + O2 = 12 + 32 means CO2 = 12 + 16 + 16 = 44).
The cost per degree is merely the dollar value that you input divided by the offset you provided (converted to metric ton) and then multiplied by the number of tons required to ’save’ one degree in a nominated scale.
Since the US hasn’t bowed down to the UN and the Kyoto Treaty, they would want to put costs in the penalty phase which would be about $125.00 /metric ton.
Now while the US is paying for these Carbon Credit, you might ask yourself when will I see an effect?
Your effort, along with the entirety of the US requires zero emissions for 70-120 years to ‘prevent’ 1 °C warming.
It’s the world’s biggest scam ever developed.
Save your money or direct it to some useful purpose, like maybe addressing malaria and lack of potable water, sanitation and development in the third world — most anything would be better than giving it to con artists and hot air sellers.
It seems multi-named persons here don’t like their names miss used, so my credibility is shot. REPUBLICAN, or whatever name-o-the-day you are using now, you shot your credibility in the foot every time you post, so who freakin cares what you think. Don’t like what I write? Don’t read it. Hell, I’ll probably only sleep eight hours worrying about it.
Psst…don’t read this:
So far, what repub has posted comes down to the almighty dollar. Sounds like the typical republican stratagy to me: If it’s going to cost money, don’t do it.
Republican,
You’re an idiot. I didn’t refer to any scientific organizations: J M Walker did at 9:13 PM.
I know better than to try to argue in an area that’s outside of my expertise. That’s why my criticisms of your views were specifically epistemological and logical/rhetorical.
How many peer-reviewed scientific publications do you have on your curriculum vitae, Republican?
hee hee hee CF. I recall JM/Republican saying something about liberal “acid breath”. heheheheeheheh. He might have plaigerized it, but I think instead…
…he should just enter the annual “Bad Hemmingway” writing contest. He’d be a sure winner!
How many peer-reviewed scientific publications do you have on your curriculum vitate, CF2K? Or for that matter, how many does Cosmos have?
Another contribute nothing to the thread post by ksfarmgrrl. What a surprise – not.
J M Walker doesn’t understand that the GW Alarmist is all about money as well. They just disguise under the “consensus science.” What a wonderful term, it means absolutely nothing and is the antithesis of what science really is. That is, to be independent without political influence.
It is corrupted science now, tainted by the GORACLE.
In the 1970’s, humans realized that climate change could cause severe problems, such as widespread famines.
So governments worldwide wisely funded massive amounts of scientific research on the issue.
Three decades later, Republican labels the results of their work “voodoo science”.
Republican does an implicit “character assassination” on the huge # of scientists, whose peer-reviewed science shows that humans are causing GW.
But he hypocritically attacks anyone who points out the errors and deceptions used by the very small # of GW skeptics.
Instead of the very detailed, peer-reviewed science at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html Republican relies (3:30 AM post) on deceptive, inaccurate sites like http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
That site relies on a few skeptics, such as Tim Patterson http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Patterson
and Pat Michaels http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Michaels
Republican,
“How many peer-reviewed scientific publications do you have on your curriculum vitate,…?”
WHY are you unable to understand that it’s about the science, and not the person doing the science?
Republican doesn’t understand science, only propaganda. He’ll go to great lengths to find one scientist who goes against the mainstream and conclude (just like creationists) that one scientist’s opinion is better than a collection of scientific fact.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html
There’s not a scientific bone in Cosmos body. He’s a pure socialistic puppet of Al Gore.
‘Political Corruption of the IPCC Report?Changes in the Final Text of the “Summary for Policy Makers” ‘http://www.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global%20Dynamics/IPCC/index.htm
The last section sums up how the bureaucrats weakened the science in the SPM.
‘The Politico-Economic Repression of Climate Science’”It has moved ground to the denial of amplifying feedback, acceleration of climate change, non-linearity in system behaviour and potential feedback-driven instability.”
Republican,
You obviously cannot defend your attacks on the large # of climate scientists who say that humans are causing GW — so you make a “strawman” of Al Gore, and do unsupportable attacks on him, and me.
Thank you for again proving that the facts and science do NOT support your opinions.
You obviously can’t defend anything either Cosmos without resorting to a hyperlink.
Thanks for proving again that you are what you are, a Socialist propagandist.
Strawman your new word Cosmos? The only mainstream around is your copycat tactics of socialistic European countries.
