The European Union is fed up with U.S. foot-dragging on global warming and plans to boycott President Bush’s climate change meeting next month unless an agreement is reached at the Bali summit going on now.
In other recent climate change news:
– The World Meteorological Organization announced today that the past 10 years were the warmest on record.
– Scientists reported this week that the volume of Arctic sea ice at the end of the summer was a mere half of what it was just four years ago.
– The Pew Center on Global Climate Change reported last week that that the Midwest will face much hotter, longer and frequent heat waves due to warming, with increased health and economic risks.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
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
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
178 Comments
Really, Phillip.
You might give this a rest.
It’s the same issue as evolution–one either accepts the scientific method and follows it no matter how counter-intuitive and non-traditional the conclusions, or one doesn’t.
Those that agree with the mainstream science that man-made global warming is occuring and will lead to serious global catastrophes are the former.
The ostriches with their heads in the sand are the latter.
End of discussion.
While Nero fiddles the Polar cap melts.
Yea Capn: Why are those talks in Bali, with the commensurate private and chartered jets, etc?
I’d have more sympathy for the global warming “crisis” if those who proclaimed it to be a crisis acted like it was.
And no, I’m not gonna debate the relative merits of the positions with you. Just an observation.
Posted by: GMC70 | December 13, 2007 at 11:56 AM
—There ya go again.
“– The World Meteorological Organization announced today that the past 10 years were the warmest on record.”
Translation – The warmest since man has been keeping records since the 1880s. Not the warmest climate in climate history by a long shot.
============”Scientists reported this week that the volume of Arctic sea ice at the end of the summer was a mere half of what it was just four years ago.”
Scientists also reported this month that the Antarctic has had record breaking low temperatures.-===========================”– The Pew Center on Global Climate Change reported last week that that the Midwest will face much hotter, longer and frequent heat waves due to warming, with increased health and economic risks.”Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Well, let’s check the staff of that organization. Surprise Surprise Surprise.
Not one Climatologist or Meteorological PhD on the staff. Perhaps they should count the Environmental Studies Degrees – nope – that’s like 2 Chemistry classes, one semester of weather and environmental studies. It’s not even close to an Environmental Science degree that actually studies science, not political solutions.
There you have it, as cosmos states, where’s your experts? There are none at the Pew Center, just Political Activitists in a (cough) think tank.
Maybe I have a short memory and can’t remember…just exactly what did Clinton and Al Gore do about global warming? Was the Kyoto treaty signed by the US during their administration? I don’t remember that……
The debate is over; all we now see is propaganda articles. Political propaganda is NOT science. UK court says Gore is a fraud. August 2007 Update: Man-made Catastrophic Global Warming Not True. Unfortunately, Hansen is a political hack of George Soros. Further, flawed NASA Global Warming data paid for by George Soros. In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework; a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com/ Remember CONSENSUS is NEVER science it’s always a POLITICAL STATEMENT (a Party Line).
Looks like ya have no Presidential candidate there “Dr Coles”
Even the recalcitrant slow witted GOP candidates acknowledge that global warming is happening and must be addressed.
Go tilt windmills. Science has won.
“…that global warming is happening and must be addressed.”
Could we be any more vague?
What does each candidate mean by “addressed”?
What exact steps should the President do to cut back on domestic emissions?
Yeah, its not hard to imagine that all the candidates will in one form or the other “address” Global Warming.
Maybe I have a short memory and can’t remember…just exactly what did Clinton and Al Gore do about global warming? Was the Kyoto treaty signed by the US during their administration? I don’t remember that……
Posted by: Taz | December 13, 2007 at 02:31 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071213/ap_on_sc/bali_climate_conference_108;_ylt=AjMlknn0Mq8DC2.34zjzUE_9xg8F
“Gore, who helped in the final negotiation of the Kyoto pact in 1997…”
There you go Taz.
GMC–
Here’s the non-right-wing information on Gore’s energy use:
“This afternoon, ThinkProgress reached Vice President Gore’s office for response to Hannity’s attacks. Here’s what his office told us:
– Gore lives a strict carbon-neutral lifestyle both in his work and private life. That means he tries to reduce his emissions as much as possible, and then purchases carbon offsets for the remaining emissions.
– In his private life, Gore tries to reduce his emissions as much as possible. He drives a hybrid, flies commercially whenever he can, and purchases green power. In the few instances where work has demanded that he travel privately, he purchases carbon offsets for the emissions.”
He purchases those credits from a company that he has a finacial stake in. So he is in fact putting his money back into his pocket.
Capn:
You missed the point. Why are all these folks flying to a meeting, in the electronic age? If they must, why Bali (aside from the opportunity to vacation on a tropical beach at their respective taxpayers’ expense)?
Same point – not exactly acting like it’s a crisis . . .
Bali is actually about as centrally located as anywhere else.
And GMC, your rhetorical question about electronic meetings begs the question: Why not conduct trials over the internet? Just think of all the gas burned by jurors, attorneys, sheriff’s vehicles, etc.
And GMC, your rhetorical question about electronic meetings begs the question: Why not conduct trials over the internet? Just think of all the gas burned by jurors, attorneys, sheriff’s vehicles, etc.
Posted by: Tom | December 13, 2007 at 03:23 PM
Good idea, but we are talking about City/County Budgets compared to the budgets of entire countries.
Perhaps down the road as electronics become fully integrated.
Phillip
The people in BALI who went to this farce of a meeting do not really believe that Global Warming is a crisis or that we can do anything about it.
Otherwise, they would not have left a “carbon footprint” equivelent to 20,000 automobiles over an entire years time!
Hey Phillip
Europe can not even meet the Kyoto targets, on a treaty they already signed!
Screw Europe, they just want to hurt the United States.
The link re Arctic sea ice in the header has been shortened.
This lists the records broken in 2007, and more quotes by scientists.
‘Ominous Arctic Melt Worries Experts’http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071212/D8TFSOT00.html
Econ 101,
Thanks for the refreshing needed common sence
*Econ is and has been a trader in the fossil fuels industry.
J RWe all are involved with fossil fuels. Every aspect of our lives are tied to fossil fuels. Think about it.
Well they were pretty fond of rocks in the stone age there b.
Your point?
My point is that you lay out a comment about econ to discredit, when it is irrelevant, because everyone contributes and recieves benifit from fossil fuels whether you like it or not, that is just a fact.
Actually, I spend far more money on energy, every year, if you add up gasoline and electricity bills, than what I make off of energy related investments.
However, under the weird logic that we can’t let people who actually KNOW anything comment, on that subject:
Doctors can’t comment on health.Lawyers can’t comment on law.Those on welfare can’t comment on welfare benefits.Farmers can’t comment on agriculture.Teachers can’t comment on education.Police officers can’t comment on crime.
Well, anyway, that would be rather un-American.
And, by excluding those with actual experience on the topic, I think we would end up with ignorant policy.
“And, by excluding those with actual experience on the topic, I think we would end up with ignorant policy.”
Posted by: econ101
And what is your “actual experience” with climate science, econ101? Besides falsely believing that the sun causes all warming, and greenhouse gases are not important.
The emission policies should be set by the climate scientists, not fossil-fuel traders like econ101.
Tom:
An interesting thought, this:”Why not conduct trials over the internet? Just think of all the gas burned by jurors, attorneys, sheriff’s vehicles, etc.”
Well, first, there’s that little Constitutional issue – confrontation of accusers and all . . .
“The emission policies should be set by the climate scientists”
What SPECIFIC policies to reduce emissions do the climate scientists have a consensus on?
Making the statement that it is plausible that mankind is causing GW through greenhous gas emissions is a far cry from deciding exactly how the reduction in emissions should be acheived.
rfl,
I only meant that the amount of emission reductions in the policies should be set by climate scientists.
Each nation would then implement the “specific” policies needed to cause those reductions.
“I only meant that the amount of emission reductions in the policies should be set by climate scientists.”
Boy, now that is a non-starter, cosmos. At least I hope it is. This is going to be a battle of politicians, not climate scientists.
Boy I sure WISH our laws could be made by scientists as opposed to greedy captains of industry.
But increasingly, individuals are becoming more responsible and interested in good stewardship of the planet.
