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
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
Open thread 10/21
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Oct. 21, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
161 Comments
Does the Kansas Press know how to find IRS 8872 forms online?
Perhaps the Kansas Press should look at the IRS 8872 forms for the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) for this year and ask some questions:
Why did Koch Industries in Wichita give the DGA $35,000 in Jan. and Feb. of this year? Or why did INVISTA from Wichita give the DGA $15,000 on 2/22/2007? Or why did NIC, Inc from Olathe give the DGA a total of $20,375 in March and April 2007?
Why did the DGA pay Sebelius’ former chief of staff Joyce Allegrucci $25,000 on 2/28/2007? Why did the DGA pay Sebelius’ Government Affairs Director, Jeremy Anderson, $10,000 on 2/28/2007? His state job isn’t enough to keep him busy? Is Sebelius and the DGA paying State Senator Laura Kelly’s daughter from Topeka a salary to be a fundraiser for DGA?
Does the Kansas Press know how to find IRS 8872 forms online?
Perhaps the Kansas Press should look at the IRS 8872 forms for the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) for this year and ask some questions:
Why did Koch Industries in Wichita give the DGA $35,000 in Jan. and Feb. of this year? Or why did INVISTA from Wichita give the DGA $15,000 on 2/22/2007? Or why did NIC, Inc from Olathe give the DGA a total of $20,375 in March and April 2007?
Why did the DGA pay Sebelius’ former chief of staff Joyce Allegrucci $25,000 on 2/28/2007? Why did the DGA pay Sebelius’ Government Affairs Director, Jeremy Anderson, $10,000 on 2/28/2007? His state job isn’t enough to keep him busy? Is Sebelius and the DGA paying State Senator Laura Kelly’s daughter from Topeka a salary to be a fundraiser for DGA?
Looks like Meadowlark is trying to create controversy where there is none. When you actually find some criminal activity then it might be worth reading. Until then your yellow journalism belongs on Fox News.
But Doug, that appears to be Meadowlark’s job.. or business.. He cant help him/herself… It is what he/she is capable of doing..
Doug: Did you read the info at your link?
“However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop”
“we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops”
“we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries”
There are “huge scientific uncertainties” — but you “know” I’m wrong?
[Sorry about multiple postings -- I received an error message that the post failed both times.]
Posted by: Kansas Meadowlark | October 21, 2007 at 02:07 AM
“Why” did you post that???
————————-This article left me speechless.
Israel shaken by troops’ tales of brutality against Palestinians
A psychologist blames assaults on civilians in the 1990s on soldiers’ bad training, boredom and poor supervision
Conal Urquhart in JerusalemSunday October 21, 2007The Observer
A study by an Israeli psychologist into the violent behaviour of the country’s soldiers is provoking bitter controversy and has awakened urgent questions about the way the army conducts itself in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.Nufar Yishai-Karin, a clinical psychologist at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, interviewed 21 Israeli soldiers and heard confessions of frequent brutal assaults against Palestinians, aggravated by poor training and discipline. In her recently published report, co-authored by Professor Yoel Elizur, Yishai-Karin details a series of violent incidents, including the beating of a four-year-old boy by an officer.
The report, although dealing with the experience of soldiers in the 1990s, has triggered an impassioned debate in Israel, where it was published in an abbreviated form in the newspaper Haaretz last month. According to Yishai Karin: ‘At one point or another of their service, the majority of the interviewees enjoyed violence. They enjoyed the violence because it broke the routine and they liked the destruction and the chaos. They also enjoyed the feeling of power in the violence and the sense of danger.’In the words of one soldier: ‘The truth? When there is chaos, I like it. That’s when I enjoy it. It’s like a drug. If I don’t go into Rafah, and if there isn’t some kind of riot once in some weeks, I go nuts.’
Another explained: ‘The most important thing is that it removes the burden of the law from you. You feel that you are the law. You are the law. You are the one who decides… As though from the moment you leave the place that is called Eretz Yisrael [the Land of Israel] and go through the Erez checkpoint into the Gaza Strip, you are the law. You are God.’
The soldiers described dozens of incidents of extreme violence. One recalled an incident when a Palestinian was shot for no reason and left on the street. ‘We were in a weapons carrier when this guy, around 25, passed by in the street and, just like that, for no reason – he didn’t throw a stone, did nothing – bang, a bullet in the stomach, he shot him in the stomach and the guy is dying on the pavement and we keep going, apathetic. No one gave him a second look,’ he said.
The soldiers developed a mentality in which they would use physical violence to deter Palestinians from abusing them. One described beating women. ‘With women I have no problem. With women, one threw a clog at me and I kicked her here [pointing to the crotch], I broke everything there. She can’t have children. Next time she won’t throw clogs at me. When one of them [a woman] spat at me, I gave her the rifle butt in the face. She doesn’t have what to spit with any more.
Continued http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2195924,00.html
“There is a difference” I pointed out, “In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare war,”.
“Oh that’s all well and good, but voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders, that is easy.All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of Patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country“.
From an interview conducted by Gustave Gilbert a German speaking intelligence officer and Psychologist given access to Nazi Reich marshal Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp
This article left me speechless.———-YAWN!!!! This article left me bored…
1990’s = Ancient history in the Mideast
There is a difference” I pointed out, “In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare war,”.
“Oh that’s all well and good, but voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders, that is easy.All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of Patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country“.
From an interview conducted by Gustave Gilbert a German speaking intelligence officer and Psychologist given access to Nazi Reich marshal Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp
————–of course that works quite well for almost anything…just say it’s “for the children” or it’s “against global warming” and all the sheeple just fall right in line…
This article left me speechless.———-YAWN!!!! This article left me bored…
1990’s = Ancient history in the Mideast
Posted by: swallow my nickel | October 21, 2007 at 06:02 AM
———————————Than you are a psychopath, you lack empathy.
IF I lack empathy (which of course you have no way of knowing), then I would be a sociopath, not a pscychopath. If you’re going to start name-calling, at least get it right.
Wow — Strange stuff for a Sunday morning… Very strange!!
Of course, they hung Goering for his philosophy, and the actions that occurred because of it…
I wonder what they will do to the idiots in OUR country who are pulling the same thing as Goering advised back then in Nazi Germany??
Fight them there, so we dont have to fight them here. Protect our country from some kind of immminent danger(always imminent danger) — gets the sheeply all overly emotional…
Oh yea, and make sure you tell them that the liberals, the ones against the war, are unpatriotic too… and how they are exposing the country to danger… because they are a part of the “bad guys”..
This is exactly what we have heard from the likes of Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, and Bush… And of course, from their Talk Radio/TV henchmen… All day, every day… the same old garbage…
Time to stand up to this kind of barbarism, and take them on head to head… before we have them marching in the streets in lock step, and shouting Sieg Heil!!
of course that works quite well for almost anything…just say it’s “for the children” or it’s “against global warming” and all the sheeple just fall right in line…Posted by: swallow my nickel
So if your name is to be record as to having sheepishly fallen in line with.Which would you prefer, that of “for the children”, “Global warming” or “We have to fight them over there so we do not fight them over here”? Choose wisely as it is the history of the world that is being recorded.