Try and defeat what I wrote Cosmos. You can’t because you don’t understand the science. If you don’t have a handy hyperlink to reference it is outside of your ability.
Republican is a commie.
See, it makes just as much sense when I say it.
Republican,
“Try and defeat what I wrote Cosmos.”
You “wrote”? You mean like the parts of your 3:30 and 3:52 AM posts you copy/pasted from various sites, like http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ ?
That’s plagiarism. You attack me for using “hyperlinks”, but you do copy/pastes, and claim that you wrote it.
You’re so gullible and science-challenged you don’t even realize that Milloy is conning you with pseudo-science.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Milloy
Republican: “The only mainstream around is your copycat tactics of socialistic European countries.”
I prefer ‘feebates’, loan guarantees to U.S. automakers for re-tooling costs, various “carrots” to stimulate development, and many other solutions.
Al Gore repeats what the credible scientists say. You’re unable to refute his scientists, so you make Gore a strawman, and attack him instead.
There Cosmos goes again, unable to challenge what I write, but bashes and trashes anything I reference. His history of discrediting people and information sources is way old.
No wonder no one takes him seriously, it’s like a broken record.
Republican,
Your continued insistence that Milloy is a credible scientific source proves that you’re gullible, and clueless about science.
I’ll let scientists debunk Milloy, an advocate for tobacco, oil, and other groups.
‘Fox News gets it wrong’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=85“[Milloy] uses a common ploy of truncating what Thompson said, to ensure that a quotation fits with his message. According to Milloy, Thompson said, “Any prudent person would agree that we don’t yet understand the complexities with the climate system.”
But what he actually said was “Any prudent person would agree that we don’t yet understand the complexities with the climate system and, since we don’t, we should be extremely cautious in how much we ‘tweak’ the system.” ”
An example of Milloy’s scientific inaccuracy,http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=22
And Milloy parrots Jaworowski’s CO2 BS,http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/04/the_septics_are_crp_part_xvii.php
ahahhahaha
The non-scientist Cosmos once again bashes more PhD’s that have more science background that Cosmos can hardly imagine.
ahahahahaha
At least Cosmos, I’ve had college level Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Geology, Zoology and Anthropology.
What did you take Cosmos? Tutu Ballet dancing? ahahahaha!
ahahhahaha
The non-scientist Cosmos once again bashes more PhD’s that have more science background that Cosmos can hardly imagine.
ahahahahaha
At least Cosmos, I’ve had college level Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Geology, Zoology and Anthropology.
What did you take Cosmos? Tutu Ballet dancing? ahahahaha!Posted by: Republican | May 07, 2007 at 09:07 PM**************************************************I’m quiet about it Capn because it doesn’t do any good to exercise the length of one’s genitalia or their substitutes over the Internet.
I’m here to discuss the issues unlike you and some others Capn who find a blog more like a chat room where you can act the fool.Posted by: Republican | May 07, 2007 at 04:54 PM**************************************************
Yawn. Well I for one am shocked.
Republican,
The “science background” of Milloy is described here,http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Milloy
Thank you for insisting that Milloy is a more credible climate scientist than Dr. Connelly, and the huge # of other highly credentialed scientists worldwide.
‘Dr William Connolley / Senior Scientific Officer …’http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/biog.html
And thank you for again making false attacks on my education.
Republican’s false personal attacks on me prove how IMPOTENT he is against ALL of those highly credentialed, knowledgeable, and experienced scientists.
That’s right Cosmos, you are so chicken you won’t even give any type of college level courses you may have taken.
But Cosmos, aren’t you the one who has made fun of Dr. Spencer, the former head of NASA’s Satellite program?
Biostatistics degree sounds exactly like the proper degree to analyze the bilge water data you put forth Cosmos.
Oh and Cosmos, it isn’t false personal attacks. :)
Back to my early statements, Cosmos doesn’t have a degree nor has he completed High School.
I can say that because Cosmos won’t put forth his education level. What’s that chicken sound Capn?
I took college chemistry, tested out of physics as an undergraduate, then took statistics and research methodology in grad school.
But you don’t need a college degree in climatology to understand that the evidence is much stronger in one direction than the other.
Nor do you need a college course to see that the oil and gas and coal gazillionares have a vested interest in making sure that the true costs of polluting the environment are never paid.
The only chicken I see is YOU, Republican, hiding behind the non sequitor that the guy with the most college science degrees is the guy who wins the global warming argument.
