Stopping global warming may be an even greater challenge than we realize. The scientific and political consensus has been that nations must reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 to 80 percent by 2050 to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures.
Now a group of scientists has released sobering findings that put the bar even higher: Nations must bring their carbon output to near zero by mid-century to avoid a 3.6 degree Fahrenheit rise — the threshold beyond which, scientists say, there would be serious, unstoppable consequences for our planet and human life.
One of the authors, Andreas Schmittner of Oregon State University, said, “Our actions right now will have consequences for many, many generations. Not just for a hundred years, but thousands of years.â€
When will our leaders act with a sense of urgency equal to this daunting challenge?
95 Comments
Randy
Do yourself a favor.
PUT THE KOOL-AID DOWN.
Walk away.
Chicken Little…
repeat ad nauseum…
I couldn’t say it any better Heckler. Jeesh.
“The question is, what if we don’t want the Earth to warm anymore?” asked Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. “The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about”.
—————
So, reading this do you common sense conservation people (myself included)realize what they are proposing? It isn’t common sense. It is life altering changes based on alarmist propaganda. And of course, no one has any serious alternatives to fossil fuels. Wind and solar power could be a very small piece. Except nukes. Start building them!
But what they mean in effect is that we (you) must cut way back on our energy use. You give up your cars and modern conveniences.
I sense that we are going to start to see a lot more people questioning the alarmists. As they should.
Reduce the Carbon Output to zero? No problem, we just need to get rid of the problem: People.
To answer your final question Tandy: NO. They will continue with their heads in the sand.
To answer your final question Randy: NO. They will continue with their heads in the sand.
“Industrial Society and Its Future begins with Belmonte’s assertion that “the Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.”[17] The first sections of the text are devoted to psychological analyses of various groups—primarily leftists and scientists—and of the psychological consequences for the individual of life within the “industrial-technological system.” The later sections speculate about the future evolution of this system, argue that it will inevitably lead to the end of human freedom, call for a “revolution against technology,” and attempt to indicate how that might be accomplished.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Kaczynski
The above was an analysis of the works written by Doctor Theodore John “Ted” Kaczynski (born May 22, 1942), known as the Unabomber. His paper is often referred to as the Unabommber’s Manifesto.
—————————
Now, let’s compare the GORACLE’s writings to that of Kacyzynski.
Al Gore’s book Earth In The Balance and The Unabomber’s Manifesto.
To take an online quiz on which person (Gore or the Unabomber) said what, visit
http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html
You might be surprised on the results of who wrote what.
Myself? I scored about 50 percent. I couldn’t tell the differences between the two writers.
Randy….cool it, you’re the one with the warming problem.
NOAA: “Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe”
“March 13, 2008
“The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during climatological winter (December 2007-February 2008) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms, bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West, produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring.”
Washington Post: COMMENTARY/Climate panel on the hot seat.
“However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick (global warming), and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC’s peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.
Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick.
These problems led Mr. Wegman’s team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming “cannot be supported.”
Aye Boxlock,
That story reminds me of the farmer who claimed he got more rainfall at the bottom of the mountain than the farmer did at the top of the mountain.
“How so?” stated the mountain farmer.
“Easily proven.” said the Lowland farmer. “I just put my measuring stick in the ground and the levels of water after each rainfall is much deeper than yours after each rainfall.”
“That’s ridiculous, you’re counting water from the mountain!” cried the farmer.
“Is it ridiculous?? countered the lowland farmer. I used proven, scientific methods to measure water and it states that the water at the bottom of a mountain will be deeper after each rainfall.
Makes you go hmmm and wtf…
As ‘outlander’ said, “It isn’t common sense. It is life altering changes based on alarmist propaganda”
Unproven “alarmist propaganda” where the solutions are probably far worse than the problem.
I can’t believe the universality of the ‘Chicken Little’ herd mentality.
Boxlock posted March 15, 2008 at 7:19 am
“Randy….cool it, you’re the one with the warming problem.
NOAA: “Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe””
Does Boxlock lack the intelligence to understand that ENSO and other factors can cause short-term temperature flucuations, while AGW causes long-term warming?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
“Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation
The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis.
2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the “El Niño of the century”. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when SOLAR irradiance is at a MINIMUM and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.
Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990. “
Old (2000) but shows ENSO effects on global temperatures.