Be careful Chas, you will be accused of rewriting history Goering committed suicide before they could hang him. Either way though evil in one carnation died that day, as is the intimate fate of all who invoke evil upon the world.
I havent seen people questioned for their patriotism because of the “children” issues, or the “global warming” issues… But, hey, the war issue… If you arent for the war, that means you want us to lose, and you are against the troops, and you are ultimately against our country…
And they say you arent patriotic!!
And some even revert back to the old Vietnam era slogan: “America, Love it or Leave it!!” That was a bunch of baloney then, same as it is now…
Yea, thats right… Goering did kill himself… before he could be hung… chicken!!
IF I lack empathy (which of course you have no way of knowing), then I would be a sociopath, not a pscychopath. If you’re going to start name-calling, at least get it right.
Posted by: swallow my nickel | October 21, 2007 at 06:39 AM
———————————Saying you are a pscychopath is a diagnosis, it’s not name calling. Anyone that does not feel any kind of empathy for the victims of the soldiers lacks empathy in my book.
BTW:sociopath and pscychopath are interchangable. If you prefer, I will call you a sociopath or would you prefer BTK Jr.
========================
…and for all of you who believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant…you pollute the air with every breath you exhale. Do us and the earth a favor and go kill yourselves.
Posted by: swallow my nickel | October 21, 2007 at 06:06 AM
You do have a problem.
.. sounds like a troll off it’s meds
LOL Ken :-)
I prefer none of them…and to clarify the earlier statement…I did not mean to imply that one is unpatriotic if one does not buy the “for the children” position or the ” against global warming” position… there are different slurs for anyone who does not agree with those positions.
I don’t need any meds…all I have to do is come in here and listen to the mind-numbing opinions spouted by so many of you…(and that includes both sides of many of the “debates” in here)
Because one is lacking empathy for one “victim” does not imply that one lacks empathy for everyone.
There is a world of difference between a sociopath and psychopath. Ask your psychologist the next time you see him.
Back later… time to go do some Sunday sort of things…
CHANGE OF SUBJECT:
The Wichita Animal Shelter is having a sale this weekend on their adoption program. You can adopt for half of the usual fee. If you’re looking for a pet, you might want to check it out. Their hours are 11:00 till 6:00.
Mrs XXX and I went there yesterday and adopted a cool Mini-Pin. His name is Brutus.
The shelter is trying to get as many animals moved out as posible so they can do a complete cleaning of the facility. Go out and give them a hand if you can.
XXX
So it is therapeutic then! most people come here because they have a opinion on topics and wish to make sure they get it out if only to a small group. Will this band of voices solve anything? Maybe not, but then you keep hearing things from people about what can I do? I am only one person and my vote does not count!
But what is the masses except for one person standing with many? Do you have an opinion on anything or just feel that nothing matters? LOL yes it can be mind numbing, the topics are important and should be expressed but far to often the discussions end up like I compare them to of children fighting over toys in a corner. But by all means express your opinion if you have one, for if you truly believed that nothing matters then it would serve no purpose for you to express even a negative comment. How could it make you feel better to speak if you feel it makes no difference?
Thanks for the info XXX I am such a lier when it comes to animals! I keep saying I will not get another animal then one comes my way and the next thing I know it has a bowl on the floor!
I think I will cut too, its about time for the Sunday morning political talk shows. Have to get my marching orders from Britt and Bill, I have collected all the action figures and the “Blow-up the world” Chemistry set from the Fox News souvenir website! Also I have enrolled in the “R.I.N.O. RE-EDUCATION CAMP”, yeah as a Conservative I have been feeling somewhat out of sorts.
If some dosen’t believe something like global warming can be real, then I have a little experiement you should try at home.
O.K., for one week, quit using the toliet in your house. Every time you have to go to the bathroom, just take a piss, or crap on your living room floor. Now after a week goes by, tell me the environment in your house hasn’t changed. If you don’t want to try this expierment, I’ll come over to your house and do it for you.
Wow — Strange stuff for a Sunday morning… Very strange!!
Of course, they hung Goering for his philosophy, and the actions that occurred because of it…
I wonder what they will do to the idiots in OUR country who are pulling the same thing as Goering advised back then in Nazi Germany??
Fight them there, so we dont have to fight them here. Protect our country from some kind of immminent danger(always imminent danger) — gets the sheeply all overly emotional…
Posted by: Chas. | October 21, 2007 at 06:52 AM
Chas what part of they are fighting them in Israel. This generation has been raised with their enemy living right next door. Of course they hate them. I have heard you rationalize why we are hated by the radical muslims. Are you denying this same freedom to the Israelies? Dem your faces are a little out of sync. Try taking the labels off of the perpetrators. Substitute muslim for Israelie and it will be ok. Not sure where Goering came into this scenario since we were discussing Palestinians and Israelies.
White Elephant what does using our living room for an outhouse have to do with GW? You environmentalists sure have strange logic. Every time I think GW might be true someone like you alerts me to the fact that the nuts are all on that side and I should be skeptical.
Interesting analogy White Elephant,
Ridiculous, bordering on nonsensical but interesting in that it gives a small window into the way your juvenile mind works.
Unfortunately, if the wacko environmentalists get their way they’ll have us living back the way we were in the mid 1800s. Then you won’t have to flush your toilet, it will be in that little wooden shack in your back yard.
Then nitwits like you and the other wackos will be jealous because I have a ‘two holer’ and and they don’t.
Hank
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/canada.asp
Before Ksgrm has a chance to post the bogus e-mail she’ll get from her right-wing friends, here’s the pre-emptive strike showing how bogus it is:
“Here are the “facts” about Canada’s terrible medical system.”
Most of those facts are completely wrong, heigh ho . . .
Wow, Hank.
That’s a textbook example of the straw-man argument: distort what the opponent says and attack the distortion.
The environmentalists are complaining about pollutants that kill people like mercury and you say they want us to use outhouses.
Funny how most of those who are against government subsidized health care for everyone have no problem utilizing their Medicare benefits. I guess if they’re covered that’s all that matters. To hell with the rest of us.
Goota go, day two of the big remodel…my back hurts.
Good on you Mary! And your daughter too.
Interesting article about the working families who cant feed themselves. As a farmer, I’m just OUTRAGED that hunger exists anywhere, much less here in the bread basket of the nation.
Who wants to donate the cream for the potato soup? That comment broke my heart.
Hey Mary?
Did you not see my offer to help?
Maybe next time.
Meadowlark, you’r on the wrong thread, campaign donations need to be addressed over on the tiahrt thread!
LOL Phantom!!
Thought for the day:Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant”
is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist “.
Good morning Captain!
So. . . I assume you think White Elephant’s analogy makes sense? If so, please tell me how not flushing your toilet for a week has anything to do with CO2 in the atmosphere.
Hank
I think White Elephant was pointing out the folly of taking a crap in your own nest.
Even ANIMALS know not to do that.
