Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson is correct that a national solution to greenhouse gas emissions would be preferable to a patchwork of state rules. But Congress and the Bush administration won’t take meaningful action on this issue. That’s why California and 16 other states wanted to set their own standards for carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. The EPA blocked that request Wednesday, saying that state rules would pre-empt federal authority. But is that the real reason, or was it about the power of the auto industry lobby? After all, it was the first EPA denial of a waiver for California in the 37-year history of the Clean Air Act, and the EPA’s own lawyers and technical staff supported the waiver.
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
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- Chrisfrommactown on Moore has had enough of House
103 Comments
Over 400 Scientists dispute the “global warming” religion, that has much to do with why Congress has not acted.Man made “Global Warming” is a hoax:http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Whatever the $%@& is wrong with the climate, and the environment; regardless of WHO mesed it up –
What can it hurt to try to clean it up, and stop more pollution from happening??
Even GOD told the first humans (allegedly) to take CARE of the earth; to be partners in Creation!
I think thats the least we can do to hand it over to our kids and grand kids so that it isnt such a mess as what we have made of it!!
We have made some great strides… But I believe we can do even MORE if people will work together!! And stop the stupid fighting, and the even more stupid “He said” “She said” arguing!!
Nuff said for now!!
Paul:
Inhofe’s report is a joke. He is probably the most fanatical (and in his particular case, that equals dumb) Senator in the country.
The sadddest thing about the modern conservative political movement, a created alliance between tax whiners and Christian Right activists, is that both are fanatical movements that together form a truly luddite movement. One that makes the following bullsh*t claim:
That global warming and environmentalism are a “liberal” movement. Global warming is a theory that arose from two observations, one from planetary scientists who in particular noticed the extreme heat on the surface of Venus and its relation to the high CO2 content of its thick atmosphere, and two from the observation that humans were putting a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. Now, global warming is a reality, an observed phenomenon that lines up with concerns expressed by scientists. Since then, there has been a lot of research done to try to seperate the possible causes of global warming. The consensus is that anthropogenic causes are largely to blame. This has arisen from the research of climate scientists across international, political, and religious spectrums. It is NOT a liberal conspiracy.
Inhofe, however, is a most prominient representative of two of the most fanatical base elements of the Republican Party. Exactly the sort of people who go around and search for experts (generally their own sort of fanatics) to agree with them.
Paul, pay attention. Some of the biggest outrage is not coming from liberal Democrats on this, it is coming from states with Republican governors.
“The consensus is that anthropogenic causes are largely to blame.”
should be
“The emerging consensus is that anthropogenic causes are largely to blame.”
“Man made “Global Warming” is a hoax:”
Posted by econ.
Okay, if it is not man made, and I’m still not totally convinced, the fact the earth is warming, and climate change is here, are you still going to do nada?
Weining ourselves off fossil fuels can only be a good thing. You are for this war with Iraq because of terrorism. Where does the money we send to the arab nations go . . . think it might just be to finance terrorism? So a good place to start is cutoff the money to finance terrorism. How do you think we will do that?
Also, something has to be done to be ready when growing seasons, as well as the farm belt, change. Think the lawsuit with Nebraska is small change now? Wait until battles for water turn into turf wars, between both states and countries.
Planning when it’s happening is a little to late, don’t you think, or is it still just nonesense to you.
Science is not a consensus.
When science becomes political and debate is caught off, then it is no longer science.
It is just so easy for Liberals to call people liars they don’t have to face like the 400 scientists mention by Imhofe face to face.
This is typical of Liberals.
Peer reviewed scientists are fanatical – right…
stumper,
I agree with you on the ethanol problem – it’s a dumb solution.
I also am very against coal fired plants.
I try myself to be energy conscious to an extreme. My gas bill for the last month was $39.00. I have improved the insulation in my house and made things more efficient. Four years ago my gas bill was running 80-100+ per month.
I am not a pure green, but have enough awareness to know what is right and what is not.
The carbon credit scams put forth by the Gore group will not work. I have given this example before, but will do it again.
A British Company wanted to show what a scam carbon credits are. They bought carbon credits on an open market overseas. With these credits, they could exceed their co2 limits and still be compliance with Kyoto Treaty and British law.
Imagine that, pieces of papers sold for money so one can spew more carbon. Great idea huh?
The solutions offered by Liberals is to throw money at the problem. That’s not science, that’s political and personal greed.
It has already been proven many times that the Computer Climate Models are flawed. They do not include things on climate simply because they do not know everything there is to know about Climate. They don’t even know how clouds or water vapor interacts with the climate and that’s the largest Greenhouse gas above all others by 80-90 percent!
The new gas standard required by automakers is one method. Wind turbines are another. Tax credits on energy efficient research and business/home efficiency is another.
I don’t want the blue flag of the U.N. telling the U.S. how to run their country. We can do that just fine ourselves. I didn’t get a choice on to elect to the U.N., so they have no right or province over me in telling me what to do.
kansas
Now you’ve done it, the Global Warming witches will have their flying monkey Cosmos here any minute to “refute” everything you just said.
Of course science represents a consensus of opinion of the scientific community. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science Otherwise you have a Pope declaring that Pi equals 3.
Even the “Law of Gravity” was found to break down at near-light speed conditions. But this does not mean you can drop a bowling ball on your head with impunity.
Science never cuts off debate. But at some point one must determine the preponderance of evidence indicates a certain course of action is required.
We are at that point in the greenhouse gases debate. And I cannot imagine anyone who thinks it is a bad thing for America to begin a transition from fossil fuels to cleaner and sustainable energy sources and lead the world in greener technologies.
Fossil fuels resources are not unlimited.
And to decry politicizing the debate then draggiing out hot-button words like “liars” and using “Liberals” as a pejorative is disingenuous at best.
Let’s see where this list of 400 goes… but if I were looking for an unbiased information broker, Senator Inhofe would not be my first choice…..
This whole argument verges on mass hysteria and needs to be put in perspective. I can’t believe the number of supposedly educated people, including the Eagle’s, spouting off like a bunch of ‘Chicken Littles’.
From the Washington Post:By S.A. MillerDecember 21, 2007
Scientists doubt climate change
“More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says.