It is no wonder the oil biz is afraid. Their time is coming to an end. Probably in the next 10 or so years. A few like econ will fight this and other progress for the country in defense of themselves. But they ARE fewer and fewer and must eventually lose.
And what is your “actual experience” with climate science, econ101?
Posted by: cosmos | December 13, 2007 at 04:39 PM
Good question cosmos.
What is your actual experience with climate science other than blogging cosmos?
The Communists and the Nazis have put “scientists” in charge of lots of things, in the past.
The results, at times, have been rather horrific, don’t you think?
Nope, we aren’t about to have a tyranical system where you pseudo-intellectuals get to run everything, without public checks and balances and debate.
There is absolutely NO chance that we human beings can, deliberately, change the temperature of the Earth, in either direction, by even a degree over a 50 year period.
Even your own projections do not show any real change, even if we do everything you want.
Global warming is a scam.
Look no further than “carbon credits” to see what a scam all of this is!
Global warming is much the same mechanism as a fever- it’s an attempt by the organism to rid itself of parasites. You only have to look at our political and business leaders to see the truth of it.
By the way:
I predict that organized labor, at least the manufacturing side and the transportation side of organized labor, will eventually break with the Democrat Party over this issue.
Global Warming alarmists WANT to “outsource” American jobs and manufacturing, to countries that don’t have to follow their stupid rules!
Come on people, your finger pointing is not going to make things better.How long and at what cost does it take to realize the change or are we so apathetical that we will not accept changes until we reach the point of no return.Does it really matters whether it is a man made problem or if it a natural occurrence?Regardless of how it got there, we all can agree that it is happening; the results and the actions are still the same.A greater worry would be the transitions.Are the changes deadly, as it has been before several times thru out earth’s history?Is the content of the air that we breathe going to change or are we going suffocate because the higher amount of CO2 and methane gas?What is it that we are actually going to face, how and in what ways things are going to change (Mesozoic Era), are we prepare for those changes?I would rather see action then a whole lot of useless taking.
It is the public that WANTS global warming addressed.
It is a few in entrenched greedy self serving industry that oppose this.
The ONLY loser to addressing global warming are the dinosaur energy industries. They fear losing their monopoly.A new generation has come to adulthood since the last energy crisis. They and their kids KNOW we must address our dependance an fossil fuels.
The energy companies COULD embrace this. SOME are.
Some and their shills like econ here would hold America and the world back. For no more than protecting their own self interests.
American companies are being held back and made to lose business by people like econ!
CHINA now makes more fuel efficient cars than the US PLANS to in 10 years. US auto makers foolishly continue to build huge gas guzzlers that no one wants.
Organized labor wants to do their jobs. They are at the mercy of companies that have and continue to make short sighted decisions.
China?
China opens a new, coal fired electricity generating plant more than once a month!
Business will do what is profitable.
The government should stay OUT of energy issues.
Government involvement is what got us into subsidized Ethanol, remember?
Let the free market work, and the energy issues will solve themselves.
The climate?
Unless you are willing to go to war to force your stupid rules on other countries, like India and China, there is NOTHING we can do!
If the United States impoverishes itself with stupid “green” rules and carbon reductions, it will just make carbon based energy cheaper, in the rest of the world.
There is NOTHING we can do about the climate.
Absolutely, positively nothing!
“There you have it, as cosmos states, where’s your experts? There are none at the Pew Center, just Political Activitists in a (cough) think tank.”
Posted by: Kansas | December 13, 2007 at 02:30 PM
http://www.pewclimate.org/pressreleases/regionalimpacts
Does Kansas believe that Dr. Gerald A. Meehl, and the other authors of the reports are not experts, and “just Political Activists”?http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/meehl/vita.pdf
See also the “References” at the end of the reports.
Oh, andPLEASE show me the law that keeps American companies from producing alternative energy, would you?
Why the law of the “free” market of course econ.
Alternative energy takes investment. So FAR we have preferred to go to any limit including war to remain dependant. You yourself are here defending that. And you’re getting shrill at that.
Paul – as you know our tax structure with depletion allowances; IDC; and many other tax breaks gives the fossil fuel a significant advantage. Also, the externalization of costs benefits them.
Econ101,
Some real chestnuts in that post there. Let’s see…
“Let the free market work, and the energy issues will solve themselves.”
“There is NOTHING we can do about the climate.
Absolutely, positively nothing!”
You’re killin’ me, Econ101! Which wouldn’t be so bad, I guess, if such fantastical, capitalist, know-nothing, do-nothing theological convictions weren’t also killing US.
What a wonderful example of the American spirit you are econ.
“There is nothing we can do!”
What you mean is “We shouldn’t do anything!”
That would at least be honest.
“There is NOTHING we can do about the climate.
Absolutely, positively nothing!”
FALSE!!!!!!!!!
“Even your own projections do not show any real change, even if we do everything you want.”
Posted by: Econ101 | December 13, 2007 at 06:40 PM
FALSE! Take your lies elsewhere econ101.
The projections show a big difference between reducing emissions, versus stupidly continuing “business as usual”.
“Cigarettes are good for you.
Nicotine is not addictive.
Global warming is a myth.”
Three great lies.
Paul is on the ropes and starting to rant.
What kind of an American says there is nothing we can do?
“What kind of an American says there is nothing we can do?”
One with a vested interest in stopping it.
That’s my assertion as well Ben.
Tell us the negatives of addressing global warming econ.
What is to lose?
Our dependence on foreign oil in places we have to fight to keep it?
Well, if you are Peabody coal you could lose the profits from your lucrative partnership with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
Heh
In two sentences, econPaul defined himself:
“Business will do what is profitable.
The government should stay OUT of energy issues.”
Sentence two allows industry to keep thoughtlessly doing sentence one.
Americans want better.
Business will do what is profitable.
And, if they want to pollute, the government should stay out of it.”
“This is going to be a battle of politicians, not climate scientists.”
Posted by: outlander | December 13, 2007 at 05:29 PM
And the wiser politicians are pushing hard for the emission reductions that the climate scientists recommended.
“Does it really matters whether it is a man made problem or if it a natural occurrence?”
Posted by: Wiseman | December 13, 2007 at 06:47 PM
Yes, very much. Since it is human-caused, humans can (and should) reduce the amount of future warming, by reducing GHG emissions.
Natural factors are only causing a small part of the recent warming.
* IF * solar activity does increase in the future, the extra GHG’s humans have put in the atmosphere will cause even more warming.
“What is it that we are actually going to face, how and in what ways things are going to change (Mesozoic Era), are we prepare for those changes?”
http://www.ipcc.ch/ has some detailed reports — but they may have underestimated how soon the changes will occur.
Given his usual position AGAINST labor unions, econ evoking them and trying to make them an ally in his cause angers me.
Union workers want to make things. It is in their interest to make things that sell. The foolish American auto companies are failing them.
And then econ said this:
“Global Warming alarmists WANT to “outsource” American jobs and manufacturing, to countries that don’t have to follow their stupid rules!”
This is shrill and a lie.
Addressing global warming can make America a world leader in new and innovative products in an increasingly oil scarce world.
Nothing is stopping any company that wants to, to build the “green” automobiles that you want.
Liberals want to call the shots.
Liberals want to make the rules.
Liberals are, at heart, tyrants who do not want to allow voluntary changes.
The Teamsters have, at times, endorsed Republicans for President.
I am on very solid ground by stating the obvious:
The Democrat Greens are taking the Democrat Party over the cliff on this “Global Warming” religious crusade.
No, I don’t like it that we depend on foreign oil, but much of that foreign oil comes from Mexico and Canada.
We could produce far more oil, domestically, if the greens would allow it.
The public?
All we need is a conservative leader, willing to put together an advertising campaign showing all of the restrictions that greens have placed on our own production of domestic energy.
You greens are very vulnerable, precisely because you are not prepared for the real fight that is comming your way.
You’ve already lost econ.
And do not make this a conservative issue.
MOST conservatives, most Americans WANT responsible use of our resources. MOST Americans want America to be free of dependence on fossil fuels.
Why don’t you?
Do you like wars in other lands to maintain our dependence?
You shall be very lonely in your fight. And you will be defeated.
PS
I walked to the store today just for you econ.