I wonder if the bigger and wealthier animals though, hunt down the less affluent ones and crap in THEIR nest instead?
I think republic elephants do that….
Better experiment:
Seal your house.
Seal it air tight.
Include enough plants to exhange the CO2 you exhale for O2.
You don’t get to open doors or windows.
You DO get to live with everything you put into the air.
What does that prove J R?
I have lived in a sealed environment with 110 other people for 78 days. No way to prove anything about GW with such an experiment.
It seems that all of the planets in our solar system are heating up. That is just one of the many reasons that your side is losing your consensus.
Maybe, just maybe, soalr activity has a little to do with the earths temperature.
Hank
Good morning farm girl!
Someone been crapping in your nest again?
I guess it’s just been too hot to use the outhouse!
Hank
Can you believe a national headline is “Pelosi’s judgement questioned” re: Armenia resolution. So you know if Turkey retaliates for the PPk killing 17 Turks, it’s all Pelosi’s fault!Rebels kill 17 Turkish troops By Ferit Demir
1 hour, 5 minutes ago
TUNCELI, Turkey (Reuters) – Kurdish rebels killed 17 Turkish soldiers and wounded 16 others in an ambush on Sunday, prompting Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan to call crisis talks to consider a military strike against rebel bases in Iraq.
ADVERTISEMENTThe attack, one of the worst in more than a decade by rebels of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), came four days after Turkey’s parliament approved a motion to allow troops to enter northern Iraq to fight guerrillas hiding there.
“We are very angry. … Our parliament has granted us the authority to act and within this framework we will do whatever has to be done,” Erdogan told reporters.
He said senior military and government officials would hold an emergency meeting at 8 p.m. (1700 GMT) at the presidential palace under President Abdullah Gul to decide the response.
Defence Minister Vecdi Gonul told reporters in Kiev after talks with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates that 17 soldiers were killed, 16 injured and 10 others were still missing.
Asked if there would be a military response to those attacks, Gonul said: “Not urgently. They are planning a cross-border (incursion).”
“We’d like to do these things with the Americans,” he said.
The United States, Turkey’s NATO ally, and Iraq have urged Ankara to refrain from military action, fearing this could destabilize the most peaceful part of Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein.
Iraq’s government said it was taking important steps to end what it called the “terrorist actions” of Kurdish rebels who use its mountainous north as a base for attacks on Turkey.
Turkey’s tougher stance has helped propel global oil prices to record highs over the past week. Pipelines carrying Iraqi and Caspian crude cross Turkey.
Turkey’s military general staff said 32 rebels were killed in continuing clashes. Turkey shelled areas inside Iraq on Sunday morning but no casualties were reported.
Abdul Rahman Jaderji, a senior official in the PKK in northern Iraq, said the rebels had killed 40 soldiers. The number could not be independently verified.
The pro-PKK Firat news agency, which is based in western Europe, said eight soldiers had also been taken hostage.
“We cannot give details on how many we have captured, all I can say is that they are not in Iraq. They are in Turkey,” a senior PKK source told Reuters.
In a separate incident on Sunday, a landmine killed one civilian and wounded at least 13 more in a minibus traveling in a wedding convoy near to where the soldiers were killed.
Some 3,000 PKK rebels, including its leaders, are believed to be based in camps in the mountainous region of northern Iraq.
DEFIANCE
Iraqi Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani said his autonomous region would defend itself if Turkish troops invaded.
“We are not going to be caught up in the PKK and Turkish war, but if the Kurdistan region is targeted, then we are going to defend our citizens,” Barzani told reporters after meeting Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who is also a Kurd.
Turkey’s military has deployed as many as 100,000 troops, tanks, helicopters, along the border to try to stop the rebels crossing into Turkey.
With the death toll among Turkish security forces around 40 for the past month alone, Erdogan’s government is under heavy domestic pressure to pursue the PKK into northern Iraq.
Turks staged anti-PKK rallies in Ankara, Istanbul and other Turkish cities and towns after Sunday’s deaths. Opposition politicians urged the government to send troops into Iraq now.
“A cross-border operation must now definitely be carried out,” said Devlet Bahceli, leader of the nationalist MHP.
Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Cicek vowed swift retaliation for every rebel attack, but also urged citizens to stay calm.
Erdogan has appeared reluctant to launch an incursion into Iraq, and Western diplomats said Turkey was concerned about the security, diplomatic and economic risks of such a move, but the latest rebel attacks may have made a military strike inevitable.
“We cannot expect Turkey to remain silent in the face of attacks like these,” Murat Yetkin, a commentator for the liberal Radikal daily, told NTV television.
“This attack, coming on a day when Turkey votes in a referendum, is a very clear provocation. It shows the PKK is not interested in democratic initiatives,” Yetkin said.
Separately, Turkish voters strongly endorsed in a referendum on Sunday plans to have future presidents elected directly by the people instead of being chosen by parliament, partial results showed.
Ankara blames the PKK for the deaths of more than 30,000 people since the group launched its armed campaign for an ethnic homeland in southeast Turkey in 1984. The United States, Turkey and European Union class the PKK as a terrorist organization.
(Additional reporting by Baghdad and Kiev bureau)
Thanks, Phantom.
We leftists were screaming from the roof-tops before the war that it would ultimately lead to uncontrollable de-stablizing war–like between Turkey and Kurds who want their own independent homeland.
Sometimes it sucks to be right.
“I have lived in a sealed environment with 110 other people for 78 days. No way to prove anything about GW with such an experiment.”
Uh huh. I bet you were not slow getting to the conning tower or nearest hatch on day 70.
No hatch for the atmosphere.
My bad. Day 78.
…and for all of you who believe that carbon dioxide is a pollutant…you pollute the air with every breath you exhale. Do us and the earth a favor and go kill yourselves.
Posted by: swallow my nickel | October 21, 2007 at 06:06 AM
The CO2 we exhale is carbon neutral, but our burning fossil fuels is not.
“It seems that all of the planets in our solar system are heating up. That is just one of the many reasons that your side is losing your consensus.
Maybe, just maybe, soalr activity has a little to do with the earths temperature.”
Posted by: Hank Price | October 21, 2007 at 11:59 AM
We’re not losing the consensus.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=2
“There are three fundamental flaws in the ‘other planets are warming’ argument:
1. Not all planets are warming – some are cooling2. The sun has shown no long term trend since 19503. There are explanations for why other planets are warming “Details at link.
Great link cosmos!
You give us a website founded and ran by a cartoonist! A political cartoonist! A political cartoonist with the preconceived notion that any science that refutes man made global warming is flawed!
What next cosmos? Are any circus clowns doing work that supports the Goracle’s lies?
Sheesh!
Hank
Hank?
You have to realize how rediculous it is to even try and make that case.
There is not one of the other planets that remotely resemnbles Earth in any way. To compare them is to compare apples to oranges to watermelons.
But if you insist.
The closest comparison to Earth would be Venus.
Why don’t you investigate the role of carbon it it’s atmosphere?
2. The sun has shown no long term trend since 1950
Posted by: cosmos | October 21, 2007 at 02:51 PM
No long term trend?