The scientists — many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis — cast doubt on the “scientific consensus” that man-made global warming imperils the planet.
“I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit,” said Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, one of the researchers quoted in the report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
“I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached,” Mr. Tennekes said in the report.
Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report debunks Mr. Gore’s claim that the “debate is over.”
“The endless claims of a ‘consensus’ about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day,” he said.
Global warming is real and human activity is causing it.
Solving that problem solves any number of other problems. Lead among them our near narcotic addiction to cheap oil.
All the Presidential candidates on BOTH sides agree and we WILL be addressing this problem.
David B
“preponderance of evidence ”
That’s the problem with the warmers. Every time the “evidence” changes and doesnt match predictions the predictions get “corrected”. And we are still supposed to believe that they know what they are talking about.
On carbon credits:Carbon credits are not like Indulgences sold by the Church to absolve sin in exchange for gold.
The funds are directed to finance real-world non-polluting projects which otherwise would be using older cheaper dirtier technology. I think it is a workable transitional program. Some posters here seem to an lack of understanding of carbon credits.
It helps businesses to prevent disruption of current practices as they transition to cleaner tech.
Two simple questions on where our future lies: Is the energy future of America oil or something cleaner and more sustainable? When does the future begin?
In conclusion, also from the Washington Post article of today:
•”The hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth’s surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The [greenhouse-gas] hypothesis does not do this. … The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
David Wojick, expert reviewer for U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
•”The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming.”
Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo-Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
•”There’s no need to be worried. It’s very interesting to study [climate change], but there’s no need to be worried.”
Anton Uriarte, a professor of physical geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain
“But at some point one must determine the preponderance of evidence indicates a certain COURSE OF ACTION IS REQUIRED.”
Has anybody shown what course of action from the govt is requisite for heading off global warming?
It’s one thing to sound the alarm based on data, but to demand federal action when that data is inconclusive is another. Especially when no one even bothers to define what specific action from the government is to be done.
No one seems to know or has shown what the government should do and how that will do anything to solve the problem of global warming.
However, it should be obvious to all that we we need to be prepared for decreased energy consumption out of pure economics. Fossil fuels are running scarce and the prices of which will continue to rise. If you want to continue to keep a sizeable part of your paycheck, get used to using less energy.
That is true no matter what 400 or 5 billion scientist say about manmade GW.
David B, the chaps from British that jacked the carbon credit scam understood it perfectly. They understood it enough to make a mockery of it and to show it does nothing but float a ‘pipe dream’ on a wish.
“Global warming is real and human activity is causing it.”Posted by JR.
By-Golly if JR says it, well that’s just the way it is, and we need look no further for answers!
You doubter and deniers lost an awful lot of credibility yesterday.
First there was Hank and the Hannity list of “scientists”.
Then Heckler posted the headline about no global warming and omitted the attached report detailing that warming !
It’s OK! You can keep your irrational hatred of Al Gore.
We KNOW you know he should have been President.
But there is nothing to lose in addressing global warming and everything to gain.
Don’t you love your country and want it to be great again?
C’mon guys, Lets all follow J R to greatness!
Dear Heclker:”Every time the “evidence” changes and doesnt match predictions the predictions get “corrected”.
Duh!! Yes.
That is the very process of science, don’t you understand that?
The preponderance of evidence once has mankind believing the universe was steady state and unchanging and infinite. New evidence revealed an expanding universe and the Big Bang.
Plate tectonics was a wild far out minority theory in the early 60s. Now it is accepted.
I guess you could call scientist “flip-floppers” if you want to politicize it.
Absolute truths are the domain of others. Not scientists. I respectfully direct you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
David B,
I’ve spent quite a bit of time on Real Climate.org reading the scientists there.
Almost every topic there has several statements that are worded similarly – that is, “We don’t completely understand why this is happening or don’t fully understand the science behind this.”
Yet, when the press gets hold of it or the GORACLE translates it, it comes out as “The debate is over, the science is settled and there is no dispute.”
This is the danger when mouthpieces like Gore get a hold of science and twist it into a political farce.
Science says one thing and the Gorites say something completely different.
JR
You missed the point yesterday. The evidence didnt fit the predictions so the prediction changed.
That’s how it goes with the religion of global warming. Make it up as you go.
Heckler
Yesterday, before you tripped over your own argument, you were telling me how addressing global warming aggressively would
“destroy the economy”.
I get that a lot. But thing is? No one ever wants to tell me how invention, conservation and innovation is gonna destroy the economy.
Now I certainly do not want the economy destroyed. But I got my concerns as to the environment and ITS future.
Too? I find it embarrassing that the most powerful country in the history of the world is addicted to technology older than anyone alive.
I have said and say again, there is nothing to lose by addressing global warming proactively and aggresively.
Here is your big moment. Show where I’m wrong.
The 16 other states seeking to impose reduced emissions include 12 at this time that have legislatively adopted the California’s standard, and 4 states have bills pending.
Four of the five largest-population states, California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, every Mid-Atlantic state and all but one New England state, New Hampshire, as well as every West Coast state are on board.
EPA administrator Johnson’s claim of avoiding a “confusing patchwork of state rules” is blowing smoke, because TWO standards, the coalition states’ rules being clear and consistent, would result.
Given the very large combined populations of the coalition states (over 100 million people), Detroit would have a booming market in low-emissions vehicles, more than adequately sized to achieve high-level production efficiency.
Detroit’s main problem is sluggish sales and poor revenues, due to its failure to anticipate rising gas costs, in the face of reliable predictions they were going to occur. Being tight on cash, they don’t think they have the money to do the research and development for new-generation cars.
But they’re in a Catch-22, because the Japanese carmakers are making trainloads of money selling better-quality, fuel-efficient cars, giving them lots of cash for R&D that Detroit doesn’t have.
Honda will be leasing a few dozen HYDROGEN-POWERED cars in LA THIS SUMMER, with five hydro fuel stations to fill them up. They’ll work the pilot program’s bugs out and expand production and fuel stations year after year.
These cars work. They aren’t “concept car” prototypes. Honda has moved beyond hand-building these cars and is now designing assembly plants and worker-training programs to mass-produce them.