Hey Cosmo, Thanks for the link up, looks like some good educational reading.
Yea Capn: Why are those talks in Bali, with the commensurate private and chartered jets, etc? –GMC70
I have a question, sir. What if it turned out that these people were hypecrites about their energy usage?
Would that also make the scientists wrong?
Does Kansas believe that Dr. Gerald A. Meehl, and the other authors of the reports are not experts, and “just Political Activists”?http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/meehl/vita.pdf
See also the “References” at the end of the reports.
Posted by: cosmos | December 13, 2007 at 06:57 PM
Dr. Meehl doesn’t work for the Pew Center cosmos.
Do try and pay attention.
What is your actual experience with climate science other than blogging cosmos?
Posted by: Kansas | December 13, 2007 at 06:27 PM
Econ..why WOULD you want to keep depending on fossil fuels? We have the abilty to come up with much better alternatives. America has always been innovative in the face of crisis, this is our chance to become more independant in our energy sources, which can only have a positive effect on our politics.
I hope gas goes up to $10 a gallon…because that’s the kick in the pants we need to move beyond our oil dependancy and do something wonderful.We have an electric car in our garage right now…the problem is the batteries weigh about 800 lbs, so obviously the concept needs to be refined..we’re so close to having cars that don’t require gas or oil. Think of the freedom we’ll have when we can tell the Middle East to stick it.
That’s the point Mary.
Econ paul DOESN’T want us independent of oil.
There’s lots of money in oil.
There’s also lots of money in fighting to keep that oil available to us.
econ has all the scruples and many of the same tactics of your average drug pusher.
I’m excited about taking this car for a spin..it needs work, that’s why my husband has it right now, but it should be ready in a few weeks to tool around town in…If you see a middle aged grandma in a bright green Voltswagen speeding down Kellogg, you’ll know it’s me!I’m excited that we’re welll on the way to developing these types of vehicles.
We’ll notify the tow services in advance Mary. :)
I’m just anxious to see how fast it can go.
Do wave cheerfully to econ when ya see him at the gas pump Mary.
GOOD on you!
“Dr. Meehl doesn’t work for the Pew Center cosmos.
Do try and pay attention.”
Posted by: Kansas | December 13, 2007 at 08:52 PM
Drs. Meehl and Ebi prepared the report for the Pew Center that Phillip Brownlee mentioned in the header.
Do try to pay attention, Kansas “values”.
http://www.pewclimate.org/regional_impacts“Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate ChangeDecember 2007
By:Kristie L. Ebi, ESSGerald A. Meehl, National Center for Atmospheric Research… “
I’ll take you and your son for a drive, JR!
I checked the staff at the Pew Center cosmos.
Neither Ebi or Meehl don’t work there.
The Pew Center is a Political Think Tank.
http://www.pewclimate.org/about/staff
Mary we have had a Prius since June and you are right about that battery. One thing my husband who is pretty handy around – he used to be a jet mechanic many years ago in the Navy – won’t touch anything under the hood. When you drive up to a stop light it just turns itself off until you depress the gas pedal again. Everyone always thinks it just died. We get lots of looks and questions. Many people are ready for something that uses less fuel. Questions like do you have to plug it in at night.
On the flip side for me it isn’t so much the fuel as it is all of the other products in our everyday life that are petroleum products. Being from NE Ok we were close to Phillips Oil in Bartlesville and had lots of friends that worked there. Their top geologist lived next door to my husband growing up. He told us that the reserves in the US were great enough to carry the US for hundreds of years. Then we stopped drilling. Instead of finding drill sites in the US he went to S. America and other countries.
Now we find ourselves needing the oil and here we are without.
I don’t pretend to have all of the answers but I know someone smarter than I am does.
er
Neither Ebi or Meel work at the Pew Center
So cosmos, do try and pay attention.
and btw cosmos…
What is your actual experience with climate science other than blogging cosmos?
Posted by: Kansas | December 13, 2007 at 06:27 PM
Posted by: Kansas | December 13, 2007 at 08:54 PM
How the Pew Center is really a front for Far Left Activists.
The money behind the Snake Oil
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={DF035E33-5CF7-4C28-A50E-941FDE1E22E5}
other products in our everyday life that are petroleum products.
You mean plastic.
Incredibly useful and badly wasted resource that.
Think of it.
Oil is refined into bulk polymers. We use these to package…everything.
We buy something, rip, cut, chew? the plastic off…
and then throw it away to last in a landfill a million times longer than its useful life.
There has to be a better way.
Here’s part of the Pew Center’s agenda from the link above. And Brownlee uses the Pew Center as a reference for an non-biased source? (cough)
One of the most disturbing realities in American society today is that the Ford Foundation, which is supposed to represent the love of America and of American values, finances the far Left. Ford is especially financially generous, for instance, to radical entities such as the anti-War, neo-Com movement. It also provides substantial grants to the Tides Foundation and its sister non-profits: The Tides Center, Thoreau Center for Sustainability, Groundspring.org, the Tsunami Fund, Tides Canada Foundation, and Highwater, Inc., a for-profit real estate firm that manages Tides’ properties including its home office in San Francisco’s Presidio.
The largest funding source for Tides, however, is the Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew has given almost $109 million between 1990 and 2002. Most of that funding has come from Tides’ “management” of three initiatives: The Pew Center for Excellence in Journalism, the Pew Center for Civic Journalism, and the Pew Center for the People and the Press. None of these three projects could have been legally funded directly by Pew, since they are for-profit media companies. Tides, on the other hand, has no such legal problem; so it is happy to funnel the money for Pew – at its standard 8 percent fee.
The Foundation began the Tides 9/11 Fund to “promote a just and peaceful national response” to the attacks, dispersing over half a million dollars so far to such groups as the New York Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project, to provide technical assistance to gay/lesbian/transgender Arab-American groups. Evidently, gay and lesbian Arab-Americans were considered far more at risk of being attacked by angry Americans than Islamic terrorists.
As a direct effort to fund the anti-war movement, Tides established an Iraq Peace Fund which has granted about a half-million dollars to various anti-war groups, including MoveOn and the radical leftist National Council of Churches.
Other grants included $40,000 for the “Peace Action Education Fund.” This group is highly active in the efforts to turn Iraq over to the tender mercies of the United Nations, allowing the French and Germans the opportunity to continue to profit from the miseries of the Iraqi people and to hide their own complicity in the despotism of the Hussein regime.
Recently, the Tides Foundation launched yet another attempt to capitalize on the anti-war movement. The Peace Strategies Fund has provided over $800,000 – all funneled through its Groundspring.org subsidiary – to leftist groups such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Arab American Action Network, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and United for Peace and Justice..
The Tides Foundation and its sister organizations provide a huge amount of funding to left-wing radical groups just as the Ford Foundation, and other leftist philanthropists, do. All this money goes to a huge web of anti-Americanism. Hillary Clinton spoke of a “right-wing conspiracy,” yet few people realize how large the neo-Communist web is. The American people deserve to see the truth, for lack of the truth may yet set us in chains.
One thing about Phillip, Kansas, is that he is consistent about using left leaning sources. Of course the reference of choice for the WEBlog is the New York Times, which fits right in with Pew.
Ford Motor Company has been financially hurt by the boycott led by AFA. But they continue to come down on the side of the secular progressives and support their cause. Even Toby Keith pitching for ‘em can’t convince me to buy Ford anymore.
I’m sick of all the global warming hype, and the politicizing of it. I think man caused changes to the environment are real, but I wouldn’t go as far to hype everything up, when nothing catastrophic has really happened yet. I think all the hype, and bombardment of global warming from the media might actually turn people off to making changes to the way we use energy, and the way we waste stuff.
outlander,
Yeah, Dr. Meehl,http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/meehl/vita.pdf
and Dr. Ebi, and all of the people listed in the “Resources” of this report,http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Regional-Impacts-Midwest.pdf
are all “left leaning sources”. And David Horowitz’s magazine knows much MORE about climate science, than Dr. Meehl and the other scientists. /Huge sarcasm OFF
What is your actual experience with climate science other than blogging cosmos?
Posted by: Kansas | December 13, 2007 at 06:27 PM
Posted by: Kansas | December 13, 2007 at 08:54 PM
Posted by: Kansas | December 13, 2007 at 09:32 PM
What’s yours kansas?