How about the largest source of radiant energy in our galaxy.
The SW and LW rays that enter and “bounce around” onto earths’ surface and back up into its atmosphere is how things are heated up.
co2 doesn’t heat up anything, it’s an absorber of energy and an inefficient one at that.
Dear Hank Price,
The site has links to science data and papers. For example,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=18
has
http://www.aimes.ucar.edu/MEETINGS/2005_AIMES_SSC/SSC%20PUBLICATIONS/Millenial_CCSM_Schimel%20copy.pdf
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf
http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Sun%20&%20Global%20Warming_GRL_2006.pdf
and six more. If you believe that all of those credible scientists are “cartoonist”!, then you have a serious problem.
cosmos,
Do you deny that John Cook is a political cartoonists with an agenda?
Hank
My favorite comment from the Skeptical Website:
“Models don’t need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects – and we have that now.”
Let’s see, the Climate Models exclude in large or partial part, Souther oscillations, clouds, rain, water vapor, sea ice studies and etc.
But hey, you know they are can predict the climate reliably without the largest factors in there. Yeah right…
Dear Hank Price,
Do you deny that you have an agenda to deny the credible, peer-reviewed climate science?
Do you deny the scientific findings in all of these papers?
Ammann 2007, Lockwood 2007, Foukal 2006, Scafetta 2006, Usoskin 2005, Haigh 2003, Stott 2003, Solanki 2003, Lean 1999, Waple 1999, and Frolich 1998.
Links at,http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=18
If so, do you have ANY credible scientists that support your opinion?
cosmos the “political hack” who attacks the credibility of scientists.
There are thousands of observational scientists that have written peer reviewed papers by the thousands.
Just because they do some little known study on the molecular interaction of particles on rain or whatever, doesn’t mean they aren’t credible. It means it is real science based on observation, not on some kludged up worm farm they call computer climate models.
Real science can’t be rushed so it can make it for the next headline in the news. It takes painstaking observation and testing.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
“Reproducing the past
A way to test the accuracy of models is through hindcasting – see whether they successfully predict what has been observed over the past century. Here is the IPCC model of surface temperature from the 1800’s – both with and without anthropogenic forcings.”
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
The key point is that all the models fail to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account.”
The key point is that all the models fail to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account.”
Posted by: cosmos | October 21, 2007 at 04:31 PM
Yeah, it’s amazing what computer programs can do if one excludes data to make it come out as they wish.
Dear Hank Price,
If you don’t like John Cook’s site, then read the info here,http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650
For example,
“… there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny (pdf document).” http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf
The 2007 IPCC graphs of climate models hindcasting, using natural and anthropogenic forcings.
http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11649/dn11649-1_688.jpg
“… there is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny (pdf document).” http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf
Posted by: cosmos | October 21, 2007 at 04:42 PM
Just how strong is that strong warming cosmos?
1.33 degrees in the past 100 years?
Phew! someone turn on a fan!
I think it’s getting colder!
Hank
Does anyone know what this Cosmos does when he isn’t blogging?
Cosmos,
We simply do not agree with the conclusions some scientists make about Global Warming.
Cosmos,
You do understand that there is not any one piece of “proof” for man made Global Warming don’t you?
It is a conclusion based on data.
Data which we believe is not reflective of all the factors which effect climate and data which we believe is fed into an incomplete and speculative model.
You are obsessed with making this about popularity. Saying that more scientists say man made global warming is happening.
It is called the Argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Simply because you say you have a “concensus” and more scientists believe it is happening doesn’t make it any more true or logical.
I do not suggest you apply that logic to the theory of gravity Nathan. Especially while in high places! There may be a few people who yet doubt gravity. Me I trust the science.
Dinner time.
“I think it’s getting colder!”
Posted by: Hank Price
Hank Price, write that in a time capsule, and impress the future with your knowledge of global warming science.
(Actually, Mr. Hank Price is making a public time capsule, here on the WE Blog) :)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/
“Saying that more scientists say man made global warming is happening.
It is called the Argumentum ad populum fallacy.”
Posted by: Nathan | October 21, 2007 at 05:15 PM
WRONG Nathan. It’s not just the number of scientists — it’s whether their science is CREDIBLE.
JR,
Comparing every scientific dispute to gravity is rather old.
There is not anywhere near the same type of scientific proof and observation of man made Global Warming vs gravity.
Cosmos,
You have already refused to answer my question about credibility and scientists.
I can only assume by your posts and refusal to answer my question that you think only those scientists who believe in man made Global warming are credible.
Nathan,
I have answered your question about “credibility and scientists” multiple times.
It’s about the SCIENCE, not the scientist(s).
Credible science is done through a credible peer-review process.
The claims made by Steven Milloy, Bob Carter, et al are NOT done through the peer review process. They use web site pages, newspaper columns, etc.
Kansas,
Since part of your 5:35 PM post is a copy/paste from
http://glowarmers.blogspot.com/2007/09/stacking-deck-warmest-since-when-you.html
do you have the CV of “Breckshire”, and his/her supporting facts?
Real quick
Don’t forget.
60 minutes airs in just a few minutes.
They will investigate how US intelligence was and is badly damaged by the outing of Valerie Plame.
Cosmos,
You never answered this question:
Can a scientist who opposes the concensus on man made Global Warming be credible?
As we look amidst the Neoconservatives, Zionists, and assorted tagalongs, are there really the ingredients of a law-abiding society, a common thread of decency, or a reenactment of Sir William Golding’s book: “Lord of the Flies,” where the regression to savagery is the inevitable outcome.
A million Iraqis and that many Palestinians have lost their lives with 8 to 10 million displaced. All to huckster hawked saleable slogans or euphemisms with a pipe dream as bait.
Those family members who have managed to survive do so huddled into the squalor of refugee camps, making easy targets for their tormentors.
With an actual number of American soldiers dead and maimed remaining elusive, as does the numbers involved in their broken families, the best guess appears to be over 50,000, hundreds of thousands including family members. All this is such a terrible waste.
These unnecessary hostilities, which immature minds conceived and caused and whose plans never should have been funded are still raising the voices to use bigger weapons against even more Middle East Nations. Nations whose only crime is a preparation to ward-off an attack. An attack from a superpower gone mad.
It would be nice if we could simply turn a page and make the Neoconservatives, Zionists and tag-alongs all go away.That can happen with reading a book.
To end this madness takes a reflection of common sense and the decency to follow through.
Ed Friedemann Texas
do you have the CV of “Breckshire”, and his/her supporting facts?
Posted by: cosmos | October 21, 2007 at 05:54 PM
Where’s your CV? Or are you going to continue to spout your alarmism as if your some sort of expert?
Ummm I do believe that Cosmos has answered Nathan’s constant questioning MANY times… And Kansas, when you dont have an answer to Cosmos, you start attacking HIM/HER…. What does HIS/HER CV have to do with the CV being discussed??? Answer: Nothing!!
What does HIS/HER CV have to do with the CV being discussed??? Answer: Nothing!!
