Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, recently told an Arkansas City audience that the Holcomb coal-plant denial was “a political decision, not an energy decision,†and said he’s still not convinced that human-caused carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming, the Arkansas City Traveler reported. If so, he’s ignoring a host of inconvenient facts, starting with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
As Robert Watson, former chairman of the panel, said back in 2001, “The overwhelming majority of scientific experts, whilst recognizing that scientific uncertainties exist, nonetheless believe that human-induced climate change is already occurring and that future change is inevitable.â€
That 2001 consensus has only become more certain. Tiahrt’s refusal to acknowledge the science or the need for action is uninformed and irresponsible. His constituents should call him on it.
172 Comments
Toad is WAY overdue to spend more time with his family.
He needs to get out of Congress and go get that job the right is holding for him in the greed industry. He and those he represents are yesterday.
It’s almost tomorrow.
On the same day the Eagle editorial board made there grand observation on global warming this appeared on Fox news.
Average global temperatures in 2008 are forecast to be lower than in previous years, thanks to the cooling effect of the ocean current in the Pacific, U.N. meteorologists say.
The World Meteorological Organisation’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, said it was likely that La Nina, an abnormal cooling of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, would continue into the summer.
If the forecast holds true, global temperatures will not have risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
A small number of scientists doubt whether this means global warming has peaked and the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted, but Jarraud insists this is not the case and notes that 1998 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.
“When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year,” he told the BBC. “You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.”
“La Nina is part of what we call ‘variability’. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up.”
Experts at the U.K. Met Office’s Hadley Centre for forecasting in Exeter said the world could expect another record temperature within five years or less, the BBC reports, probably associated with an episode of El Nino.
Get your facts straight Wichita Eagle before you mouth off.
O boy, here we go again . . .
Yeah “Bill”?
I’m in my forties. And I have seen the changes in climate just in my lifetime.
I’ve seen changes, too, J R, but then again, I haven’t yet lived the 1000 years or so to make an informed decision.
That doesn’t mean I don’t live as much as possible with the concept that global warming is true. If I’m going to make the wrong decision, I want the decision to not hurt me in the long run. I’ll assume the gun is loaded before deciding to put it to my head and squeezing the trigger.
Yeah, and the polar ice caps aren’t melting either…there is so much evidence of warming it’s unreal…who knows if it’s man made or not..but what to the cons have to lose buy cleaning up our act here on Mother Earth?
As far as Todd goes..he probably doesn’t believe in evolution either and he spends way too much energy defending the “rights” of smokers and gun owners while he fights against expanding health care for children. He’s as ignorant as they come.
It would appear some of you should read more than just the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report”. There have been numerous scientists on that panel that have since come out said that they doubt that we are causing it. Try getting your facts from just one source. I am all for cleaning up our act but it is not going to affect what the climate does. The CLIMATE CHANGES because of factors like LaNina, ElNino etc…..Good Grief!
This just in from the Department of Having it Both Ways:
“…whilst recognizing that scientific uncertainties exist,…”
lmao Fleettwood, perfect!
I think it says a lot about the nature of folks that global warming alarmists have been able to gin up all this concern, when global temperatures haven’t risen in about 10 years and recently have been cooling.
Just 30 years ago we were entering a new ice age…all the scientists agreed.
Tiahrt also thinks the coal plant denial makes “regulatory uncertanity” for businesses. Would that be for Colorado and Oklahoma businesses?
Good Morning everybody!
Isn’t this a beautiful God given day today?
Man that sunshine does wonders for the spirit, don’t you think?
And the flowers and other plant life is just springing up in God’s creation.
Thank you Lord!
How are all of you today?
AGW uses the basic same type of assumptions that are used to proove evolution. They don’t proove anything that I can understand.
If you’ve ever listened in on Tiahrt’s ‘Town Hall Meetings’, you quickly realize that Todd’s constituents are no brighter than Todd!
Hey, if Bill Fry can quote Fox, then I can quote Ted Turner:-)
“In the following excerpt, Turner describes what the Earth will look like if we don’t “fully mobilize everything we have and put it into changing the energy system over, and not just here in the United States, but all over the world.”
We’ll have eight degrees — we’ll be eight degrees hotter in 10 — not 10, but in 30 or 40 years. And basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died, and the rest of us will be cannibals.
Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state like Somalia or Sudan, and living conditions will be intolerable.
The droughts will be so bad, there will be no more corn growing. It will — not doing it is suicide. Just like dropping bombs on each other, nuclear weapons, is suicide. So, we’ve got to stop doing the two suicidal things, which are hanging on to our nuclear weapons, and then after that we’ve got to stabilize the population.”
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/04/turner-global-w.html
Hey, I never said he was sane or anything . . . just saying:-)
Unfortunately, those who are trying to go “green” will be affected as much as the GW naysayers, along with their children and grandchildren. They are so partisan in their thinking that they’ll help destroy the earth, just to be “right”.
on AGW. Just have far back does recorded climitological history go to proove that AGW exists? 2O0-300 years?
Not enough to prove it. Period.
Global warming is not the issue. The whole argument as to whether it is or not is idiotic. The stewardship of the earth, as far as is humanly possible it the issue. Shall we take care of what we can or shall we just dump on it?
“J M Walker
Posted April 4, 2008 at 8:33 am | Permalink
Hey, if Bill Fry can quote Fox, then I can quote Ted Turner:-)”
Hey Ted Turner isn’t all bad. But Mostly. He is even “warming” up to the church recently.
Pun intended!
Are you speaking to me Grateful_ Dave?
If you are, stewardship is a vital part of the church and in God’s creation. But it is in the throws of decay and it is not going to get better, no matter what we do.
We should take care of it and not dump in it because it effects the living things God created.
We humans are so full of ourselves. First the consensus was the cosmos revolved around us - proved to be untrue. Next we were horrified to know we evolved from apes - and some still don’t buy that. Now the concensus is we are the cause of climate change? I don’t believe the climate on this planet is whipsawed around by our puny human endevours. If the climate is gonna change it will do so regardless of our wants, wishes and behaviors. We are just here for the ride - a temporary one at that.
I don’t understand the compartmentalization of those who attack global warming, alternate fuels, environmental considerations, etc. and etc.
The writing is on the wall, folks.
Oil… ANYBODY’s oil… is technology past its time. The only-est reason it became the fuel of choice for automobiles is that, a hundred years ago, it was plentiful and cheap. That aint the case anymore.
The only-est reason technologies have developed to create cleaner internal combustion engines is because the old technologies turned the sky brown.
Supplies, price, and consequences of burning carbon-based fuels are building toward crises on many fronts.
Whether it’s the main cause or merely a contributor to climate change is a non-issue. Even if the well outside your house has relatively-clean water, it makes no sense to purposefully add poison to it.
Hey, I never said he was sane or anything . . . just saying:-)
*snicker*
“Next we were horrified to know we evolved from apes - and some still don’t buy that.”
Man did not evolve from Apes, as you propose above Billy Y. We were created by God in his image and we are His image bearers.
I agree with the rest you had to say,
A of U -
If you are, stewardship is a vital part of the church and in God’s creation. But it is in the throws of decay and it is not going to get better, no matter what we do.
I don’t know. That seems pretty negative. Can’t we at least try?
Am,USA,
“They don’t proove anything that I can understand.”
And your point is?
MoneyHawk,
Oil is still in plentiful supply. The problem with alternate energy solutions is that they are limited and, guess what, they cost alot more and don’t necessarily solve the byproducts polution emmited.
“J M Walker
Posted April 4, 2008 at 8:54 am | Permalink
Am,USA,
“They don’t proove anything that I can understand.”
And your point is?”
The point is can you prove global warming exists?
what, they cost alot more and don’t necessarily solve the byproducts polution emmited
what??? I’ll address the understandable part of that. Any technology developement curve takes the form of an integral sign–a very small rise over a short time, followed by an explosive rise over a short time, and then very little improvement over the remainder of the time. For oil we’ve hit the last phase; alternate energy sources are the 1st phase.
“what, they cost alot more and don’t necessarily solve the byproducts polution emmited
what??? I’ll address the understandable part of that. Any technology developement curve takes the form of an integral sign–a very small rise over a short time, followed by an explosive rise over a short time, and then very little improvement over the remainder of the time. For oil we’ve hit the last phase; alternate energy sources are the 1st phase.”
In laymen’s terms please without all the tech talk, i.e., in plain english and coherently?