I think your climate science is limited to the confines of Mom’s basement.
If you post with your regular nic fake “JM” I will tell you.
But chances are you won’t admit using multiple nics will you. :)
MaryThat battery, in your car, will eventually wear out.How enviromentally friendly will that be?
Also, electricity has to be generated somehow. A good portion of the electricity, to charge your car, came from coal.
Coal will continue to be a primary source of electric generation for ever. We will never stop using coal.
Now, I have no problem with your free decision, in the free market, to buy an expensive car that really doesnt change anything, enviromentally.
However, you will run into serious trouble, politically, if you try to force these ideas on the public.
We will be burning carbon based fuels hundreds of years from now, regardless of what other alternatives we come up with.
Kansas,
I guess that you can’t realize that my asking econ101 what his “actual experience” with climate science was a rhetorical joke.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/12/climate-change.html#comment-93446258
econ101 is obviously 100% clueless about climate science — just like you are, Kansas.
Now please email Mr. Brownlee, and explain to him why you keep asking me to post personal information here.
And also tell Mr. Brownlee everything that you believe is wrong with the report,http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Regional-Impacts-Midwest.pdf
Oh LOOK!
Econ found a friend in “kansas”.
Hey Paul? There are whole books, organizations, and etc. to getting off the grid.
That my little paid shill is the real free market.
Coal or oil in a hundred years? Do you trade in whale oil too?
Fool.
Show me a politician, of any stripe, who wants to make gasoline or coal completely illegal, and is willing to state the goal, publicly, will you?
The public has no idea how radical you lefties are.
Start forcing your agenda?
They will push back.
You are ranting paulecon. Again.
Who said anything about making coal or gasoline illegal?
I enjoy embarrassing you econ paul and will happily do so again.
If you do not outlaw oil, coal and gasoline, we will still be using oil, coal and gasoline years from now.
If put to a vote, of the general public, I think I would pretty much be in the mainstream here.
Voluntary, free market alternatives are fine.
Voluntary conservation is fine.
No mandates.
(Either way, I win. If you get a nut job elected, that agrees with you, to actually force your agenda, it means you will be branded as nuts, again, for several more election cycles.)
Hatred of oil companies is not an invention or an alternative. It is just hatred.
(Either way I win…)
Wow you are still and as ever all about…
you. EconPaul F Rosell.
What an egomaniac you are.
You never fail to entertain our readers and further define and marginalize yourself.
There is not a chance that America will embrace the agenda of the radical greens.
Politicians might try to force that agenda.
I which case, that will help my side win elections.
Define “radical greens” Paul.
Does it mean people who DON’T work for the utility companies as you do?
Who is forcing anything?
Is anyone forcing me to conserve energy? Is anyone forcing Mary to drive an electric car?
You are so afraid econ paul.
Why?
Read again.I have no problem with voluntary efforts.I have stated that, repeatedly.
I have a huge problem with bogus “carbon credits” and carbon taxes and mandated carbon controls.
There will be a grass roots revolt against any measures to cram this stuff down our throats.
I define a radical green as someone who thinks that the planet is more important than the people who live on this planet.
There are countless greens who feel that way.
econ paul?
Earlier, you said:
“There is nothing we can do!”
But you’ve been shown examples of better Americans than yourself. You see Americans doing when you say there is nothing they can do.
Why does that bother you?
Yours are the arguments of a desperate man econpaul.
Why?
What is your stake in holding America back?
J R,
I think econ101’s definition of “radical greens” is the huge # of people on Earth, who realize that anthropogenic global warming is a very serious problem, and believe that we need to sharply reduce GHG emissions.
But, on econ101’s side are some deniers, who believe that humans can increase Earth’s GHG’s forever, and forever, and forever…
I define a radical green as someone who thinks that the planet is more important than the people who live on this planet.
econ101
Actually this planet is more important than we are. Without it, we wouldn’t exist in the first place.
Basically we’re whoring out the planet of all its unrenewable resources, if it has consequences on the environment is not the question, but how much long term damadge will it cause is the question.
“I define a radical green as someone who thinks that the planet is more important than the people who live on this planet.”
Posted by: Econ101 | December 14, 2007 at 12:05 AM
“This planet” is our ONLY home… unless econ101 has another inhabitable planet, and the transportion to move billions of people there.
Do you, econ101???
Oh cosmos, here’s my rhetorical joke as well. :)
What is your actual experience with climate science other than blogging cosmos?
Posted by: Kansas | December 13, 2007 at 06:27 PM
Posted by: Kansas | December 13, 2007 at 08:54 PM
Posted by: Kansas | December 13, 2007 at 09:32 PM
Posted by: Kansas | December 13, 2007 at 10:51 PM
But, on econ101’s side are some deniers, who believe that humans can increase Earth’s GHG’s forever, and forever, and forever…
Posted by: cosmos | December 14, 2007 at 12:20 AM
What’s the maximum absorption for co2 cosmos?
How about the maximum absorption for the climate system before natural climate conditions counteract increases and abate the “greenhouse gases” as it always have.
Some state for co2 it is somewhere between 500-600ppm before co2 drops out and is sequestered to a normal state.
Does that sound like a forever system to you cosmos?
Just wondering, one blogger to another blogger.
And also tell Mr. Brownlee everything that you believe is wrong with the report,http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Regional-Impacts-Midwest.pdf
Posted by: cosmos | December 13, 2007 at 11:16 PM
pssst cosmos, they keep forgetting like the people who run the climate models for the U.N. to include night time data – you know when the earth actually cools.
But hey, you know the IPCC, they only like data from sunrise to sunset and only if it is above certain latitudes and doesn’t include things they don’t understand yet like the interaction of water vapor with the climate.
How convenient to not include in Global Warming Reports half of a normal earth day and only half of the planet and still call it
(wait for it)
Global Warming :)
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Regional-Impacts-Midwest.pdf“Throughout much of the Midwest, the model projects future increases in nighttime temperatures of more than 2 °C (3.6 °F) during the worst heatwaves (Figure 1c).”
From the IPCC,”Models also reproduce other observed changes, such as the faster increase in nighttime than in daytime temperatures,…”
“The increase in the number of warm nights over Eurasia is poorly simulated when anthropogenic forcing is not included, but the inclusion of anthropogenic forcing improves the modelled trend patterns over western Russia and reproduces the general increase in the occurrence of warm nights over much of the NH.”
People are more important than the planet.
The planet is ONLY important because the planet supports people.
The planet is here for us to use.
By the way, why do you liberals care about “non renewable resources” runnning out, anyway?
Won’t you celebrate, on that day?
Again, NO MANDATES!
I grew up in a house that had “solar panels” on the roof. Water was circulated through those panels and then down to a hot water heater type collector. The standard, stock, house hot water tank then drew water from the “solar tank”. There were 6 kids in the family. Lots of showers. However, Dad always said it would not have been worth it, without the tax credits that Carter gave him to install all that stuff. In fact, Dad took it down, rather than pay the repair bills when it started acting up. (The tax credits had long run out, by then.)
I would go for such tax credits, again.
I have no problem with incentives, for REAL conservation or production efforts.
However, I do not want the government playing favorites.
Thats how we came up with the Ethanol fiasco.
Russia is regional not Global
Trollboy:
“NH” = “Northern Hemisphere”
We live there. Check a map.
Notice the similarity between what Gore is trying to accomplish and how Marx succinctly described communism:
“A new treaty will still have differentiated commitments, of course; countries will be asked to meet different requirements based upon their historical share or contribution to the problem and their relative ability to carry the burden of change.”
-Al Gorehttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/opinion/01gore.html?pagewanted=2
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
-Karl Marx
Please note that Gore wants a world governing body to act at will over sovereign nations to enforce whatever is necessary to reduce GHG emissions.
Global communism means applying varying restrictions on energy use to those nations who posess a “relative ability to carry the burden of change”.
Yeah, we all know what means.
For all self loathing, gullible citizens who champion the demise of America, that is great news. For the rest of us living in reality, the fact that the scientific justification for this movement is merely a theoretical model shown to be inherently unreliable, calls for absolute resistance to any quixotic mandate.