Posted by: Chas. | October 21, 2007 at 06:36 PM
What does Breckshire’s CV have to do with what’s being discussed?
Answer: Nothing!
Let’s discuss the GORACLE’s education on being qualified to discuss Climate Science.
Bachelor’s in Government and a Law School Drop out. So, the GORACLE has a Bachelor’s degree in Government, that’s it.
That lack of education is the primary reason will never debate anyone about Climate Science. The GORACLE is a talking head.
Greenspan said everything except he was the main contributor to the credit problem, when he cut interest rates to 1%, fueling bush’s great boon in home ownership. Not to mention his not taking the REpubs. to task for the huge tax cuts for the wealthy, and by maintaing that the oil price does indeed matter.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071021/bs_nm/greenspan_imbalances_dc_1;_ylt=AtoZrq5SxJ3ayCnb0417u7hlM3wV
For those who didn’t get to watch 60 min. the transcript is here:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/17/60minutes/main3378089.shtml
“What does Breckshire’s CV have to do with what’s being discussed?”
Posted by: Kansas | October 21, 2007 at 06:39 PM
Kansas made Breckshire’s CV [and his/her supporting facts] relevant by copy/pasting his/her column upthread.
Breckshire’s CV is not relevant only if she/he is not personally making the claims Kansas posted, AND Kansas provides the original source(s), and their CV(s).
Gore’s CV is not relevant, because he is repeating claims made by credible peer-reviewed climate scientists. Gore has consulted with those scientists for a long time — and they say that he is accurate.
And cosmos refuses to give his CV even though he “tries” but “fails” to act like an expert on the subject of Climate Change.
The only thing about the Plame outing with any degree of certainity, is that even if it were revealed tomorrow by the CIA that her outing caused the loss of numerous foreign assets, and the lives of a few agents, the 24 percenters would still not hold it against the administration.
Saw the 6o minutes piece.
I never cease to be amazed by this the most vile of administrations.
There is a Republican debate on. Heh heh, it’s on Fox.
No need to watch that. They’re gonna beat up Ron Paul and say “911″ and “terrorists” and I won’t raise taxes” punctuated by the occasional softball from Brit Hume.
Phantom I have asked this question and continue to do so – Bush said he would fire anyone in his whitehouse who leaked the Plame story. Why should he have fired? In your investigations did you find something Fitz couldn’t?
Scooter Libby muddied the investigation.Ya think bush was gonna fire Cheney amd Rove? That would be like asking him to cut off his head and his….male organ.
I was watching CNN this morning and the point was made that the first leak came from Joe Wilson to the NYT. He was first an un-named source and he then gave his name to the lie and this was proved by many news sources. So in essence he leaked the story about his wife because he showed it the light of day.
JR you have yet to tell me who in the whitehouse leaked the story. Your hatred of Cheney and Rove isn’t relevant.
Yes well,
It is not my fault if you did not watch 60 minutes.
Nixon deserved what he got. But compared to THIS bunch? Nixon was a choir boy.
I think bush is likely not complicit. Well except for not keeping his word and firing the leakers.
This smells like Dick Cheney saying “There’s no need to bother the Presicent with this. We can handle it from this office.”
Jr who was the leaker?
“And cosmos refuses to give his CV even though he “tries” but “fails” to act like an expert on the subject of Climate Change.”
Posted by: Kansas | October 21, 2007 at 07:39 PM
My CV is irrelevant, because my posts are supported by credentialed, credible, peer-reviewed climate scientists.
Kansas’ posts are supported by his claims, and come from anonymous people like “Breckshire”.
Republicans are coming back. Republican elect just smoked all the Democrats in the governors race in Louisiana. His #1 goal is to rid the state of Democrat corruption that has plagued that state since its founding.
Good for him! You go boy!
The CNN story this morning said none of it would have came out if he hadn’t lied to the NYT about why he was in Niger. He could have just said that no one in the administration sent him that he went at the behest of his wife and the CIA and the whole affair would not have happened.
Republicans are coming back?
Uh huh. See ya in 08!
And why discuss it grm? george will skate like he always does. And it’s not like you care. georgie gave you your fat tax cut is all the deeper you are. Why pretend?
Well, Plame is a liar. Sorry. Now she’s trying to sell her book and it’s being published by a subsidiary of CBS.
Her husband is a proven liar. Plame is a proven liar. The irrational hate the left-wing kool-aid drinkers have for George Bush has prevented them from ever having a rational thought as long as Bush is president.
The interview of Plame by Couric was a disgrace.
Hank
Yes truly it looks as if the left and the right are meant to hate each other.
Fun is? The right is going into the political wilderness for the next 20 years.
I hope Valerie Plame takes some solace in that. It will NOT bring back her contacts, who quite likely were exposed and killed because of Cheney’s vile tactics.
JR you are so dramatic when it suits your purposes. You have yet to answer one question I asked. Who should have been fired? Libby was the lamb the libs insisted Fitz give them. He couldn’t remember a story the same as Tim Russert. Golly gee!
I dare you to remember something that happened two years ago verbatim. Actually in your case I would reduce that to two months ago. It was a sham and the most valid pardon I have seen in years.
ChappaquiddickOn July 18, 1969, after a party on Chappaquiddick Island near the island of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, Kennedy, allegedly intoxicated, a claim which he denies, drove away with Mary Jo Kopechne as a passenger in his car. According to Kennedy, he made a wrong turn onto an unlit road that led to a wooden bridge that was angled obliquely to the road, and drove over its side, which had no guardrail. The car plunged into the water, landing upside-down. Kennedy claims he tried several times to swim down to reach her, but Kopechne died. Kennedy discussed the accident with several people, including his lawyer, before he contacted the police.
The incident quickly blossomed into a scandal. Kennedy was criticized for allegedly driving drunk, for failing to save Kopechne, for failing to summon help immediately and for contacting not the police but rather his lawyer first. Kennedy entered a plea of guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. He received a sentence of two months in jail, which was suspended.
Presidential bidA decade after the Chappaquiddick incident, Kennedy decided to throw his hat in the ring for the Democratic nomination in the 1980 presidential election. He launched an unusual, insurgent campaign against a sitting president, Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter. Kennedy was unafraid of criticizing the president, who was mired in the Iran hostage crisis. He did, however, vow to support Carter if he were re-nominated. Despite much early support, his bid was ultimately unsuccessful, largely due to controversy surrounding the incident at Chappaquiddick. Kennedy won 10 presidential primaries against Carter who won 24. Eventually he bowed out of the race, but delivered a rousing speech before the 1980 Democratic National Convention that many consider to be one of his finest moments
Monday, Nov. 11, 1974www.Time.comBack to Chappaquiddick
What really happened that night on Chappaquiddick five years ago, when Mary Jo Kopechne drowned and Edward Kennedy’s career nearly perished? To this day the full truth is obscure. The official investigation was sluggish, Kennedy and other witnesses evasive, and journalists lost interest after a few months. This year, however, a number of publications, anticipating Kennedy’s presidential candidacy in 1976, started new inquiries. Last week the Boston Globe published the results of the most exhaustive of the current investigations. The densely packed five-part series further undermined Kennedy’s sworn version of the events before and after his black 1967 Oldsmobile hurtled off Dike Bridge into Poucha Pond.