Graph is near bottom of page,
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/causecc/
“Global-mean monthly temperature for the period 1980-1999, showing the effects of El Niño (EN) and La Niña (LN). At the global scale, the effects of the Pinatubo eruption masked the warming induced by the 1991/92 El Niño event, although the regional impacts of that El Niño event did occur.”
Another graph,
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record_png
wonk wonk wonk…
“When will our leaders act with a sense of urgency equal to this daunting challenge?”
Answer–they won’t.
The earth is doomed.
We won’t be the first species to die because of our own filth.
We’ll just be the smartest.
Boxlock posted March 15, 2008 at 7:37 am
“I can’t believe the universality of the ‘Chicken Little’ herd mentality.
Yeah… and it was started by a stupid guy way back in 1824.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
“1824
Joseph Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.”
But fortunately, since the 1980’s, fossil energy, right-wingers, Rev. Moon’s ‘Washington Times’, and others have been trying to correct the situation. /sarcasm OFF
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
Scorn, ridicule, know-nothingism–the usual. They don’t call ‘em ‘reactionaries’ for nothing.
Here come da Libs, following the GORACLE around like dogs in heat.
cosmos,
No offense intended…you are certainly sincere, but about as predictable and boring with this as old black and white TV reruns. I think I will give you the nic of Gilligan, as on Gilligan’s Island. Nice guy probably I think, but a little naive, and fixated on just one subject.
And JimmyMac has nothing but his usual ad hominems, off-topic distractions, denials, lies, and deceptions.
Pay no attention to the vast majority of scientific concensus. Ignore those peer-reviewed journals.
Paid shills for big oil and big coal are much more reliable sources.
:roll:
Okay Boxlock… you lack the ability to understand that there can be short-term natural temperature changes, AND long-term AGW.
There’s nothing that I can do about that.
Capn
You want to talk money? Do a little research into the money floating around the “warmer” side of this debate. Where’s it come from? Who’s it go to ? Who benefits? Have a little intellectual honesty.
Usefull idiots.
I think Capn would be liking Rev. Wright’s ideology, especially about GW. G.D. America!
Yeah, Obama, Rev. Wright and the Capn all have commonalities.
Hate America First.
“Schneider stated his attitude towards scientific honesty in a 1989 interview with Discover Magazine:
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
This calculated dishonesty does not apply only to the magnitude of alarmist claims, but also to their direction. The alarm that Schneider is looking to raise is not over any particular climate change. Neither cooling nor warming actually matters to him. The alarm he wants to raise is over human activity. “
cosmos,
Where have you been hanging out. I have posted several times thinking it would SURELY bring you out to refute, but…..no cosmos. I’ve been missing your mono-subject dissertations. You had me scared you got too much CO2 and were reeling out there in the ether somewhere. Glad you’re back. Even though I’ve got much more immediate and urgent things to concern myself with I’m glad there is somebody watching the AGW threat I don’t feel. It gives me peace of mind so I can go for a long drive and burn some fuel.
Capn, how do you make the little smiley type face like that above? Like this :roll: Ah, never mind, I think I figured it out by copy and pasting it.
:roll: (roll eyes colon roll colon)
:cool: (sunglasses colon cool colon)
The smilies normally used are just colon with a parens ) or (
Regular - I do NOT follow “Goracle” - in fact I found his movie to be a bit pedantic and far too conservative. However, for a review of his movie by a professional meterologist:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/gore.asp
Heckler,
We don’t you provide the end of Schneider’s quote? You’re the one being dishonest.
http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/sch_quote.html
“Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
cosmos
“So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements,”
Kind of says all you need to know.
The mans an anti capitalist with an agenda. He started with an objective and whipped up some science to fit it.
Cooling, no, warming, no, Climate Change, thats it!!
Boxlock posted March 15, 2008 at 8:51 am
“… I’m glad there is somebody watching the AGW threat I don’t feel.”
We already understand that you don’t “feel” the “threat”.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/03/raising-the-bar-on-carbon-output/#comment-313554
Also later, at 8:20 am.
Heckler,
Maybe you’re a little “slow”? “Global warming” alone, by definition, causes “climate change”. It changes long-term temperatures, rainfall patterns, etc.
Also, global warming (not “cooling”) was the main projection in the 1970’s.
Andreas Schmittner of Oregon State University is not a climatologist!