“Please note that Gore wants a world governing body to act at will over sovereign nations to enforce whatever is necessary to reduce GHG emissions.”
Posted by rfl
Each of those “sovereign nations” will have agreed to make the GHG reductions.
“For the rest of us living in reality, the fact that the scientific justification for this movement is merely a theoretical model shown to be inherently unreliable, calls for absolute resistance to any quixotic mandate.”
Reality? Do you believe that the observed increases in global temperatures, and ocean heat content are merely “theoretical”?
Those observed changes have been mostly caused by human-added GHG gases. Solar and other natural factors do NOT explain the warming.
The human-caused warming is/will cause positive natural feedbacks, which will cause more warming.
CO2 drives Earth’s climate. Human-added methane, nitrous oxide, and CFC’s are also warming Earth’s climate.
“People are more important than the planet.
The planet is ONLY important because the planet supports people.
The planet is here for us to use.”
What an arrogant and short sighted attitude. And I note that in making the Earth the exclusive province of humanity you FURTHER restrict that charter to include “the people” in the present sense.
Screw the biosphere that was either created or took billions of years to evolve. To heck with the human beings to follow US!
Me! Mine! Here! Now!
What a self elevated beknighted little thing you are.
This global warming is about as logical and reliable as the previous arguments of the Big Freeze the eco-nuts were screaming about from the 70’s on up to just a few years ago. Canada and the northern part of the US was to be a big glacier by this time. What happened to that theory? It didn’t come true so they came up with the global warming theory.
The past 2 years and next year they say are supposed to have over a dozen hurricanes or named storms and we were to be hit with multiple Category 5 hurricanes like Katrina each of those years. What happened to them?
As for Al Gore’s carbon credit sales for planting trees, has anyone actually seen or know of where any of these trees have been planted? Is it possible this is nothing more than a pyramid scheme that he is running and really how much of that money, if any, is going toward actual tree planting?
It’s more like a Ponzi scheme yitsme.
A good example is what a British Company did to prove that the Carbon Credit Scheme was a scam.
They purchased credits from another country and got them approved by the Brits.
Then, they cranked up their emissions on a project to way beyond acceptable limits.
The firm was not in violation because they have purchased Carbon Credits from another country in order to meet the whole Carbon Credit Ponzi Scheme requirements.
In other words, as long as one is rich enough to buy carbon credits to offset any excess emissions, you can pollute all you want to.
Spew those co2’s into the air for as long as you want as long as your money lasts to compensate for it.
When is someone going to invent the methane gas filter that fits into the butts of cows or sheep? I hear the eco-nuts complain about how much global warming is affected by Cow Farts and Sheep Farts than most anything else. Of course one of my co-workers could use one of those filters too. He can really stink up the office some days.
When is Al Gore going to actually do anything himself related to Global Warming? He talks up a big story (sorta like Mr. Haney on Green Acres) about the problem, but has anyone ever really seen him do anything at all except preach about it and get rich at the same time as getting his Nobel Peace Price and Oscar?
They are working on it yitsme and its no joke.
Australian researchers have found that Kangaroos emit less methane than any other mammal known.
Those they are trying to adapt through diet or other changes to other animals such as cows and sheep to lessen the “gas” problem. :)
Global warming is happening and humans are contributing to if not causing it.
That is the position of the overwhelming balance of the scientific community.
But you already knew that.
That global warming is happening and that man is contributing to or causing it is also the position of:
John McCain
Mit Romney
Rudy Guliani
Fred Thompson doesn’t want to say.
It would appear that the candidate of the global warming deniers is:
Alan Keyes.
SO The doubters, deniers, liars and shills are in a bit of a spot. A little spot that grows littler by the day.
Clouds are likely the culprit for this summer’s record Arctic Ice meltdown, so says scientist Dr.Graeme Stevens of NASA’s Cloud Satellite team.
He stated that the amount of sunlight from clearer skies would have been enough to heat ocean waters by 2.4 degrees C. or enough to melt .3 meters of ice.
There are words from a peer reviewed, Internationally recognized Scientist who is an expert on Climate Change as it pertains to clouds.
OK, but what suddenly happened to the BIG FREEZE that they were warning about from the 70’s to just a few years ago? No one has explained what happened to that theory. It was really big until a few years ago when they changed it to the BIG WARMUP.
Of course there was also the death of the oceans that was to happen by 2000. Just like the world was to end at the change of the millennium and we were to go back to the stone age and all sorts of chaos was to take over.
Politicians will say anything they think the people want to hear so they can get what they want. I can’t believe you don’t have any idea of that theory. Its been that way for many years.
Global Warming will turn out to be another one of those kinds of theory’s. It will turn out to be nothing more than a big Global Warming “religious” hoax and Al Gore will become one of those washed up TV Preachers.
Well,
Global cooling was a short term idea in the 70’s.
The death of the oceans? That’s happening.
Do a google search on “coral bleaching” and “depletion of fish stocks”.
Hey ya don’t have to believe in global warming to know that we have and have had a real problem with fossil fuels, especially oil.
If we address global warming by replacing fossil fuels, we’ve lost nothing. We’ve GAINED leadership in the industry that is gonna lead the next planetary industrial revolution.
We didn’t buy the electric car, Econ. We’re just keeping it for a little while to work on it.Things have to change as far as our country’s dependance on fossil fuels, and they will. Wind and water are also sources for generating electicity. It’s all an evolvng science and you can bet 20 yrs from now the vehicles on the highways will look a lot different and be much more efficent than they are today. I don’t think you’ll see too many Hummers in the future. It’s called progress, and Americas always been good at it.
I sure hope you are right Mary.
And I hope those new vehicles are proudly engineered and made in America.
“OK, but what suddenly happened to the BIG FREEZE that they were warning about from the 70’s to just a few years ago? No one has explained what happened to that theory. It was really big until a few years ago when they changed it to the BIG WARMUP.”
Posted by: yitsme
yitsme’s “a few years ago” = 1977. Anybody else believe that “from the 70’s to” 1977 = “just a few years ago”???
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
“1977 Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in next century”
And yitsme’s “BIG FREEZE” was journalist’s hype, not science.
Ironically, the unusual weather in the early 1970’s made humans aware of how IMPORTANT Earth’s climate is to human civilization. It triggered a huge amount of climate research worldwide.
But today, yitsme believes 30+ year-old journalist’s hype is the same as 30+ years of very solid climate science.
“Clouds are likely the culprit for this summer’s record Arctic Ice meltdown, so says scientist Dr.Graeme Stevens of NASA’s Cloud Satellite team.
… or enough to melt .3 meters of ice. ”
Posted by: Kansas | December 14, 2007 at 08:02 PM
Kansas, do you have a link to Dr. Stevens (or Dr. Graeme L. Stephens) quote?
Probably not, since your M.O. is to post LIES about climate science.
And, WHY is so much Arctic sea ice only about one foot thick? Because human-added GHG’s have warmed the Arctic region.
Those warmer temperatures are the MAIN cause for the loss of Arctic sea ice the last few decades.
Yeah cosmos it was on Fox News in the Science Section.
You can find the bio for him here:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cloudsat/team/graeme_stephens_bio.html
I didn’t use a direct copy because it was a copyrighted story and encoded so I couldn’t do a cut and paste because it was encoded.
I only put in about one paragraph of the story. Total is several paragraphs long.
Oh and thanks for calling me a liar cosmos.
It’s classically your style to do so isn’t it.
This is the link.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316753,00.html?sPage=fnc.scitech/naturalscience
Kansas,
If you’re not a liar, then you’re so stupid that you do not understand that “_ A _ culprit” does not = “_ THE _ culprit”.
‘Extra Sunshine Blamed for PART of Arctic Meltdown’http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316753,00.html?sPage=fnc.scitech/naturalscience
Kansas: “I only put in about one paragraph of the story. Total is several paragraphs long.”
Kansas does not have to worry about violating that page’s “copyright”, because he grossly MISQUOTED what “Dr.Graeme Stevens”(sic) said.
Kansas: “I didn’t use a direct copy because it was a copyrighted story and encoded so I couldn’t do a cut and paste because it was encoded.”
Copy/paste worked fine for me.
Kansas,
In other words, you do NOT have a link to Dr. Graeme Stephens quote, because he did not say what you posted.