The two-month examination by three Globe staffers, begun before Kennedy withdrew from the 1976 race, was not a hatchet job. The liberal paper has always been sympathetic to Kennedy, yet felt that it had to go ahead with the story despite the Senator’s decision to bow out as a national candidate. Said Editor Thomas Winship: “We are not out to drive Ted Kennedy from office. We are trying to get more details on an important story affecting a public figure who will continue to be important.” The biggest obstacle in obtaining those details was the continued silence of most of the ten men and women guests at the party thrown by Kennedy that night at a Chappaquiddick cottage.
Kennedy himself was reluctant to talk to the Globe and initially requested that questions be submitted in advance. He also wanted a one-hour limit. After five weeks of bargaining, it was agreed that the three reporters would provide general subjects in advance and that they would be able to ask follow-up questions. The conversation lasted two hours—the first lengthy interview Kennedy has granted on the incident. Rather plaintively, he acknowledged that his behavior after the accident had been “irrational and indefensible and inexcusable and inexplicable.” Kennedy stuck to the main points of his original story, sometimes ducking tough questions by referring the reporters to his inconclusive testimony at the official inquest. He did admit, however, that he had erred in telling the court that he had never been on Chappaquiddick before the day of the accident, and that he had fixed the time of his return to the cottage after the accident by the dashboard clock of a Valiant driven by his cousin and sometime factotum, Joseph Gargan.
TIME recently disclosed that Kennedy had visited the island at least once before and that the 1968 Valiant was not equipped with a clock (TIME, Oct. 7). Kennedy has always insisted that he and Kopechne left the party at about 11:15 p.m. to return to Martha’s Vineyard aboard a ferry. The question of time is important because the ferry stopped regular operations at midnight; if Kennedy wanted service later, he would have had to request it. A crucial point in Kennedy’s version is that he mistakenly turned right onto Dike Road leading to the bridge, rather than left toward the ferry. The Globe’s findings challenge parts of this account. Items:
> According to one unnamed source, Kennedy told someone at the party that he was leaving with Mary Jo to take a walk on the beach beyond the bridge, where both had swum earlier in the day. Kennedy denies the report.
>Another unnamed informant claimed that Gargan indeed agreed to take responsibility for the accident, but that Kennedy decided the next morning that “the alibi either couldn’t work or he couldn’t live with it.” The Senator also denies this report.
> A scientific study determined that if the accident occurred at about 11:30 p.m., as Kennedy’s time frame indicates, the tide at the bridge would have been slightly less than one knot, far weaker than the torrent that Kennedy claimed swept him away from the car. Had the accident taken place an hour later, as indicated by a deputy sheriff who saw a car like Kennedy’s on Dike Road at 12:45 a.m., the tide would have been about 1.3 knots.
> Soon after the accident, Stephen Smith, Kennedy’s brother-in-law, hired lawyers for some who had attended the party. The same two lawyers represented eight of the inquest witnesses. Said Ray LaRosa: “The lawyers coached us pretty good. We knew what to expect.”
In all, the Globe discovered more than 100 discrepancies in the testimony of key witnesses. But the paper blunted the impact of its report by running the full text of the interview before publishing its own findings and by burying some of its disclosures in 51 columns of copy.
Despite these quirks, the series was well-reasoned and well-researched. If it did not break open the Chappaquiddick case, it did demonstrate the frailties of the original inquiry. It also raised enough new questions to encourage still deeper investigation by others.
A new CBS poll shows that 16% of Americans favor outlawing all abortions except those to save a mother’s life, another 34% favor outlawing all abortions except for rape, incest, and to safe a mother’s life, and another 4% favor outlawing all abortions. Thus 54% favor outlawing 98% of all abortions. An additional 16% was more restrictions on abortions. This shows a distinct pro-life trend in personal views on abortion since January.
Has anybody tried my experiment yet?
Hank Price,
I think my hate for George Bush is quite rational: he stole a Presidential election, lied to attack and occupy a country that was no threat to the United States, has systematically violated the Constitution and the tenets of English Common Law dating back to the Twelfth Century, and is basically a putz.
Rational people, Hank Price, detest George Bush. What’s irrational is continue defending him after all he’s done.
Not gonna happen parkay.
Use your efforts on TRULY pro life efforts like national health care.
We need national healthcare for those who are unable to find jobs and work for a living.
Hillary will save them.
I bet Bill is praying that Hilary dosen’t become president.
FBI File on Chappaquiddick
(Obtained by Freedom of Information Act Request)
The file known as Chappaquiddick, is also know known the Mary Jo Kopechne investigation. This investigation was opened when an overturned car was found at Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, in the water and Ms. Kopechne’s body was in the car. Ms. Kopechne was a former secretary to late Senator, Robert F. Kennedy. It was determined the driver of the automobile was Senator Edward M. Kennedy. It was alleged he was on the wrong road and drove off Dike’s Bridge, with the automobile overturning in the water. Senator Kennedy managed to get out of the car, but Ms. Kopechne did not make it out of the car and drowned.
http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/chappaquiddick.htm
http://foia.fbi.gov/chappaquiddick/chappaquiddick_pt01.pdf
http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/chappaquiddick/chappaquiddick_pt02.pdf
40 years you gotta go back for a shiny distracting object?
Impressive!
Ted Kennedy the murderer is still a US Senator.
Kennedy was drunk and missed the bridge.
He didn’t call because he was too drunk to call.
There’s no mystery here.
Booze + cars = bad outcome
And if the drunk’s name had been anything other then Kennedy, he would have been convicted of at least Vehicular Manslaughter.
Kennedy was given a pass.
Hank writes, “Plame is a liar.”
Really.
Which is easier to believe? That Saddam really did have WMD’s that mysteriously disappeared after we invaded.
And not just the WMD’s themselves, but all ground contamination and precursor materials.
Or that Plame-Wilson is telling the truth.
Hank, who believes the earth is only 8,000 years old (instead of the actual 4.5 billion years) because that’s what it says in a 5,000 year old poem, believes the former.
Big surprise.
In fact, the conventional wisdom is that BushCo. outed Plame as pay-back for Wilson’s revelation that Bush had ignored his report and was spinning facts to support his foregone conclusion.
But there’s also the very real possibility that the White House is arming “friends” like Turkey with nuclear weapons.
After all, if there’s money to be made, there’s a Bush crony making it.
Plame-Wilson may have been outed to shut down her operation to discover who is smuggling nuclear weapons materials and to whom.
Yawwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.
Old news.
Bush isn’t running again.
Dems campaign still limited to “Hate Bush!”
I agreed with Hank to boycott the WEBlog starting tomorrow until the end of the month.
I plan to follow through with this for what ever good it does.
Oh that IS tomorrow isn’t it?
I bet no one remembers.
Any case, I don’t do boycotts.
Not voluntarily anyway.
OK — remind me again why we are boycotting the Blog?? Please??
Good Night; Good Luck; and God bless; whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings all!!