For these cars to have a net carbon-footprint reduction, power generation for splitting water to make fuel will come from solar, wind, perhaps coal plants with CO2 sequestration, and very likely by 2020 or so, new nuclear plants.
Detroit has to figure out if it wants to see its market share continue to dwindle, or turn itself around. Throwing up legal obstacles to slow down others’ progress because Detroit can’t do rapid change is a bushleague tactic.
The Big Three should fire their army of high-powered lawyers, and use the savings to recruit top-flight engineers to create an air force.
I agree the US automobile industry is a mess. Look at their numbers.
It seems like they have always fought innovation.
Did you know they fought tooth and nail against requirements to use safety-glass?
They fought seat-belts.
Not long ago they fought airbags.. which is now a feature that people compare to make a purchase decision.
But government regulations greatly ghastly slicing and dicing of minor accident victims, ejection of passengers, and well.. I do not want to be in a car without airbags.
So the CAFE standards a small step and not a world changing one? Yep.
And, um, the polar bears? They seem to be drowning now.
MPS, reduced emissions is an admirable goal, however it won’t make for better energy utilization.
Energy utilization is where we need to go and reduced emissions will be the natural flow that follows.
Killing off an entire industry just to feed the egos of enviro-centric thinking just doesn’t make sense.
Make laws and point science in the direction requiring better utilization and conservation of energy.
And, um, the polar bears? They seem to be drowning now.
Posted by: David B | December 21, 2007 at 09:39 AM
That famous photo of trapped Polar Bears that Gore showed turned out to be a lie. It was actually stolen and used without permission by a couple of environmental journalists.
The foremost polar bear researchers have stated almost exactly the opposite about the condition of polars bears that environmental ’shock troops’ have claimed. In fact, in some areas, the quota for polar bears for hunting has been upped. Why do you think that is if the polar bears are endangered?
JR
Let me explain the “economy” thing. When I make that arguement(and I would guess that most people who make the arguement) I am talking about adopting changes like those outlined in the Kyoto agreement. I don’t remember the numbers and don’t have time to look them up but the treaty would limit us to the carbon output we had in a given year.(approximately 5 years ago, so say 2002.)
Now stop and and think about this. Our population and economy have grown significantly since then. Our energy use has grown since then. What changes would we have to make to dial our carbon output back say ten percent? And HOLD it there.
The only short term solution is cut back. Cut back on usage. Cut back on activity. Economic activity. Jobs go away. Let me know if this doesnt make sense to you, I’ll try to explain it in more depth.
There are plenty of things we can do to cut back carbon output long term on a “per capita” basis. Nuclear, wind, solar. And yes the development of those things generate economic activity, but at the cost of other activity. More nuclear electricity, less coal electricity. Someone gains a job someone loses a job. So it’s not like a net gain.
Again, when I talk about damage to the economy I’m speaking in terms of what all the UN types tell us we have to do to “stop” global warming.
Bush campaigned on mandatory reductions on carbon dioxide and even ridiculed Gore for not taking a hard-line stance against CO2.
Then he got elected, and he suddenly wasn’t for CO2 reductions anymore.
He was for it before he was against it.
Worst. President. Ever.
So the CAFE standards a small step and not a world changing one? Yep.
CAFE Standards have done little to increase fuel economy in cars. It’s biggest contribution since 1975 may just be “awareness” of the fuel gauge in our cars, trucks, and SUV’s.
There are so many loopholes. 1975 standard for the average truck was 21 MPG. Did we ever reach that? There are plenty of new trucks and SUV’s being built TODAY, with less than 20 MPG.
Take the “average” out. Take the loopholes out. Or get rid of the law altogether.
This is one where government does more harm than good.
Let the big three US Auto makers sink or swim on their own. Let them kill one of the last bastions of organized labor (after public teachers).
But free competition alone will not end the MPG and oil use. Only when Americans stop being two faced and end the love affair with big gas guzzling SUV’s and pick-em-up trucks will fuel standards rise.
Think about it. If congress mandated hybrids or technology changes instead of legislation with plenty of loopholes for big business – we could cut our fuel consumption in half! But we really don’t care. We don’t want to give up our BIG trucks and SUV’s. And the Hummer! Saw a new TV add for HUMMER. Promoting the truck as a LIFE SAVING vehicle for emergencies. Promote those gas guzzlers.
Keep feeding an arab, venzuelian, canadian, and mexican.
And about those polar bears. In the same fashion as Scrooge speaking of poor houses, “Are there no zoos?”
What changes would we have to make to dial our carbon output back say ten percent? And HOLD it there, asks Heckler.
Gee, I dunno. How about we do what every industrialized country in the world has done except for us–incentivize efficiency and conservation, make green power cost-effective, and punish polluters.
Instead, Dick Cheney meets in secret with Big Oil and crafts an “energy policy” that no one can read.
Think Sauron in Mordor meeting with the Nazgul and Orc-lords . . .
Good post, AmWay.
Listen to the CONs. We can put man on the moon, we can win the cold war, but we just can’t do a thing about our dependence on OIL!
Just have to keep doing more of the same old, same old.
Talk about defeatism . . .
A commendable try Heckler.
Your point is it’s gonna hurt a little?
Gee maybe it should.
Right now we have right around 200,000 Americans in and outta uniform in Iraq. Now we can slice and dice that six ways from Sunday but the plain truth is they are there to protect easy access to cheap oil.
Does it give you pause? It does me.
A fellow American has his life on the line so that if I so choose, I can go about my way and give not a second thought to the energy I use. My take is I owe that sacrifice on the part of another a little back on my end.
You and me and MOST people Heckler, we are all fighting the same fire. We are just arguing about semantics.
It’s TIME for us to be energy conscious. It’s past time. Be it concerns as to global warming or just a desire for America to be energy independant. I don’t care why we do it, let’s just get ‘er done.
Kansas, you’re right. The new Honda hydro/electric reportedly can get 60 mph gasoline-equivalent.
Okay, I looked up the Financial Times article on carbon credits.
The thrust of the stories indicates to me that this is an emerging business and all the kinks are not yet worked out.
“A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
The British pension man said: the ” Defra-backed scheme would be a good one – “once the [EU] emissions trading scheme is in full working order”.
The partisans are misrepresenting this if they are claiming carbon credits are totally wrong-headed.