Also, Kansas is using the name of a known, distinguished scientist to spread a lie.
That would seem to be a violation of WE Blog policy.
I gave you the link and the quote I used was extracted from the document.
Show me what part of what I wrote doesn’t represent what Dr. Stephens wrote?
I do believe Dr. Stephens wrote that the lack of clouds great contributed to the abundant sunshine that helped melt up to .3 meters of ice (1 foot.)
Show me in that link where I was wrong cosmos.
You cannot prove I was incorrect, because that’s is what Dr. Stephens said.
Once again cosmos, the link for the story is at my 12:27 am post.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/12/climate-change.html#comment-93616754
But please do get all panicky and accusatory in your usual fashion, I wouldn’t expect you to act any differently now.
Okay… Kansas IS so stupid that he cannot understand that “A culprit” (in his link) does NOT = “THE culprit” (in his post falsely claiming to be what Dr. Stephens said).
“A” implies multiple factors.”THE” implies only one factor.
‘Extra Sunshine Blamed for PART of Arctic Meltdown’http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316753,00.html?sPage=fnc.scitech/naturalscience
The point of that column is that thinner ice, caused by global warming, is more vulnerable to changes in weather and clouds.
Sorry cosmos, I’m not going to parse someone else’s words for a Political reason.
I just put what the story had and left it at that.
The point of the story is that Dr. Stephens is an expert on clouds and the results that may happen with them.
You cosmos, are not an expert on clouds and throwing wild guesses on what Dr. Stephens “meant” to say.
But please do keep parsing words and omitting important details about the science of Climatology.
You are a very adept propagandist.
Kansas,
More false ad hominems at me?
Compare Kansas’ inaccurate post falsely claiming what Dr. Stephens said,
“Clouds are likely THE culprit for this summer’s record Arctic Ice meltdown, so says scientist Dr.Graeme Stevens of NASA’s Cloud Satellite team.”
to what the climate scientists ACTUALLY said,
“Anomalous clouds, in ADDITION to OTHER weather factors, helped melt ice that had ALREADY THINNED due to sustained WARMING in RECENT YEARS.
The results highlight the importance of weather pattern variability to a WARMING Arctic environment. “As Arctic sea ice THINS, its extent is more sensitive to year-to-year variability in weather and cloud patterns,” said [study author Jennifer] Kay. “Our data show that clearer skies this summer allowed more of the sun’s energy to melt the VULNERABLY THIN sea ice and heat the ocean surface.” “
Do me a favor folks and try to find the word Anomalous at the article found at:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316753,00.html?sPage=fnc.scitech/naturalscience
You won’t find it or the phrase:
“WARMING Arctic environment”
because cosmos created them to distort the article presented at the above URL.
This is cosmos’s typical pattern and method of adding new information or omitting information has not changed.
He is no doubt the King of racketeered and altered information in which the uninformed and untrained masses will adhere to your false application of science.
Look at this article at the URL given at fox news and then study cosmos submission carefully, notice the deliberate alterations.
You will then see what I have been talking about with cosmos intellectual dishonesty, omission and adept word racketeering of false science.
The Fox News article I referenced can be found earlier in this thread at
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/12/climate-change.html#comment-93616754
I see no sense in arguing the particulars.
To address global warming is to address many other problems.
In solving those problems, we lose nothing. Whether global warming is caused by humans or not.
The particulars in this case J R are that cosmos accuses me of entering false data from an article.
Anyone can go read the article for themselves, which is the one I read and quoted here.
Cosmos altered what the article at Fox News actually read and placed it here, then accused me of lying.
It is quite apparent that cosmos is the one telling the falsehoods about the article at Fox News.
I submitted just a portion of that article here and information came from no where else.
Cosmos alterations and omission are his classic style.
And still MORE false ad hominems at me from Kansas?
I did not say WHERE I got “what the climate scientists ACTUALLY said,”
Is Kansas claiming that these sites are not credible sources, and/or accusing me of hacking them?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cloudsat/news/cloudsat-20071212.htmlhttp://spacefellowship.com/News/?p=3976
And Kansas’ very false quote,
“Clouds are likely THE culprit for this summer’s record Arctic Ice meltdown, so says scientist Dr.Graeme Stevens of NASA’s Cloud Satellite team.”
is not in his link,’Extra Sunshine Blamed for PART of Arctic Meltdown’http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316753,00.html?sPage=fnc.scitech/naturalscience
Even the title says extra sunshine was only PART of the melting.
No cosmos…
You do what you usually do. You accuse people of making false posts.
So, I show you the link where I got the information.
What do you do cosmos? You don’t go to the link I provided, you seek out a different link and then accuse me of posting false information.
(1)I provided the link where I got the information.(2)You accuse me of lying.(3)I answer your accusation and give you the link again.(4)You respond with information from an entirely different link than the one I provided and tell people I present false information and am lying.
Sorry cosmos, you do what was called during the Soviet era as disinformation.
I have received training in the military to spot disinformation.
Like I said cosmos, you are quite adept at propaganda, altering of people’s words and generally quoting people out of context.
All of that proves that information from cosmos cannot be trusted as you never know if you will get all of the information or cosmos brand of Soviet styled propaganda.
Notice how cosmos refuses to acknowledge his adding the words
“Anomalous and WARMING Arctic environment” and make it appear I excluded the words from the Fox News Story.
Cosmos is quite devious and will use all sorts of trick to make other posters appear to have lied.
As I said before, cosmos is quite adept at propaganda.
Too bad for him, I’ve been trained to spot it. :)
And still MORE false ad hominems at me from Kansas?
I accurately quoted my nasa.gov page.
Kansas misquoted his Fox page.
Ohhhh… poor Kansas. He cannot copy/paste what he falsely claimed Dr. Stephens said, because Dr. Stephens did NOT say it!http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316753,00.html?sPage=fnc.scitech/naturalscience
cosmos just doesn’t get it.
I quote information from Fox News article and cosmos goes to a completely different article and claims I make false statement.
It’s not a wonder no one believes his statements.
More from cosmos link, he neglected to mention, but I found interesting:
“In another study, Colorado State University student Matt Lebsock and Stephens found the first global evidence that pollution of clouds by aerosols — small particles suspended in the atmosphere — is indeed making clouds brighter and more reflective, reducing the amount of sunlight available to warm the surface. These indirect aerosol effects are not well understood and create major uncertainties in climate models. The team combined data from CloudSat with the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer-Earth Observing System and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer instruments on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
Scientists had previously believed that aerosols indirectly altered sunlight reflected by clouds by altering the sizes of cloud particles. The new observations also show that aerosols might allow clouds to grow deeper, increasing the amount of sunlight reflected from them even more than previously thought.”
The above is an interesting tidbit cosmos left out of his link at
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cloudsat/news/cloudsat-20071212.html
The full PDF provided by the NASA site can be found at
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/135640main_aerosols_trifold21.pdf
Notice how the researchers state that the effects of aerosols are not well understood.
Hardly a settled science would you say? :)
Let’s repeat a statement from cosmos’s linked Website.
“These indirect aerosol effects are not well understood and create major uncertainties in climate models.”
What I’ve been saying all along.
And, confirmed by peer reviewed scientists under a NASA program.
How about that settled science cosmos? :)
kansasJM?
Do you, in your fevered disturbed mind imagine for one minute that anyone regards anything that you post as credible?
Let me relieve you of that.
They don’t.
If you want to keep denying the truth to yourself feel free.
But would you mind awfully if the rest of us got off the oil addiction? What IS your purpose in defending it?
Oh J R, I’m a firm believer in the current Climate Change.
The big difference between cosmos and I are the causes.
And, as as been recently found confirms that Climate Science is not settled and that the Computer Models are greatly lacking.
You can use the Kansas/JM all you want J R.
It shows your weakness in the ability to logically discuss the subject, so you resort to try and intimidate with me trying to release personal information about me.
Bullying is your life isn’t it J R? Too bad you have to hide behind a computer screen to do it. :)
Bully you?
Why when you so regularly beat yourself up?
And what does it matter the causes.
I’ll say it again.
There is NOTHING to lose by addressing climate change.
The problems it would solve in the process more than justify the effort.