More “wisdom”(sic) above, from dog-trainer Hank Price.
‘Andreas Schmittner’
http://mgg.coas.oregonstate.edu/~andreas/
Well cosmos,
I read his CV. I also glanced at his latest ‘paper’. Seems he is more of a prophet of the Goracle’s church than a scientist. He’s able to predict climate change out to 4,000 AD.
And, like good GW alarmist he can do this without ever considering the effects of solar cycles.
nitwit
Weather Channel Founder says “Sue Al Gore for Fraud”:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html
Government says we just had the “Coolest Winter since 2001″:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html
All of you crying the sky is falling (GW), should stop waiting on government to help you out.
STOP BUYING BIG SUV’S AND PICK-UP TRUCKS!!
Trade in today for a new hybrid.
Get rid of your lawnmower and buy a push mower.
(It’s better for you)
Get rid of the tiller and use a spade.
Turn off all your lights and computer equipment (blogging is not a necessity to live).
Bunch of hypocrits: Blame BIG oil for the worlds woes. Blame the coal powerplants. Blame anyone but yourself.
Get rid of your small combustable engines and stop supporting the BIG oil companies.
I mean, if you really DO care.
The UN report was summarized by politicians, and politicians hand picked the scientists involved:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html
By the way, why do liberals not seem to mind if the Global Warming kooks say they made a mistake, as long as the NEW projection is even worse?
This “news” means that previous projections were “wrong” does it not?
Lets figure in the same “margin of error” now, and adjust our chicken little fears DOWNWARD!
Hey, thanks Regular. Sometimes the typed word can be misunderstood and the little face might help make the intent clearer.
Do you have one that can be used when communicating with JR, Chas, and Capn. Oh, I forgot that would get you banned form the blogs and probably investigated by the FBI. :cool:
Econ101
Posted March 15, 2008 at 10:05 am | Permalink
“By the way, why do liberals not seem to mind if the Global Warming kooks say they made a mistake, as long as the NEW projection is even worse?”
Econ, you can answer your own question….because it’s an agenda not good or sensible or practical science.
Hank Price again uses his ultimate debate tactic, and calls me a “nitwit”.
econ101,
Boxlock already posted the “Coolest Winter since 2001:”
Read the thread before you post.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/03/raising-the-bar-on-carbon-output/#comment-313554
econ101,
Thank you for the Rev. Moon ‘Washington Times’ link in your 10:03 am post, proving my earlier point,
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/03/raising-the-bar-on-carbon-output/#comment-313558
I think it would be very helpful if the Eagle and local TV stations offered frequent tips as to energy conservation. Maybe even a shame corner to scorn flagrant energy wasters.
Cosmos
Scheider first said that the earth would cool because of particulates that we put in the air were blocking solar radiation. Therefore we need to cut down on energy use to save the planet(stop all that pesky capitilism) But he couldnt make the scientific data “prove” his assertion.
So he came up a new theory that CO2 created by all our human industrial activity was holding heat in so the earth was going to warm. Thus we should (here it comes) cut down on energy use to save the planet(stop all that pesky capitilism)
…..and so on…..
and you are just one of his useful idiots.
Usual disclaimers…
“econ” is a trader in fossil fuels and has said humanity will be dependent on them….forever.
And of course the very irregular “Regular” is active here in many nics.
Heckler
In fact, if you read the link I posted, uptread, from the Washington Times, you see that, at first, “deforestation” was also one of the pet gripes of the greens.
However, wouldnt a “new growth” forest use up far more CO2, over the next 100 years, then leaving old trees standing, to cause forest fires?
Liberals are always ready to help us “solve” problems that other liberals caused!
Heckler is so far as I know, the only poster other than me with young children.
It is truly sad that Mr. Heckler does not care about the world he is leaving his kids.
“Hank Price again uses his ultimate debate tactic, and calls me a ‘nitwit’.”
It’s pretty much all you leave him with.
Notice those who read these threads.
GW deniers make arguments.
Cosmos responds to those arguments with supporting documentation.
Response: Cosmos is obsessed, cosmos is an apologist for the Goracle, cosmos is a nitwit.
It’s extremely easy to spot the losers who have to go personal on these threads.
Heckler,
You’re very ignorant of the long history of climate science.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
This is how deep the problem goes.