The site I found is subtitled “Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias” Not an indication of a totally unbiased point of view…
How long has the concept of carbon credits been around? Is it perfected yet? Obviously not. What market is?
I think the concept has legs.
Something interesting:—One would think that countries that committed to the Kyoto treaty are doing a better job of curtailing carbon emissions. One would also think that the United States, the only country that does not even intend to ratify, keeps on emitting carbon dioxide at growth levels much higher than those who signed.
And one would be wrong.
The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. A list of countries and their carbon dioxide emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels is available from the U.S. government. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.
Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)
Maldives, 252%.Sudan, 142%.China, 55%.Luxembourg, 43%Iran, 39%.Iceland, 29%.Norway, 24%.Russia, 16%.Italy, 16%.Finland, 15%.Mexico, 11%.Japan, 11%.Canada, 8.8%.
World and U.S. opinion seems to revolve around who signed Kyoto rather than actual carbon dioxide emissions. Once again, stated intent trumps actual results. Can even the global warming believers possibly believe this treaty has anything to do with it?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/kyoto_schmyoto.html
—-
And for those with a bent, here’s the source for those numbers.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/international_statistics/climate_environment.html
If GWB is blamed for everything bad(including, probably, the asteroid which may hit Mars – see today’s Eagle), does he get credit too?
JR
“Your point is it’s gonna hurt a little?”
Mighty cavalier attitude for someone who’s always whining about how the little guy is always getting screwed. The little guys the one who’s gonna get hurt the worst if we followed the UN’s recommendations.
Jeez… those numbers require some thought. Of course the developing countries have a higher RATE of increase. This is one of the reasons they are in favor of the treaty – they recognize the problem and want to take steps to improve things.
But rate of increase is not the same as total emissions. I’d guess the Maldive, who is experiencing one of the highest birthrates in the world, would have to keep up even a 250% rate of increase for quiet awhile before their emission tonnage equals that of Oklahoma!
The US emits 5 or 6 TONS of carbon dioxide per capita with 300 million people. Do we want India, with one and a quarter billion people to match us?
Here is the source for my cited data on CO2 output
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html
We can’t even get an energy bill passed if there is anything about taking back the favorable treatment they receive.
The Global Warming believers might have more clout as a scientific movement (as opposed to a political one) if they did not try blame the whole phenomonon on one man (Bush).
With a guaranteed ethanol market, the technology to replace corn as the source material should accelerate, as demand for it drives up cost.
This quote is from one of the lauded 400 warming doubters in the Inhofe report:
“Fourth, the inventory of fossil fuels is fairly limited and in one generation we will run out of oil.
Jeez, guys….
Its like this:
Peak Oil = real
Man Made Global warming = not real
Both theories should motivate people and goverments to lower energy use, but only one is based on real data and common sense. Which one would you use to motivate people to lower their energy consumption?
If we cared, it would be really easy to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions: Just lower income, property, etc. taxes, and increase gasoline taxes. Not all at once, of course — a little bit at a time. People would then naturally start making the choice to buy smaller cars, shop & work closer to home, use public transit more, walk more, and generally use less energy.
Note that walking more and driving less is a good thing in itself, and we shouldn’t _need_ the spectre of global warming to convince us that taxing “mobility” is better than taxing wages or property.
“The foremost polar bear researchers have stated almost exactly the opposite about the condition of polars bears that environmental ’shock troops’ have claimed.”
Posted by kansas
Okay kansas, list your “researcherS” (plural).
The USGS polar bear studies were done by “scientists from the USGS, other American and Canadian government agencies, academia and the private sector.”
Kansas called all of them “environmental ’shock troops’”.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar%5Fbears/http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/executive_summary.pdf
“The overall conclusion of the USGS research effort is:
Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately 2/3 of the world’s current polar bear population by the mid 21st century. Because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative.”
“You missed the point yesterday. The evidence didnt fit the predictions so the prediction changed.”
Posted by: Heckler | December 21, 2007 at 09:28 AM
You mean the Met Office predictions? Your post lied about that.
And I’m amazed that people cannot understand that Earth’s temperatures are influenced by BOTH natural AND human-added factors.
The temperature peak in 1998 was caused by a record El Nino event ADDED to warming from human GHG’s.
But fools on this blog believe the deception from Sen Inhofe’s “report” that global warming ended in 1998.
‘Global warming: Met Office predicts plateau then record temperatures’http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/10/weather.uknews
“”A number of the sceptics are saying there’s no warming because they look at the temperature record and see a peak in 1998 and cooler years after that. But we know the peak was because of an El Niño event and that comes out in this forecast,” said Prof Jones.”
GMC70: Canada has now signed-off the Kyoto Treaty while Australia has now signed on, due to changes in government. Canada veered right, while Australia veered left. Emmison rates in Canada rose because of the huge, huge expansion in extracting/converting oil sands in northern Alberta, while other causal rates have remained relativley steady I believe. The oil sands projects are leaving vast areas of pollution and toxic waste, thousands of sq.km in size and the rendering process is causing shortages of water. Apparently a US oilman visiting the sites was horrified saying such denegration would never be allowed to happen in the States. The new Canadian government said Kyoto targets could never be met and accepts that energy trumps the envoirnment. The opposition in Parlaiment claims that without the oil sand projects, Canada could meet the Kyoto targets. I’m not so sure that would make us less than what we are, for Canada leaves the largest carbon imprint per capita in the world. Sad.
‘400 Prominent Scientists Dispute Global Warming – Bunk’http://www.desmogblog.com/400-prominent-scientists-dispute-global-warming-bunk
“Morano’s list of “over 400″ alleged climate quibblers includes the usual deniers for hire Fred Singer, Tim Ball, Christoper Monckton, PR people who have no credibility on issues scientific and who each have a handsome record of saying things widely and demonstrably at variance with the truth.
There is also a group of second-order “scientists,” who are not scientists at all.
There’s “Dr. Richard Courtney, a British coal journal editor whose PhD is rumoured to have issued from a Crackerjack box….Finally, Morano includes a group of legitimate scientists who are not deniers at all, but who are often quoted out of context.”More at link.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
“Morano was “previously known as Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Man in Washington,’ as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, …”
“And I’m amazed that people cannot understand that Earth’s temperatures are influenced by BOTH natural AND human-added factors.” cosmos
I’m amazed you don’t call yourself a liar as I have made similar statements and you call me a liar.