While you quibble semantics.
Ohhhh… poor Kansas. He cannot copy/paste what he falsely claimed Dr. Stephens said, because Dr. Stephens did NOT say it, at Kansas’ link, or anywhere!http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316753,00.html?sPage=fnc.scitech/naturalscience
I see cosmos is still struggling with the truth.
Let’s recap:
Let’s repeat a statement from cosmos’s linked Website.
“These indirect aerosol effects are not well understood and create major uncertainties in climate models.”
What I’ve been saying all along.
And, confirmed by peer reviewed scientists under a NASA program.
How about that settled science cosmos? :)
Posted by: Kansas | December 15, 2007 at 07:30 PM
That’s right Kansas… climate scientists have a HIGH level of scientific understanding (LOSU) re the WARMING caused by human-added greenhouse gases.
But they have a low LOSU re the amount of COOLING caused by aerosols.
And the COOLING from the aerosols offsets the WARMING caused by the human-added GHGs.
Poor Kansas…
He makes multiple false ad hominem attacks. He tries to change the subject.
But Kansas cannot change the fact that he LIED about what Dr. Stephens said.
cosmos doesn’t understand that the climate models he relies so much on are flawed instruments of information.
Not only are the Computer Climate Models flawed, they leave out huge portions of what climate actually is.
Why? Because as I previously noted, the science is far from settled.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/12/climate-change.html#comment-93690194
You were helpful to a friend of mine earlier “kansas”.
SO I’m gonna give you a chance to redeem yourself a little more.
You yourself agree there is global warming. You disagree that man is causing it.
Just this morning you were talking the benefits of hybrid vehicles.
Um…
Why in the hell are you arguing this? CLEARLY you see our addiction to oil as a problem. Addressing global warming adresses our addiction to oil.
You don’t have to be right on everything. Quit wasting time and your breath and get outta the way and let the country do what it USED to do best, innovate!
Getting out of the way isn’t my style.
I’m a trained skeptic. I was educated to be a skeptic.
When I see facts, I want to see the reasoning behind those facts.
When anyone forces those facts down my throat, my eyebrows go up and my skeptical curiosity takes over.
Anyone who is not skeptical, cannot study science.
What they study without being skeptical are a list of theories.
There are many PhD’s out there now who say that something else is going on with the Climate that we clearly don’t understand.
I want to hear from them and I am sure the World wants to hear from them as well.
My next car will most likely be a hybrid. I want to see Wind Power popping up all over Kansas.
I think Ethanol is a huge waste of time and resources.
Coal fired plants should be outlawed and prohibited from operating.
Nuclear power plants are a viable source of supplying energy.
I’m arguing because I want the science to continue and not stifled by the likes of cosmos and the GORACLE.
Fifty years from now, when they find the temperature is rising or falling and for different reasons than they originally thought, they will thank the skeptics for keeping true science alive.
There is no room in science for politics or consensus.
Science executed by tally vote is not science, it’s politics gone wild.
Uh huh
Pursuit of truth?
Well, the truth can be elusive. It can take a long time to find IF you find it.
You have to ask yourself, is there even the smallest chance that we don’t have that time.
Let’s say we go full bore against global warming tomorrow.
What’s to lose?
We might slow or reverse it? Nothing happens?
It sounds almost as if you want things to play out just to see if global warming is correct.
Uh…isn’t that a little like waiting to see if the house will completely burn down before you call the fire department?
To be skeptical is liberating contrary to popular belief. :)
Just like the argument cosmos and I are having today is about data retrieved about Clouds from Satellites.
This program is very, very new and little is known about how clouds interact with the Climate. This new knowledge scares the “settled science” people like cosmos to death because they fear they will be proven wrong.
In science, it may hurt one’s pride to be proven wrong, but it’s party of the scientific method to constantly try to prove assertions false.
People spend lifetimes working on proven theories. Take Einstein’s theories. Several of them have been proven to be not quite accurate and have caused many projects to fail, because Einstein used incorrect math or made assumptions that should not have been made.
In case you haven’t figured out, the Climate system on earth is quite complex and huge in its partially known structure. We as humans, only know part of that structure.
What happens if they find out that carbon is not the real problem, but air particulates are? Particulates can come from any source – forest fires, man made, botanical based particulates and yes even water vapor from evaporation is considered a particulate.
So let’s say we go along with the co2 programs, carbon credits for the next 50 years and stop looking at particulates.
Then we find out that the temperature is still rising because we did not fully understand the science why Climate changes.
Now, we are again 50 years behind the power curve and in greater danger than we were before.
If by chance, some great break throughs are made in particulate science and we find a solution, wouldn’t that be grand.
Pouring all of our money into a one gas (co2) science makes no sense at all.
In fact, it is counter productive and stifles scientific inquiry.
I’m not willing to give up science for the politically popular “one gas” theory.
I want science to continue and make great strides.
Kansas,
If you had science, facts, and reality on your side, you would NOT have to LIE about climate science, what Dr. Stephens said, etc..
Instead you post lies, then make false ad hominem attacks, then try to change the subject, etc..
cosmos is scared of finding out scientific truth.
Let’s repeat a statement from cosmos’s linked Website.
“These indirect aerosol effects are not well understood and create major uncertainties in climate models.”
What I’ve been saying all along.
And, confirmed by peer reviewed scientists under a NASA program.
How about that settled science cosmos? :)
Posted by: Kansas | December 15, 2007 at 07:30 PM
Posted by: Kansas | December 15, 2007 at 08:29 PM
Science continues. It always does.
The mistake you make is thinking it will disappear to one agenda. It won’t
I’m all in favor of windmills. VERY long ago, I spoke to a meteorologist and asked what the impact of large scale windfarms might be on local weather.
We KNOW that global warming is a consequence of CO2 on our neighbor planet Venus. Certainly nothing is to be lost being careful as to CO2 here. Doing so does nothing to aggravate particulates. In fact it mitigates it by limiting burning.
Well J R, it’s true that most of Venus atmosphere is CO2, but instead of Water Vapor for Clouds, it has sulphuric acid. :)
Venus’ atmosphere, though, overwhelming comprises suffocating CO2 and a permanent blanket of clouds laced with sulphuric acid. Oxygen is nowhere to be found, nor is any water except in atmospheric traces.
The pressure on Venus is like 3/5ths of a mile under the ocean on earth. That’s pretty much head crushing pressure.
It’s also about 860F on Venus, not very conducive to life. :)
Venus is one gaseous animal. It has no oxygen anywhere on the planet and it has no such thing as land masses as we no it, nor does it have any water.
Venus is a much different planet. :)
Well J R, it’s true that most of Venus atmosphere is CO2, but
You should have stopped there.
Solar radiation pertinent to heating a planet is infrared heat radiation.
CO2 holds that heat.
What the clouds on Venus or Earth are made of is very much secondary.
Kansas,
You STILL have not found a link supporting your lie about what Dr. Stephens said?
Kansas,
Do you hope that the uncertain “indirect aerosols” factor causes more, or less COOLING?
The COOLING effect of aerosols from coal plants, ships, etc. will quickly end in the future, when those sources stop emitting.
But the WARMING effect of CO2 from those sources will continue for a century, or longer.
Insides of Clouds May Be The Key To Climate Change
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070218135338.htm
New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm
Study Finds Striking Environmental Change In Arctic
ScienceDaily (Nov. 20, 1997) — Natural causes, not just human-induced forces, played a significant role in an unprecedented warming trend in the Arctic in the last 150 years, according to a study published in the November 14 issue of Science.
The study found that the Arctic experienced its highest temperatures in 400 years between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries. Contrary to previous assumptions, the evidence indicates that the Arctic is characterized by significant climatic change even without the influence of environmental effects caused by humans.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/11/971120072234.htm
Scientists Zero In On Arctic, Hemisphere-Wide Climate Swings
“Arctic Oscillation explains the warming observed in the Arctic better than anything else”
ScienceDaily (Aug. 30, 2002) — In the late 1990s, as scientists were reaching consensus that the Arctic had gone through 30 years of significant climate change, they began reading the first published papers about the Arctic Oscillation, a phenomenon reported to have hemisphere-wide effects.