A caller to Rush Limbaugh the other day…
“Rush? I drive a car with 12 cylinders and I will NOT drive anything less! I want these Greens outta the way. I want my cheap gas!
The above post proves the primary motivation of liberalism:
ENVY!
Envy?
Common damn sense. Anybody insisting on their absolute right to drive a 12 cylinder car is insane.
econ101,
If you want info re the effects of land use changes, just read the reports,
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
But that caller to Rush was VERY educational.
He was screaming and upset. Much as “econ” and Hank and Heckler and the rest of the global warming deniers are increasingly showing us.
They KNOW change is coming. And change scares such provincial and self centered folk. It demands of them. And demanding that such people expand the scope of their universe beyond themselves? Well it is like demanding that the 3 year old child they have always kept inside suddenly grow up.
Global warming is real. Humans are contributing to it. And we WILL be addressing it.
Deal with it.
Why even bother to discuss AGW with these folks? It’s like discussing evolution with a creationist, or the Holocaust with a denier. You won’t have any intelligent debate: Anything you say will be met with predictable derision and ridicule, regardless of the substance.
Their minds are already made up. They have their talking points well-memorized, and with few exceptions they’re not going to deviate from them.
Actually debating the science would be far too difficult.
econ101,
H. Sterling Burnett in your Rev. Moon ‘Washington Times’ commentary is wrong about the ‘hockey stick’
‘The missing piece at the Wegman hearing’
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/
He’s also wrong about the UHI effect.
In short, he’s just wrong…
There is a discussion and the debate is not over, because the science is flawed and politically driven. This has been pointed out time after time. Sorry YOU chicken little types fail to see that.
P.S. By the way : Schmittner is a physicist, working on the following:
*****************
Andreas has advanced understanding of the transient response of thermohaline circulation to greenhouse warming in models of intermediate complexity by incorporating the hydrologic cycle, implementing seasonal cycles, and improving treatments of ocean mixing, energy and moisture transport, and the cryosphere. These model improvements also led to studies of multiple climate equilibria, moisture transports associated with short-term climate variability, and mechanisms of glacial and millennial-scale climate change. More recently, Andreas has modeled oceanic nutrients, biology, gases, and isotope tracers for simulation of the carbon cycle. With these improvements he is addressing long-term ecological impacts of climate change, for example, by demonstrating surprisingly rapid biological changes of the North Pacific in response to freshwater anomalies in the North Atlantic, and global responses to the rise of tectonic gateways in the geologic past.
Andreas’s work integrates paleoceanographic and paleoclimatic data to help understand processes that are not well expressed in modern property distributions or historical changes. His work helps to constrain projections of future changes, which are of obvious and urgent concern to humanity. His modeling approach brings to mind Einstein’s dictum that we must seek theories that are as simple as possible, but no simpler. Andreas seems to find just the right niche between simplicity and complexity that yields useful answers.
A current project for Andreas is an AGU monograph on thermohaline circulation, which will document the current state of the art and set the stage for the new advances. Many of us are watching in anticipation to see what comes next. Andreas’s warm and generous collaborative spirit makes him an emerging leader and a great educator. He is a most worthy recipient of the AGU Ocean Sciences Early Career Award.
******************************
http://www.agu.org/inside/awards/bios/schmittner_andreas.html
When will our leaders act with a sense of urgency equal to this daunting challenge?
>When the horn blowers stop sounding like raving lunatics.
First they propose an 80% reduction in carbon by 2050, now they say we must have a 100% reduction in carbon by 2050.
Get real…
Cluck Cluck - they sky is falling!
Cluck Cluck - really the sky is falling even faster now!
Why aren’t cosmos and the GORACLE living in stone and mud huts, so they won’t add the carbon problem?
I mean just all that time cosmos spends on the computer, which I might add the plastics were made from petroleum products, is enough to classify him as Luddite hypocrite of enormous proportions.
So get off your computer cosmos and back to the stone age where you want everyone to be with you.
So get off your computer cosmos and back to the stone age where you want everyone to be with you.
This of course is the denier’s real argument. And, as scientists and policy-makers well know, it’s a legitimate concern: How do we address AGW, and still live on this planet as modern human beings?
To the deniers, the answer is simple: Whistle past the graveyard. Because, once again, addressing the real issue ain’t so simple.
ANTI posted March 15, 2008 at 10:58 am
“There is a discussion and the debate is not over, because the science is flawed and politically driven.