I put much more emphasis on Natural Climate Variability than the alarmists and according to cosmos I’m a liar.
—————-Polar Bears
Again, I once again read the data provided by cosmos and once again I can not find anywhere in the data where the Polar Bear population is declining due to Global Warming.
The closest thing I could find was in the Southern Beaufort Sea area (from cosmos’s link) where Polar Bears ‘might’ be declining due to over harvesting.
Over harvesting cosmos, not global warming.
You see folks, here’s the deal, cosmos will always take the worst case scenario and splash it on the page.
In this case, the worst cast scenario only exists in Global Climate Models, not actual head counts of Polar Bears.
Cut and pastes from cosmos’s references. The average number of bears estimated during 1984–1986 was 641 individuals (95% CI = 401, 881). The average number of bears estimated during 2003–2005 was 681 individuals (95% CI = 401, 961).
That’s an increase not a decrease.
There are currently estimated to be approximately 25,000 polar bears (Aars et al. 2006) distributed over a maximum of 1.5 ×107 km2 of northern hemisphere sea ice (average 1979–2006 winter.
Northern Beaufort Sea AreaOverall, estimates of abundance were remarkably similar through the 1970s, 1980s, and 2000s
estimate.
Abundance – Get it? No declines. And, the paper said they were remarkably similar – as in not that much of a difference.
Alaska’s polar bear population is stable. No decline here.
Canadian polar bear population has increased 25 percent from 12,000 to 15,000 during the past decade with 11 of Canada’s 13 polar bear populations stable or increasing in number.
Increasing in number doesn’t sound like a decline to me.
You see what they do folks is plug in data into Global Climate Models and crank it where worst case scenarios are “made up” and bring the population of polar bears down to zero.
It hasn’t happened, because the scenario doesn’t exist nor will it exists, because there are teams of wildlife management experts who manage the Polar Bear population.
This is about the umpteenth time I had to throw the wet towel on cosmos’s wild claims.
Overall declining polar bear populations do not exist, the are stable and in some areas increasing. Where the polar bear populations are declining, they are being hunted too much.
DavidYou DO realize that the polar bear stuff is a complete fraud?
How can GW drown polar bears?
If a bear can swim, it makes no difference how deep the water is.
That is like saying “GW will flood our boats”.
And, folks, the third world, the poor countries, might WANT U.N. carbon controls for THIS reason:
It would help them take jobs away from the United States!
By the way, you members of the Church of Global Warming keep preaching to us GW non-believes that, somehow, you can guarantee new inventions and new technology.
Show me a time when Congress EVER legislated an invention?
Incentives are fine with me.
Mandates are a very bad idea.
Also, mandating inventions is like passing a law saying that all kids must get straight A’s in highschool.
Some things can’t be mandated. Not without destroying the instutions involved.
Some things can’t be mandated. Not without destroying the instutions involved.
Ya mean the oil companies?
Yeah we’ll all cry a river for them.
“Show me a time when Congress EVER legislated an invention?”
What he means is government can’t do anything.He typed the post on the internet the government created.
Oh and polar bears require ice floes to rest from their swimming and to hunt for their food. Fewer ice floes means more swimming and less eating.
I’ll invite paulie to do that. Can I watch?
The plain and simple fact is that oil is running out as a cheap option for us. We are already committed to the permanent occupation of Iraq because of this.
Is it better to spend money on perpetual wars of occupation or on alternative energy?
Short term estimates put the cost of the Iraq occupation at 2 TRILLION dollars. Let me show you that number.
$2,000,000,000
How many hybrid cars could we quite honestly GIVE to Americans for that money? Let alone what it could do for research and development.
SOMEONE is going to lead the path away from oil and fossil fuels. Do we want to be the nation that leads and capitalizes on that?
Bull.You can not mandate inventions.
The government can not “order” the creation of any new technology.
It happens on its own.
Incentives can help, but — you can’t push a rope, and you can’t order the world to invent something that does not exist.
“You DO realize that the polar bear stuff is a complete fraud?
How can GW drown polar bears?
If a bear can swim, it makes no difference how deep the water is.
That is like saying “GW will flood our boats”. ”
Posted by: econ101 | December 21, 2007 at 07:13 PM
LOL! Thank you econ101, for proving that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
It’s not a sea level problem. Polar bears drown if they are forced to swim too far, due to loss of ice.
And it’s a habitat problem. Polar bears use the ice to hunt for seals. No ice = no food, and no bears.
“The government can not “order” the creation of any new technology.
It happens on its own.”
Posted by econ101
You mean like the web browser you use, which is based on the Mosaic browser, which was developed with government funds (Al Gore’s bill).
Someone has forgotten the history of the Manhattan Project.
“You can not mandate inventions.”
Partially true. But the market can be manipulated in order to encourage invention.
“you can’t order the world to invent something that does not exist.”
Did an American actually write this?
In 1960, American rockets were blowing up on the launch pad.
By 1969 America had put a man on the Moon.
Does econ101 know about ENIAC?
‘The Technology Challenge: How Can America Spark Private Innovation?’http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/lazowska/faculty.lecture/innovation/gore.html
Are ALL people who say there is no global warming as disconnected from reality and the American can do spirit as pauliecon?
“The government can not “order” the creation of any new technology.”
econ 2007
“I believe this nation should commit itself to the goal before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth”
President John F. Kennedy(apparently in a more optimistic and capable time some 45 years ago)
“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”
Robert Kennedy
“Only full employment can balance the budget, and tax cuts will pave the way to full employment” JFK(See, I can quote him, too.)
Say, did JFK make rail travel and road travel illegal, when he said he wanted to go to the moon?
Did the creation of the internet require that pencils and pens and telephones be outlawed, or taxed, first?
I have no problem with the government encouraging alternatives.
It do not want the government discouraging production of what we already have.
Again, when has Congress ever ordered a specific invention?
It is not the “new invention” portion, of your brave new world, that worries me.
What worries me is the fact that you are BETTING on these new inventions, before they even exist.