In short order the arctic-science and the global-change communities were galvanized, says Richard Moritz, polar oceanographer with the UW’s Applied Physics Laboratory and lead author of a review of recent Arctic climate change in the Aug. 30 special polar-science issue of Science.
“We’ve learned more about the dynamics of post-glacial arctic climate change in the last five years than in the 50 years previous,” Moritz says. “For example, the recent trend in the Arctic Oscillation explains the warming observed in the Arctic better than anything else.”
Advances in understanding arctic climate change are particularly timely, with some studies indicating that the recent trend in the Arctic Oscillation results partly from human activities that generate greenhouse gases and sulfate particles, and deplete stratospheric ozone. Scientists, planners and policymakers need to know what the changes of the last 30 years portend
Thus climate modelers have redoubled their efforts to determine the physics behind the patterns of change. Although their models portray realistic day-to-day and month-to-month variations in the Arctic Oscillation, they fail to capture the magnitude of the longer term trend in the Arctic Oscillation that was observed from 1970 to 2000. While paleoclimatologists studying the climate record of the past 1,000 years have not reached a consensus on the importance of the Arctic Oscillation pattern over this longer period, some surprising findings indicate that past Arctic warmings tended to coincide with low-frequency El Nino-Southern Oscillation events in the tropical Pacific.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020830071739.htm
From 2002, five years ago,
“… with some studies indicating that the recent trend in the Arctic Oscillation results partly from HUMAN activities that generate greenhouse gases and sulfate particles, and deplete stratospheric ozone.”
Posted by: Kansas
Kansas,
You STILL have not found a link supporting your lie about what Dr. Stephens said?
And do you hope that the uncertain “indirect aerosols” factor causes more, or less COOLING?
You STILL have not found a link supporting your lie about what Dr. Stephens said?
And do you hope that the uncertain “indirect aerosols” factor causes more, or less COOLING?
Posted by: cosmos | December 16, 2007 at 11:36 AM
You see folks this is what cosmos does.
I clip a paraphrase out of long article and he continues to call me a liar over and over.
He will come back next week, next month and continue to call me a liar.
cosmos yells about being attacked, when in fact, he is the main one doing the attacking.
He ignores any science that does not support his opinion or challenges the holy church of the Goracle.
cosmos is not worth wasting time on, he is a hater.
“I clip a paraphrase out of long article and he continues to call me a liar over and over.”
Posted by Kansas
Ohhhh… poor Kansas. He cannot copy/paste what he falsely claimed Dr. Stephens said, because Dr. Stephens did NOT say it, at Kansas’ link, or anywhere!http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316753,00.html?sPage=fnc.scitech/naturalscience
So instead, Kansas makes false personal attacks at me, and at all of the distinguished climate scientists that Al Gore relies on.
It was not false and cosmos knows it. It was a short, paraphrased statement in which I provide a link to, so everyone could read and decide for themselves.
Instead of reading and deciding for themselves like an adult, cosmos comes back with his usual ad hominem.
To prove his unworthy point, he links to an entirely different Web page than the one I provided and says I’m lying. Tricky huh? Use a different Web page from the one I linked to and say the words I wrote don’t support the article which I originally referenced.
As I said before, cosmos is not a scientist, but a propagandist.
He will any means to distort, deceive, omit and generally any tactic to support his worship of the GORACLE.
Notice the articles I posted today.
Cosmos won’t comment on those, because it doesn’t support his propaganda science.
cosmos doesn’t understand science, he only understands op ed pieces.
cosmos doesn’t understand that science is under continual change and science is supposed to challenge daily assertions and assumptions.
cosmos thinks science is a static, political tool.
This is what Kansas posted,
(emphasis added)”Clouds are likely * THE * culprit for this summer’s record Arctic Ice meltdown, so says scientist Dr.Graeme Stevens of NASA’s Cloud Satellite team.”
Readers can easily see that Dr. “stevens”(sic) did NOT say that at Kansas’ link,
‘Extra Sunshine Blamed for PART of Arctic Meltdown’http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316753,00.html?sPage=fnc.scitech/naturalscience
More re the SAME study,http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cloudsat/news/cloudsat-20071212.html“Anomalous clouds, in ADDITION to OTHER weather factors, helped melt ice that had ALREADY THINNED due to sustained WARMING in RECENT YEARS.
The results highlight the importance of weather pattern variability to a WARMING Arctic environment. “As Arctic sea ice THINS, its extent is more sensitive to year-to-year variability in weather and cloud patterns,” said [study author Jennifer] Kay. “Our data show that clearer skies this summer allowed more of the sun’s energy to melt the VULNERABLY THIN sea ice and heat the ocean surface.” ”
Kansas also lies about me, and climate science in general.
It’s the opening paragraph of the link cosmos and it does not reflect differently what Dr. Stephens has said.
You try to play word games instead of discussing the science that Dr. Stephens is an expert in.
The answer to all of this confirms what I have been saying all along.
That is, that Climate Science is not settled. The Cloud Satellites are relatively new and they haven’t even began to discover the tip of the iceberg (pun intended) of Climate Science.
Why are you in such a hurry cosmos?
Are you afraid when 2012 comes around your precious political power from the kyoto treaty will die on the vine?
Don’t worry cosmos, real scientists don’t worry about such things, they do science.
Opening paragraph of Kansas’ link,
“Clouds were likely * A * culprit…” (multiple culprits)
But Kansas falsely posted that Dr. Stephens said,
“Clouds are likely * THE * culprit ” (the ONLY culprit)
Kansas also posts lies about me, climate models, New Orleans levees, etc. Kansas uses lies and spin to support his false opinions.
Kansas does not have any credible science refuting the warming caused by human-added greenhouse gases.
Kansas cannot offer any credible “natural” factors that caused all of the recent warming, and the rise in the oceans heat content.
I don’t doubt that Kyoto will be replaced with a much stronger version in 2012. The science is getting more solid each year, and most leaders, except for Bush and few others want strong emission reductions.
Actually cosmos I wrote as I remembered it. There was no intention to do anything.
But I guess for someone who is as “anal” about discussing topics as you are cosmos, it makes a huge difference.
I even provided a link to it. What could I be up to, if I provided a link to where I got the material?
It was for informational purposes and hopefully (guess not on this blog) to be discussed intelligently.
According to cosmos he has more knowledge that the Climatologists he disagrees with.
Although cosmos is not a scientist, he did stay at a Holiday Inn.
Kansas, your posts ARE “informational”. They prove that:
1) You are NOT a reliable and/or credible source.
2) You usually refuse to admit your errors, and instead post rants of denial and false ad hominems, and try to change the subject.
And yes, it is a “huge difference” to falsely claim that cloud changes were the ONLY factor in melting Arctic sea ice in 2007, instead of one of many factors.
I agree with Drs. Stephens and Kay re clouds and Arctic sea ice (1:48 PM upthread today) if their data is accurate.
I disagree with Kansas’ misquote of Dr. Stephens.
In other words “Kansas”, your posts here on WE Blog prove that you’re a zero credibility troll.
Are you still boiling cosmos?
You will have a stroke some day with that attitude. :)
Kansas,
Science, and engineering is about facts, not emotions.
I’m merely stating the obvious facts about your posts.
There is something fascinating about science.
One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
Mark Twain.Life on the Mississippi
Kansas,
Show us your credible “science” supporting your false claim that 98% of the recent warming is from “natural” causes, not human-added GHG’s.
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
“Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.”
Mark TwainAl Gore’s AIT
Perhaps even worse than warming:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/23138.html
Oceans’ growing acidity alarms scientists
As the oceans absorb more and more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, they’re gradually becoming more acidic.
And some scientists fear that the change may be irreversible.
At risk are sea creatures up and down the food chain, from the tiniest phytoplankton and zooplankton to whales, from squid to salmon to crabs, coral, oysters and clams.
The oceans are already 30 percent more acidic than they were at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, as they absorb 22 tons of carbon dioxide a day. By the end of the century, they could be 150 percent more acidic.
“Everything points to dramatic effects,” said Richard Feely, an oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle. “There are suggestions the entire ecosystem could change over time.”
Ben,
That ocean-acidification is very bad news.
And also add in less phytoplankton and coral bleaching in the future, due to warming. And todays overfishing, and pollution.