And ANTI can prove(sic) that, with an op-ed from the Rev. Moony owned ‘Washington Times’, and/or some obscure blog page.
Climate Change is 99.999999 percent caused by nature.
There isn’t a heck of a lot we can do about it.
There is reality and there are the Harpie-like howls of the GORACLE faithful.
Then there are people like Rage who just puts in the word “denier” and thinks that’s all that needs to be said summing up the opposition.
Addressing the real issue that climate change has happened, is happening and will happen in the future with or without man is the reality.
The people ‘whistling past the graveyard’ are the Luddite Hypocrites brown-nosing their way through the carbon credit causeways - singing the mantras of GORGASMIC experiences, while flecking their expectorant phlegm on the naive and misinformed.
“Luddite Hypocrites”? Hehehe, I love it! People who are anti-technology but are hypocrites because they’re. . .pro-technology.
I’m going to remember that one! That’s hilarious!
JimmyMac posted March 15, 2008 at 11:26 am
“Climate Change is 99.999999 percent caused by nature.”
Looks like JimmyMac gets his climate science(sic) from a soap commercial.
‘Do-It-Yourself Solar-Powered PC: Hardware
A New Desktop PC Power Consumption World Record: 61 Watts’
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/13/hardware_components/
Exactly Rage - Luddite philosophies and hypocrites because they use technologies that counter their own belief system.
Try and think outside the box Rage. Of course, that would be hypocritical for you to do, if any hydro-carbon energy sources would used to make the box or you emailed anyone about the making of the box or posted about it on this blog, because you would be using hydro-carbon based technology to pass on information of which you are against.
Luddite Hypocrite - it fits perfectly.
So cosmos, show us your solar powered computer.
How about plastic in and around your computer?
Quit using the electricity driving the telcomm’s that make your connection to this blog, they might be using energy from a coal-fired plant.
And that chair you are sitting on? It best be made of natural things.
Got any plastic in the bands of your undies?
tsk tsk
Well, one might point that no one’s advocating Luddite philosophy (well, maybe the hippy-dippy return-to-the-soil types–but they’re not driving, or even really paying attention to, the science).
But then you’d have think outside the box.
In fact, technology will likely be big part of the solution–if there is one.
P.S. Funny, Reg, how you go from accusing everyone of being Luddites to talking about solar-powered computers.
Make up your mind.
Rage - as a scientist I agree 100% that technology must be part of the solution. A BIG part.
#
Ben
Posted March 15, 2008 at 11:49 am | Permalink
Rage - as a scientist I agree 100% that technology must be part of the solution. A BIG part.
—————————
Just don’t use any petroleum based products or petroleum derived energy in doing so.
(chortles)
Just don’t use any petroleum based products or petroleum derived energy in doing so.
Why not? You think anyone’s talking about getting rid of all greenhouse gases?
What a maroon! (yes, I know Cap’n used that line, too).
I have some greenhouse gas right now, be right back..
where’s that newspaper?
Thanks, Reg, that’s enough gas already (peeuuuu!).
Maybe when JimmyMac returns after clogging the sewer system, he will explain how the issue of reducing GHG’s refutes the science of AGW?
AGW is the problem, and the solutions to it are separate issues.
Regular
Posted March 15, 2008 at 11:11 am | Permalink
Why aren’t cosmos and the GORACLE living in stone and mud huts, so they won’t add the carbon problem?
I mean just all that time cosmos spends on the computer, which I might add the plastics were made from petroleum products, is enough to classify him as Luddite hypocrite of enormous proportions.
So get off your computer cosmos and back to the stone age where you want everyone to be with you.
Pot meet our resudent a h kettle — at least one thing your regular at is being the total fool here — you post here more than anyone else and yet you say so little ————
Hi LR,
Blow it out your smoke stacks. :)
Rage
YES, JR is constantly stating that we will be COMPLETELY rid of carbon based fuels sometime soon.
That is insane, of course.
And, of course, Rage, JR is on YOUR side of the issue!
Paulthecon has said we will be dependent on fossil fuels…forever.
THAT is insane and obviously motivated by his having a financial stake in fossil fuels.
The stone age didn’t end because we ran out of rocks.
Look at how attitudes have changed and just in the last few years.
The next generation will think very differently about energy, the environment, etc.