A venture capitalist would tell you that you have failed the due-diligence portion of the interview.
We all see the need, we all see the market. You have not proven that any new idea can deliver, in a cost effective way.
Lots of inventions are simply not practical.
It is the fact that you want to cut off industry that is already producing jobs and profits and tax revenue and growth.
‘More on the ’scientific’ attacks on global warmingNYT’s Revkin gives Inhofe a pass’http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/21/16436/710” “Padded” would be an extremely generous description of this list of “prominent scientists.” ”
More at link — economists, TV weathermen, an inventor, etc.
CosmosThe UN report had about, what, 42 people involved?Most of these “official” bodies you reference, on your side, have some overlap, or people who belong to more than one group.
Even if you said 50% of the 400 skeptics did not measure up as “expert” — you STILL don’t have a list of 200 scientists that completely agree with you, do you?
The greatest source of untapped energy that this nation has is in the conservation of it.
THAT does not take invention. The only investment involved is in thinking.
The question asked at the end of Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” is…
“Are you ready to change the way you live?”
Right now, the way we live has about 200,000 Americans in Iraq to pay for it. THAT should make us think creatively if nothing else does.
The last line in the Gore documentary says “If you pray, pray.” “When you pray, move your feet.”
Polar bears feed mainly on ringed or bearded seals. When seals are unavailable, polar bears eat other marine mammals, reindeer, small rodents, sea birds, ducks, fish, eggs, vegetation (including kelp), berries, and human garbage. On occasion, polar bears kill young walruses and beluga whales. When other food is unavailable, polar bears eat reindeer, small rodents, seabirds, ducks, fish, eggs, vegetation (including kelp), berries, and human garbage
The aquatic stalk is a method also used in summer when seals haul out on sea ice. Imagine that, in the summer when sea ice is melted.
Polar bears can swim up to 100 miles and can dive 15 feet to capture prey.
Polar bears often abandon seal rich areas and reroute to other areas for easier kills of other wildlife.
“The UN report had about, what, 42 people involved?”
Posted by econ101, the Polar bear expert(sic).
econ101, there are probably zero credible climate scientists in Inhofe’s report.
Please download the Annex at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm and count the # of authors.
Then download all of the chapters, and count the “References” at the end of each of those.
CosmosThose who disagree are disqualified, therefore nobody disagrees.
Nice way to force a “concensus” Comrade!
Name a famous scientist, in history, who became famous by supporting a concensus?
The funny thing is? I thought about posting as to this earlier.
Now it is late and I have to sleep.
Scroll this thread and see the pattern.
When confronted, pauliecon flees only to come back in what he sees as a “lull”.
When it is not a “lull” he flees and comes on back again a little later. History suggests he will do the same again in the hours while others who would check him sleep. I guess we will see.
I believe in America more than you pauliecon. I say we can get past our slavish addiction to foreign oil and our wasteful ways.
The floor is yours.
“Those who disagree are disqualified, therefore nobody disagrees.
Nice way to force a “concensus”[sic] Comrade! ”
Posted by econ101
econ101, the Polar bear expert(sic) is WRONG, yet again.
Those who disagree with the consensus are unable to provide any credible theories, and/or data.
Science is about the science. It’s not about the person, and it’s not about some unsupported opinions, deceptions, lies, etc.
Science is also not about ideology.
CosmosYou are an idealogue and a zealot, not a scientist.The same can be said of Al Gore.
There are very, very few scientists who are as dogmatic as you or Al Gore on this subject.
—-As far as when and where I post?
I run 2 businesses, I have 5 kids and 1 grandchild.
This Blog is way down at the bottom of my priority list.
So far down, that I have never really thought about strategy.
I come here for enjoyment, when I feel like it.
I leave when the phone rings or there is a knock at the door.
I have something special.
Its called a “life”
You libs should try it.
Cosmos, you’re an idiot who can barely spell science. List of some of those 400 scientists:
Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia
William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg
Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany
Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal
Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.
Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta
R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma
Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,’ Australia
William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai’i at Manoa
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman – Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling – virology, NSW, Australia
Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007
William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph
John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia
Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen’s University
Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA’s Deregulation Unit, Australia
Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University
Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University
Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief – Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force
R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.
Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager – Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia
Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia
Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia
Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
You don’t have to be a “climate scientist” to spot bad science, by the wayt. The ability to crunch numbers, read a study, and detect the odor of manure is sufficient.
And Cosmos
The burden of proof is on those who claim that human beings should suffer massive economic hardship in order to reduce theoretical man made global warming.
Those who doubt you only have to show the holes in your theory.
Ah yes the oft touted Hannity list of “scientist” that deny global warming.
Dude? When Sean Hannity farts it aint Chuck Mangione.
Oh and you oil invested global warming deniers have a bigger problem.
Ya don’t have a Presidential candidate. Not on either side.
Well not one anyone has heard of anyway.
We have the filibuster.
Not for long.
This may happen after the next election. Or it may be a function of Republicans not embracing any filibuster action as to global warming.
More and more of the public is waking to the importance of this issue every day. And Republican politicians must eventually address that and vote accordingly.
Change is coming. It is long overdue. Our negligence 30 years ago is already costing us.
This time, it is going to be different.
NEW YORK — Most Americans believe global warming exists and a majority thinks it is a major problem — if not a crisis, according to a recent FOX News poll. Even so, less than half think they personally can do anything about the problem.
The new national poll finds that 77 percent of Americans believe global warming is happening and, of those, more than twice as many think it is caused by human behavior (46 percent) than by normal climate patterns (17 percent). About a third says it is a combination of both (30 percent).
• Watch the FOX News Channel special, “The Heat Is On: The Case of Global Warming,” Sunday, November 13 at 8 p.m. ET
All in all, Americans take the issue of global warming seriously. A 60 percent majority describes the situation as either a crisis (16 percent) or a major problem (44 percent), while about one in five say it is a minor problem (22 percent) and one in ten “not a problem at all” (12 percent).
“Despite the skepticism that has been expressed by some business, scientific and political leaders, the existence and importance of global warming seems to be the consensus position of Americans,” comments Opinion Dynamics Chairman John Gorman. “This lopsided acceptance of the problem is something we don’t see for many other issues.”