Blog Boycott!
See you when it is over.
A boycott called by Hank?
I wouldn’t follow Hank out of a fire.I’ll be here. And I’ll love every minute of it just as I did last time til I couldn’t.
“Cosmos,
You never answered this question:
Can a scientist who opposes the concensus on man made Global Warming be credible?”
Posted by: Nathan | October 21, 2007 at 06:12 PM
NATHAN, I HAVE answered that. But you seem to be so deep in DENIAL and/or HATE mode that you cannot understand it. Or is Nathan just STUPID???
AGAIN…”It’s about the SCIENCE, not the scientist(s).
Credible science is done through a credible peer-review process.”
ALL a scientist has to do is present a hypothesis, and related data, refuting the consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
If it withstands credible, peer reviewed scientific scrutiny, then it is “credible”.
But it has NOT been done.
That’s why Steven Milloy, Kansas’ “Breckshire”, et al, post their inaccurate claims on non-peer reviewed Web pages.
And Bob Carter, et al, write inaccurate, non-peer reviewed newspaper columns.
The CO2 we exhale is carbon neutral, but our burning fossil fuels is not.
———How about you explain this statement, Cosmos. Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide, no matter what the source.
The CO2 we exhale is part of the natural carbon cycle. The carbon comes from the plants we ate, which recently captured it.
Burning fossil fuels releases carbon that was captured long ago, and sequestered underground.
Hank, just for the record (and apologies as the discussion has moved on), I’m not a political cartoonist – I’ve never drawn a political cartoon in my life (have a look at http://www.sev.com.au to see the kind of cartoons I draw). My interest in politics is peripheral at best, which is why I stick to science – an area I find much easier to understand. What I’m trying to do with http://www.skepticalscience.com is let the peer reviewed scientific literature do the talking, linking to the original papers if possible.
I see Mr. Cook.
Care to comment why the IPCC excludes ENSO data, cloud, water vapor and rain data in computer Climate Models?
…so the natural (good) carbon dioxide doesn’t block any heat, and the fossil fuel (evil) carbon dioxide is the only carbon dixide blocking the heat. Interesting…
And if we follow your statement further, it also stands to reason that if we go back in time more than say 300 years, there would be at best minimal fluctuations in temperature to speak of, since the amount of fossil fuels being burned then was almost non-existent…
…so the natural (good) carbon dioxide doesn’t block any heat, and the fossil fuel (evil) carbon dioxide is the only carbon dixide blocking the heat. Interesting…if only because it reveals your motivations…
Kansas, the IPCC do include all that stuff in their climate models. Water vapor is a crucial aspect of how climate works and as a positive feedback, is a major reason why climate is so sensitive (I go into more detail on this at http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=12). They also discuss ENSO, clouds and precipitation in the IPCC AR4 report (which I’m currently ploughing through – not exactly light bedside reading).
This is somewhat related to swallow my nickel’s comment about climate changing in the past. Climate has changed dramatically in the past and in fact reconstructions of past temperature allow us to calculate just how sensitive climate is to forcing changes. Past climate change tells us if you double atmospheric CO2, global temperatures will rise around 3 degrees C. This is an empirical observation – worked out completely independent of climate models.
I would disagree with you that it is an observation…as you said, you are making reconstructions of temperatures (which requires you to make assumptions that may or may not be true), and then basing everything off those figures. The only observed temperatures that may be exact enough are those that have been collected in the last 30 years or so…and even then, if the temperatures are not collected in a manner to reflect the actual make-up of the planet, then they are not a true global average.
Well, I disagree that we can ignore every single temperature reconstruction including direct measurements other than the last few decades. However, for the sake of argument, “Solar-Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface and an Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity” (Tung 2007) which measures the solar cycle effect on surface temperature measurements since 1960 and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3.2 degrees C.
…so the natural (good) carbon dioxide doesn’t block any heat, and the fossil fuel (evil) carbon dioxide is the only carbon dixide blocking the heat. Interesting…
Posted by: swallow my nickel | October 23, 2007 at 04:30 AM
I did not say that.
John Cook,
Very good point about the Tung study. And thank you for the great reports, and links.
Re Tung,’Solar cycles and global warming’http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=5
“…so the natural (good) carbon dioxide doesn’t block any heat,”
Posted by: swallow my nickel | October 23, 2007 at 04:30 AM
A DROP in (natural) CO2 seems to have triggered an ice age.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/wethring.htm
“The rise of the Appalachian Mountains may have caused a major ice age approximately 450 million years ago, an Ohio State University study has found.
The weathering of the mountains pulled carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, causing the opposite of a greenhouse effect — an “icehouse” effect….It also reinforces the notion that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a major driver of Earth’s climate.”
John Cook,
Ah yes, GCM and climate sensitivities…
The problem I have with GCM used as predictors is that they only do so under narrow parameters establishing an artificial climate and are especially problematic when dealing with clouds.
Cloud formation and deformation occurs on the km size and smaller, which a GCM cannot possibly cannot account for for every square km of the globe. i.e. – knowing every condition of every cloud simultaneously.
Ummm, I had more here…but the text box ate the rest of my conclusion after it signed me out of typepad…I’ll write more again later.
Kanscosmos both are lost in global warming from 2 days ago.
Let them stay there until we can get a separate GW thread.
May now need an OW thread too, or may combine to get a GWOW thread going.
Blog Editor,
Or we can go to Real Climate Blog and discuss the issues there.
Of course, the bloggers there don’t want to hear anything not written in their IPCC Bible and will gang tackle anyone who says otherwise. :)
Even the imminent Gavin Schmidt readily admits there is little known about how cloud physics interact and he knows less how the clouds cannot be accounted for in GCM’s. That’s one of the IPCC top dogs and he doesn’t know!
“Ah yes, GCM and climate sensitivities…
The problem I have with GCM used as predictors is” [long rant]
Posted by: Kansas | October 23, 2007 at 08:20 PM
Looks like “Kansas values” missed John Cook’s point about “Solar-Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface and an Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity” (Tung 2007).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=5
“Independently of models, [Camp and Tung] calculate a climate sensitivity between 2.3 to 4.1°C. Eg – if CO2 levels are doubled, global temperatures will increase around 3.2°C. This confirms the IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity.”
If a frog had wings cosmos, it wouldn’t bump its butt every time it jumps either.
“New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes,” wrote AEI’s Schwartz, who hold a master’s degree in planetary science from the California Institute of Technology.
The study’s “result is 63 percent lower than the IPCC’s estimate of 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 (2.0–4.5 degrees C, 2SD range). Right now we’re about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of 270 ppm. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55 percent per year, CO2 will double around 2070. Based on Schwartz’s results, we should expect about a 0.6 degrees C additional increase in temperature between now and 2070 due to this additional CO2. That doesn’t seem particularly alarming,” AEI’s Schwartz explained.”
“In other words, there’s hardly any additional warming ‘in the pipeline’ from previous greenhouse gas emissions. This is in contrast to the IPCC, which predicts that the Earth’s average temperature will rise an additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st Century even if greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing,” he added.
“Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, [this] new study belies Al Gore’s claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz’s results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC’s scientific ‘consensus,’ the environmentalists’ climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world’s environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?” AEI’s Schwartz concluded.”
Schwartz, S. E. 2007: Heat capacity, time constant, and the sensitivity of Earth’s climate system. JRG. accepted.
The abstract reads,
“The equilibrium sensitivity of Earth’s climate is determined as the quotient of the relaxation time constant of the system and the pertinent global heat capacity. The heat capacity of the global ocean, obtained from regression of ocean heat content vs. global mean surface temperature, GMST, is 14 ± 6 W yr m-2 K-1, equivalent to 110 m of ocean water; other sinks raise the effective planetary heat capacity to 17 ± 7 W yr m-2 K-1 (all uncertainties are 1-sigma estimates). The time constant pertinent to changes in GMST is determined from autocorrelation of that quantity over 1880-2004 to be 5 ± 1 yr. The resultant equilibrium climate sensitivity, 0.30 ± 0.14K/(W m-2), corresponds to an equilibrium temperature increase for doubled CO2 of 1.1 ± 0.5 K. The short time constant implies that GMST is in near equilibrium with applied forcings and hence that net climate forcing over the twentieth century can be obtained from the observed temperature increase over this period, 0.57 ± 0.08 K, as 1.9 ± 0.9 W m-2. For this forcing considered the sum of radiative forcing by incremental greenhouse gases, 2.2 ± 0.3 W m-2, and other forcings, other forcing agents, mainly incremental tropospheric aerosols, are inferred to have exerted only a slight forcing over the twentieth century of -0.3 ± 1.0 W m-2.”This paper provides a valuable assessment that needs to be performed by others. Other questions remain, of course, such as whether the surface temperature data used in such studies is robust;
The problem with GCM’s is that they use GCM’s to solve problems of GCM’s.
Independent and Dependent Variables anyone?
A nicely encapsulated view on the various Climate Change positions GJ – thanks.
Hi bloggers and readers.
Let me save you ALOT of trouble and tedium.
I read the post above.
I can reduce it for you to one sentence taken from it.
” I am not a climate scientist.”
The rest is a reactionary boring screed.
Nice of J R to be helping us all here tonight.
Don’t take his word for it though.
J R doesn’t have a brain.
Use your own.
GJ=kansas=blog editor
Would you like for me to share more James?
“” I am not a climate scientist.”
The rest is a reactionary boring screed.”
Posted by: J R | October 23, 2007 at 10:06 PM
“Nice of J R to be helping us all here tonight.
Don’t take his word for it though.”
Posted by: Blog Editor | October 23, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Okay… let’s take Gary Jason’s word,
http://www.profgaryjason.com/vita.htm
“Education
Ph.D. (1982) in Philosophy (History and Philosophy of Science program), the University of Illinois….Academic History
Spring 2002-present: Philosophy instructor at Cal State University Fullerton.
Fall 1986-Fall 1998: Adjunct professor of philosophy at San Diego State University, Saddleback College, and Orange Coast College.
Spring l984-Summer l986: Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Washburn University, Topeka, Kansas.
…”
J R was correct.
So let’s see your CV cosmos, since you are so critical of others?
Too embarrassed to let others know are you?
J R,
Also, “Kansas values” does not know enough about climate science to realize that Stephen E. Schwartz’s use of only ONE time constant oversimplified Earth’s very complex climate system.
Stephen E. Schwartz practically admitted it in his paper.http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf“Finally, as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model. In response to that question it might have to be said that it remains to be seen. In this context it is hoped that the present study might stimulate further work along these lines with more complex models.”
And for fun, note in “Kansas values” post at,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/open-thread–17.html#comment-87438232
how he tries to confuse Stephen E. Schwartz with Joel Schwartz, author of his copy/paste.
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDc0MTY2NmVlOWNiNjc4ODk0NGUzMDE2YTRlMjMxNzc=
That’s Joel Schwartz, at the right-winger AEI.http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute
WRONG cosmos.
Steven E. Schwartz is the scientist I referenced in both posts.
You know cosmos, if you would simply discuss the science instead of attacking everyone who disagrees with your position, you might actually get somewhere.
As I said before cosmos, you’re not a scientist, but just a political hack who uses ad hominem terms to bully and discredit scientists with significantly more knowledge about Climate change than yourself.
You are a disgrace to science and I hope no scientist has anything to do with you because of your attack dog methods.
Why I even try to discuss the issues with you cosmos is beyond me, you are a hopeless partisan hack.
“WRONG cosmos.
Steven E. Schwartz is the scientist I referenced in both posts.”
Posted by “Kansas values”
(Excuse me for feeding the troll)
Troll’s sourcehttp://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDc0MTY2NmVlOWNiNjc4ODk0NGUzMDE2YTRlMjMxNzc=
Added, “AEI’s Schwartz” = JOEL Schwartz
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/open-thread–17.html#comment-87438232
“… wrote AEI’s Schwartz, who hold a master’s degree in planetary science from the California Institute of Technology.
… AEI’s Schwartz explained.”
… AEI’s Schwartz concluded.”—–
Discuss the science? I did.
“Also, “Kansas values” does not know enough about climate science to realize that Stephen E. Schwartz’s use of only ONE time constant oversimplified Earth’s very complex climate system.”
‘Climate Insensitivity’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity
‘Two Boxes’http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/two-boxes/
Carry on cosmos, you have absolutely hacked your way into talking to yourself again.
By attacking scientists and refusing to discuss the science, you are nothing but a partisan hack and a Gore Butt kisser.
Enjoy your smootching on his hairy backside.
Yes “Kansas values”, shame on those awful, horrible “partisan hacks and Gore Butt kissers” who question the work done by scientists. /sarcasm OFF
Like the horrible person who questioned whether Stephen E. Schwartz’s model was too simple.
“… as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model.”
Ooops! Stephen E. Schwartz wrote that himself, about his own study!http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
It doesn’t matter who wrote it cosmos, you are unwilling to get into a reasonable discussion.
Get lonely once again. I was right on my first assessment of you. You are a “Theodore Kaczynski” all the way.
I just love how Kansas bitches about ad hominems and then a few minutes later posts this:
“You are a “Theodore Kaczynski” all the way.”
heheheh. Pick one. The next post will be
a. cosmos asked for it so it’s his fault
b. cosmos did it first
c. he’s a poor disabled veteran so please let him whine and lie all he wants.
Kansas, you are so funny, even when you are trying to be serious.
“It doesn’t matter who wrote it cosmos,…”
Posted by “Kansas values”
Hmmmm? “Kansas values” seems to be calling Stephen E. Schwartz a “partisan hack and a Gore Butt kisser”, for questioning his OWN paper.
I am the owner of the glowarmers.blogspot site and I must strongly object to the post by Kansas on October 21, 2007 at 05:35 PM. It is clear they have used, without the proper credit or consent, material from my site that is the intellectual property of myself and Breckshire.
Administrator, please remove that post and any subsequent posts that refer to the said article.