I tell you what. At the rate these alarms keep increasing, in the next 5 years we will have to reduce all emmission to zero by 2020!
They just keep screaming more and more and more.
What next? Population controls? Hmmmm…. I do recall a book like that before with the same type of liberal wacko alarmism.
YES, JR is constantly stating that we will be COMPLETELY rid of carbon based fuels sometime soon.
Point missed, again. If we need to use technology powered by, say, gasoline to solve the greater problem, then we should.
Using fossils fuels as a general power source is–of course–a very different issue.
Honesty, this simple-minded rhetoric really gets tiresome. It’s not even funny anymore.
Nathan posted March 15, 2008 at 3:40 pm
“I tell you what. At the rate these alarms keep increasing, in the next 5 years we will have to reduce all emmission to zero by 2020!”
Maybe not to “zero by 2020″, but large natural postive warming feedbacks could easily force us to drop to zero within a few decades.
Earth’s atmosphere is now like it’s never been before, and as our uncontrolled “experiment” continues in the future, we may be forced to make drastic changes.
The North Pole — you know, where Santa’s workshop is at? — is liquid.
Doesn’t that tell you something?
The Northwest Passage — sea lanes over the top of Candada, which explorers have been seeking for 500 years — all of a sudden doesn’t prove impossible due to ice pack.
This thread has gone the direction of all Climate Change thread have.
The deniers first say there’s no such thing as global warming.
When proven wrong the deniers assert that global warming has nothing to do with 150 years of burning coal and petroleum at industrial levels.
When proven wrong, the deniers assert that there’s nothing anyone can do about global warming, like the Cons used to advise rape vicitms to just “lie back and enjoy it.”
And when progressives present alternatives to fossil-fuel addiction, the global warming deniers revert back to their “no global warming” argument and it’s (as “ksfarmgrrl” calls it) “lather, rinse, repeat.”
Y’know, we get it!
You don’t want a future where you can’t hop into your Chevy pick-up at 11:45 pm and get a 30-pack at the liquor store before it closes.
Hate to be the one to inform you of this MonkeyHawk, but the NorthWest Passage has been traversed serveral times during the first half of the twentieth century alone.
Or you can be a Natural Climate Change denier. :)
“The Northwest Passage was not conquered by sea until 1906, when the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen, who had sailed just in time to escape creditors seeking to stop the expedition, completed an three-year voyage in a converted 47-ton herring boat. The first single-season passage was not accomplished until 1944, when the St. Roch, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police schooner, made it through.”
Wikipedia…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:St_roch_ice.jpg
‘Henry Larsen and the St. Roch’
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=ArchivedFeatures&Params=A2134
“The route taken,… will most certainly be the one first used by commercial shipping as global warming accelerates the thinning of the Arctic ice cover.”
Who says there is no such thing as climate change or warming???
There are few if any that say that.
The Earths climate has been changing and does change.
Beyond that, we have a bunch of alarmism about how we are going to destroy the planet with our CO2 emissions and NOW if we don’t completely stop ALL CO2 emissions by 2050 it will be too late!
LOL
JimmyMac posted March 15, 2008 at 6:39 pm
“Or you can be a Natural Climate Change denier.”
Anyone who isn’t stuck deep in the depths of stupid, ignorant, denial can easily understand that the global warming since the mid-1970’s is not a “Natural Climate Change”.
Earths orbit and axis changes (LOL), solar variations, ENSO, and other natural factors do not explain the observed global warming since the mid-1970’s.
But human-added GHG’s, plus solar variations, ENSO, volcanoes, etc do explain the recent observed global warming.
Nathan posted March 15, 2008 at 8:29 pm
“Who says there is no such thing as climate change or warming???
Definitely not the AGW scientists!!!
Lots of info re palaeoclimate, Milankovitch cycles, etc in chapter 6 at,
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
This is the same propaganda model they used for the ozone layer BS cause the patents were running out and they needed to maintain a hold on the new patents by legislating the need for the new freon. I also remember this global warming propaganda back in the 70’s (Soilant Green anyone?) and how in 30 years it would be so hot round the world. Keep drinking the koolaid folks. I hope everyone enjoys being led to slaughter.
Billy Bob,
Did you perhaps inhale large amounts of CFC’s, for a long time?
The movie ‘Soilant Green’ was not a scientific source.
“Because we don’t think about future generations, they will never forget us.” Henrik Tikkanen