(Story continues below)
Advertise HereAdvertisementsRelated
*Column ArchiveFull-page FNC Poll Archive
Majorities believe recent summers have been hotter and winters have been warmer compared to when they were growing up. And most people (75 percent) think they understand the issue of global warming: 27 percent say they understand it “very” well and another 48 percent “somewhat” well.
Can’t get the link through.
Note the FOX news reference.
This is from a poll done by FOX news.
Search “Poll”+”global warming”to find the link to the FOX news poll.
The sad thing is the “liberal” media isn’t asking the Presidential candidates about global warming. Probably because the Republicans (except McCain) deny the reality of it and only the Democrats actually have solutions.
Snarky,
Your list is very unimpressive.
http://www.desmogblog.com/400-prominent-scientists-dispute-global-warming-bunk
“Those who doubt you only have to show the holes in your theory.”
Posted by: econ101
But they cannot show any holes in the theory the human-added GHG’s are causing global warming.
“negligence 30 years ago”???????
30 years ago, people were sounding the alarm bells about “the comming ice age” and Global Cooling!
30 some years ago, Jimmy Carter advocated alternative energy.
There was an enviro friendly house at my Rea Woodman elementary school.
Oh and your spelling is telling pauliecon. Drink another one and really amuse the readers.
What happens if Detroit does not make the new CAFE standard targets?
Sound and fury and very little in the way of substance will happen.
Even if we do everything you priests of the GW religion want, it won’t make any difference, anyway.
Opinion polls?
Well well.
We must believe ONLY your annointed “experts” and we can pay no attention to the very substantial number of scientists who think man-made GW is over hyped — according to you GW Zealots —
But, if you brainwash the world with Al Gores stupid movie, we must pay attention to EVERYONES opinion, whether they are “scientists” (annoited by Cosmos) or not?
Nope, it is not working.
You libs are being played by the way. Nobody will do everything you want. They just want you to keep thinking they will.
If it were any other poster? I’d back off now.
But I have no respect for econ aka Paul.
I’ll help him embarrass himself and feel good doing it.
Um Paul?
The poll I cited was done by FOX news.
Yeah I know that had to hurt.
I’m remembering some past posts.
“Econ” in his real name nic as Paul…… had a post once that many of his fellow conservatives chided him on and told him that he econ made conservatism and conservatives look stupid.
Damn I am glad this kook aint on my side.
By the way, to the math challenged:
The Fox Poll does not really show what you think:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175070,00.html
“Still, less than half of Americans (45 percent) think there is anything they can do to stop global warming.”
Now some more math:
“NEW YORK — Most Americans believe global warming exists and a majority thinks it is a major problem — if not a crisis, according to a recent FOX News poll. Even so, less than half think they personally can do anything about the problem.
The new national poll finds that 77 percent of Americans believe global warming is happening and, of those, more than twice as many think it is caused by human behavior (46 percent) than by normal climate patterns (17 percent). About a third says it is a combination of both (30 percent).”—–If this story is written correctly, 46% of 77 is 35.42%(Human caused)
17% of 77 is 13.09%(Natural fluctuation)30% of 77 is 23.10%(combination)In other words, of the 77% that believe the Earth is getting warmer, 46% believe that this is caused by man. If the sample size was 1000, I see it this way:
23% of the total sample size are not willing to say that the Earth is getting warmer.
That is 230 people out of 1000.
13.09% of the total sample size thinks global warming is happening, but not cause by man.
That is 139 people out of 1000.
With me so far?
So, 230+139——-369 (Nearly 37% say that no global warming is happening, or that man has NOTHING to do with Global warming).
That is NOT a bad place to be, actually.
Why do I say that? Look at the article. Did it talk about higher taxes? Penalties on carbon based fuels? Mandates of ANY kind?
No, not really, except a brief mention of mileage standards.
So, 63% of the population thinks that global warming is happening and that man has at least something to do with that warming.
That would be 630 people out of 1000.
Now, 30% of those people think that GW is happening, of course, but they think it is a combination of factors that cause it, man made and natural.
That would be 189 people.
Those are the “swing votes” in a way. I might even belong to that group, myself. I am not sure warming is happening, but I am not ready to say man has NO affect on climate. I just happen to think our impact is miniscule, whatever it might be.
Anyway 189369———-558 out of 1000 do NOT believe that GW is happening, or, if they do believe it is happening, they do NOT believe that man is the only cause.
That is 55.8% I think.
Now, I have several poll questions for you:
1.) Should the government raise taxes on carbon, raising the price of gasonline and electricity, in order to discourage Americans from driving or heating their homes or reading at night?
2.)Should Americans make huge sacrifices, to combat GW, while China builds at least one new Coal plant a month?
3.) Is global warming more important than your job or the United States economy? Would you support unilateral carbon caps if that meant your job might get outsourced to China?—–Look, I support tax credits and government encouragement of alternatives.
So does the public.
Big deal! That is no defeat to me or most of those who agree with me.
Quit the nicey nice talk and start telling them you are going to shut down the US auto industry, raise taxes on gasoline, and ruin the economy.
And, tell them that THEY will sacrifice, while Al Gore, John Kerry and John Edwards live in huge mansions, drive several vehicles and fly in private jets.
Give me a break.
The real battles haven’t even started yet, and you don’t even realize where the battle lines are.
Correction:(By the way, it seems that 7% of 77% in the survey thinks warming is happening but don’t know why. That is another 54 more people, out of 1000, that are not convinced that man causes warming.The survey ignored these people, but the numbers, on the 77%, dont add up without these clueless folks who think warming is happening but can’t choose between 1.Natural 2. Man made 3. Combination.
36954—-423 out of 1000 either think warming is not happening, or that man doesnt cause it, or they arent willing to say that man causes it.
That is 42.3% of the total sample, Before you even GET to the people who think warming is happening, but is caused by a combination of factors!
So, out of the 230 people that think GW is caused by a combination of factors, we only need to convince 77 of them, or 33% of them that your “cure” is worse than the disease.
That would assume that there arent any people that believe man causes GW, but don’t want to do anything to stop it.
I am sure that such people exist.—-In short? This poll encourages GW activists to be activists.