Hey Republican, how about you also present your science that shows smoking has no connection to lung cancer, the earth is 6,000 years old and the Holocaust never happened? These views are about as popular and scientific as your nonsense that human contribution to increased CO2 in the atmosphere is a myth.
Republican,
“But Cosmos, aren’t you the one who has made fun of Dr. Spencer, the former head of NASA’s Satellite program?”
NOPE!I posted what *OTHER* people said about him.
‘Roy SpencerInterfaith Science Advisor’http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1397
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/roy_spencers_questions_answere.php
Republican: “Back to my early statements, Cosmos doesn’t have a degree nor has he completed High School.”
Thank you for AGAIN making very false, personal attacks on me.
Republican AGAIN proves how IMPOTENT he is against ALL of of the highly credentialed, knowledgeable, and experienced scientists worldwide.
C’mon Cosmos. We all know conservatives are smarter than the rest of us, that’s why we’re winning in Iraq, the budget is balanced, there are no illegal drugs in America and Bush has a 99% approval rating. So naturally Republican must be right on scientific matters too, he has a long track record of being right.
Cosmos breaks every rule the IPCC gives as guidelines when describing uncertainty risk assessment. Not only does he claim that everything written by the IPCC is consensus science, he claims none of it can be denied.
It’s funny how the IPCC says in their uncertainty guidance that these blanket statement should never be done.
Cosmos can’t even follow the rules of his own Alarmist Bible.
Instead, Cosmos relies on the viagara of op-ed pieces written by journalists to pump out false and incomplete data.
Notice how Cosmos refers to peer reviewed reports, but has failed to show even one of them. He relies on the journalistic interpretation which 99 percent of the time leave out the FULL scientific explanation and risk assessments.
This is like explain that there is a fire, but I’m not going to tell you how big, the location and will zoom on a very specific portion of a chart to make it look bigger than it actually is.
This matchstick analogy is a common tactic of the Alarmist. They will strike a match and yell fire! Of course there is fire, but the relative importance and location, circumstances is conveniently left out.
This of course is Cosmos obsession to perform oral gratification acts on op-ed science pieces so that his own personal climax can explode into a fury of self-righteousness.
When shown scientific works by others Cosmos goes flaccid and turns to attack dog mentality because of his inability to understand the science. He is so propaganda driven, he relies solely on the writings of others, blinding feeling his way through the scientific world, denying what the IPCC says about uncertainties must be specified when making reports.
Of course, what would one expect from the Liberal Left attack dogs? Cosmos has found his home of Soros-driven monies op-eds re-interpretations of the actual science.
Not only are Cosmos attempts at explaining science flaccid, he readily admits of having zero scientific background to explain even the very basics of a complex science.
Cosmos points to an op-ed piece like a cat to a dead mouse. It is this flaccid behavior that proves that Cosmos does not have a mind or opinion of his own, but rather relies on the editorial splints to keep himself erect in a scientific world.
Pathetic, Republican, just pathetic.
But what do you expect from a man who obsessively blogs while the rest of us are sleeping with our wives . . .
You should really find a new hobby besides stalking and tormenting cosmos.
And cosmos, you can’t “win” an argument with Republican.
We’ve proven over and over again that Republican posts things that pre-date his arrival here in April and he insists that he has NEVER posted under any other nic.
He’ll just lie and weasel and lie about anything and everything.
On one hand he’ll argue that only ideas, not identities are important. Especially when he’s been caught out as JM again.
Then he’ll turn around and argue that you cosmos can’t know anything because you didn’t take as many science classes as he did.
Not only is it irrelevent, we can’t believe anything he says.
Tormenting you is his idea of fun.
Don’t give him the satisfaction.
Every sentient being knows what kind of a POS he is.
Capn,
Actually, Republican’s contradictions are very amusing.
First, he doesn’t understand the obvious difference between regional and global warming, and falsely claims that IPCC’s scientists ignore ocean oscillations.
Then he insists that tobacco/oil PR flack Milloy is scientifically accurate.
But ironically, Milloy makes scientifically false claims, by ignoring factors such as… wait for it… the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
The guy he defends does what the group he falsely attacked doesn’t do.
It’d be fun to make a flowchart of Republican’s logic(sic), such as attacking me for using links, but doing (unattributed) copy/pastes himself.
‘Senate Committee debates climate change action costs today’http://www.desmogblog.com/senate-committee-debates-climate-change-action-costs-today