Lets get down to how much they want their gasonline taxes to go up, and how much they want their electric bill to go up, in pursuit of your goals, ok?—-I am sure, If I made a math error, someone will let me know.
The arguments I made are still true, regardless.
Belief in man made GW does help your chicken little cause.
However, Belief, alone, does not equal “proper” behavior. Ask any Priest, in any real religion!
Don’t most smokers know tobacco is bad for them?
Belief in your religion is rather weak. Even among your believers, they seem fad-based “fair weather friends” in many cases.
Stop it with the threats and the scare tactics. There is broad support for research and tax credits for alternatives.
Not much else will happen, other than you nuts not letting us build any coal fired plants or drill everywhere we want. That is bad enough. However, not much else will come of your campaigh.
We will still be burning gasoline 50 years from now or longer.
Top 5 issues, just polled, on FOXGW is NOT listed.The public does NOT think it is important.
I posted a short and concise repost of a poll econ.
This prompted your rant. And oh WHAT a rant! Lots of caps and punctuation.
Why? I gave source “friendly” to you and yours.
I mean how more can I err to your side than a poll from FOX news?
You are a foil for me here pauliecon and for that I’m grateful. You give me the opportunity to show America their true enemy.
You aint the sharpest knife in their drawer. But you’ll do.Your own posts destroy you econ as they have many times many ways.
Two sentences did you in.
“The public does NOT think it is important.”
You are referring to global warming. I just showed you wrong.
“We will still be burning gasoline 50 years from now or longer.”
We will? Why? You have as all posters here know a stake in that. Being invested in the trading of oil and oil interests as you are. You hold Americans to what pads YOUR portfolio? For long after you have graced us with your death?
Thanks no.
Americans are knowing and growing beyond supporting your bottom line Paul.
It’s gonna be rough for you if you can’t think about the country , your kids and our future more than yourself.
Those who dont have a job, dont care if others lose their jobs.
Misery loves company.
Bitter posters want more misery.—–Again
40% “NEGATIVES” would worry any candidate for public office.
With 40% Negatives, or 40% of the population saying “no way, no how, under any circumstances, would I vote for candidate X” — you would need a large majority of the 60% left over.
In fact, if you have 40% negative ratings — You would need to get 83% of the vote of those who would even consider voting for you!
By this FOX poll, Man Made Global Warming STARTS with a NEGATIVE rating of 37%!!!
This poll does not show broad support for drastic measuers to address GW.
This poll shows that 37% of the population is probably against doing ANYTHING at all.
The remainder now must be convinced, by the Global Warming religion, that your remedy is better than the problem.
It won’t happen.
Not nearly to the degree you would wish.
Those who dont have a job, dont care if others lose their jobs.Misery loves company.Bitter posters want more misery.—–Again
40% “NEGATIVES” would worry any candidate for public office.
With 40% Negatives, or 40% of the population saying “no way, no how, under any circumstances, would I vote for candidate X” — you would need a large majority of the 60% left over.
In fact, if you have 40% negative ratings — You would need to get 83% of the vote of those who would even consider voting for you!
By this FOX poll, Man Made Global Warming STARTS with a NEGATIVE rating of 37%!!!
This poll does not show broad support for drastic measuers to address GW.
This poll shows that 37% of the population is probably against doing ANYTHING at all.
The remainder now must be convinced, by the Global Warming religion, that your remedy is better than the problem.
It won’t happen.
Not nearly to the degree you would wish.
“30 years ago, people were sounding the alarm bells about “the comming ice age” and Global Cooling!”
Posted by: econ101 | December 22, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Uh huh… a journalist at Time magazine.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm“1974 .. Serious droughts and other unusual weather since 1972 increase scientific and public concern about climate change, with cooling from aerosols suspected to be as LIKELY as warming; journalists talk of ice age”
Serious concern in the early 1970’s about how climate changes could impact humans triggered large amounts of climate research.
Ironically, econ101 uses a unknown possibilty in the 1970’s, to deny the following three decades of science that show that human-caused warming is the threat.
Better get out the all caps and lay in the punctuation provisions there pauliecon.
When a poll from FOX news says you are losing you gotta be near critical mass for a full on rant.
Someone on this thread has no ability to understand opinion polls.As previously outlined, for those with any intellectual ability, the FOX poll STRONGLY supports MY position.Nothing much will happen on this issue.That is my position.The FOX poll explains why I am right.
Cosmos,Obviously, since people were worried about “cooling” 30 years ago, it makes sense that a “return to norm” would mean that things got warmer.
Nope, the public does not think we need drastic changes, because of GW.
Get out the all caps and punctuation pauliecon.
It’s Christmas! Give!
Shill.
econ101,
Please tell us exactly WHAT part of “… with cooling from aerosols suspected to be as LIKELY as warming” that you cannot understand.
And poor econ101 cannot refute this,
‘The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5702/1686
Benny Peiser tried to, and finally (quietly) admitted that he was wrong. Someone else later tried to, and also failed miserably.
Science is about the science… not the scientists.
Cosmos
You are missing half my argument.
PROVE to me that the pain and suffering that your policies will cause are worth it, and will accomplish something?
If the USA quits using Carbon based fuels, that only makes Oil and Coal cheaper on the world market, meaning that China and India and Japan will use MORE!
There is no government mandated “solution” that justifies the hardship involved.
Feliz Navidad and pauliecon for my pinata.
“PROVE to me that the pain and suffering that your policies will cause are worth it, and will accomplish something?”
Ya know? I ask again and again. I never get a demonstration of “pain and suffering” except to oil companies and those invested in them (econ)
Anybody gonna shed a tear for them?
“If the USA quits using Carbon based fuels, that only makes Oil and Coal cheaper on the world market, meaning that China and India and Japan will use MORE!”
Um NO.
China is working on vehicles with miles per gallon better than what US companies have on the drawing boards. Japan is producing hybrid vehicles that are waited for on order to American buyers.
“PROVE to me that the pain and suffering that your policies will cause are worth it, and will accomplish something?”
Posted by econ101
PROVE to me, econ101, that an easily accomplished TWO times (or state of the art FOUR times) higher vehicle mileage will CAUSE “pain and suffering”.
Besides to the oil industry, who is also spreading econ101’s false claim of “pain and suffering”. And also lying about human-caused global warming.