#
American, of the USA
Posted April 4, 2008 at 9:01 am | Permalink
“J M Walker
Posted April 4, 2008 at 8:54 am | Permalink
Am,USA,
“They don’t proove anything that I can understand.”
And your point is?”
The point is can you prove global warming exists?
Can you prove it doesn’t? Kind of like the argument, can you prove God does/doesn’t exist. It’s called a Mexican standoff, and the only way it will be answered is over time, or death.
It costs a lot of money to start a new technology (alternate energy). Improvements are slow until it is better understood. Once it’s understood better, improvements increase fast and cost goes down fast. After a time a point is reached where little improvement is left and it cost more and more for a little improvement.
I think I figured the 2nd part of your question, though. It doesn’t have to eliminate the byproducts of pollution (from oil, etc), the earth will take care of that IN MANY MANY MANY YEARS! The Idea of sustainability and alternate energy is not to vacuum clean the air or squeegee the grime from the oceans. The idea is to quit putting so much into these places and allow the earth to heal.
Yeah, 0.037 percent of atmospheric gases (man made co2) is solely responsible for climate change.
Reg, really, I put a lot of blame on the Texans in the 1830s who couldn’t scrounge 2 nickels together so began the cattle industry. A molecule of methane is 30 times the greenhouse effect of a colecule of carb diox. And it’s been around for a bit longer, too.
Really, the percentage isn’t the factor as much as the CHANGE of the percentage. And that isn’t nearly as worrisome as the percentage needed to effect irreversible harm.
Y’know, now that I think about it, I blame those Texans for the Metamucil industry. Man wasn’t evolved to eat so much meat.
The problem with GW Alarmists ghotiphaze, is that they like to take credit for everything.
Take the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that is melting. The Alarmists state it is co2 and other things. The problem with that statement is that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been melting for the last 10,000 years!
In the mean time, the eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet has grown 100 times faster than the Eastern Antarctic ice sheet has been melting!
Funny, how the alarmists fail to mention when ice sheets grow.
effect irreversible harm
dang! AFFECT. Keep corfoozin’ them in meh finkers!
Given enough data points you’re going to encounter event clusters. The thing to look for is the overall change. How much more ice coverage is there now than say 5000 years ago? 1000 years? 7000 years? Just don’t go to the 11,000 year mark. Ice ages don’t count.
In the mean time, the eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet has grown 100 times faster than the Eastern Antarctic ice sheet has been melting!
should read
In the mean time, the eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet has grown 100 times faster than the Western Antarctic ice sheet has been melting!
It took thousands of years for the North America continent once covered with ice and glaciers to melt.
It will also take thousands of years for any noticeable sea level rise in the floating ice shelves to have any noticeable effect. That melting effect also started hundreds if not thousands of years ago, due to many process (under currents, wind, weather patterns changing, ice shelf natural drift and etc.)
For the co2 flag wavers to take sole credit for ice melting is enormously arrogant.
There’s so much distortion with this issue.
As a matter of scientiffic fact, I am not adding to my carbon footprint by burning logs in my fireplace. At a macro level, those dead hunks of trees would deteriorate and spew carbon into the environment in their own time.
Burning my fireplace does accelerate that deterioration, however and puts a lot of carbon in the air over a concentrated period of time.
Same thing with the way cows process grass. If they didn’t eat it and fart, that same grass would eventually die and decompose and the by products of deterioration would enter the environment.
Ah, but dig out coal or pump out petrolem and burn that stuff. It’s been locked up underground for millions of years and by pumping it out of the ground or digging it up and burning it, we’ve added to environmental carbons.
This release of more — previously untapped — carbon into the atmosphere has consequences.
JM Walker,
The burden of proof is upon the AGW alarmists. They theorized it!
In the mean time, the eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet has grown 100 times faster than the Western Antarctic ice sheet has been melting!
Read that, knew what ya meant, never noticed the typo.
“This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.”
And five years from now, they will say “five years from now.”
Monkey, the bocine flatulence was a giggle. I don’t really believe it.
(though there is evidence suggesting the dino farts caused a rise in temps in the mesozoic LOL)
With regards to existing sources of energy related to gasoline and others:
Ethanol - Costs more to produce, costs more at the pump, emits byproducts into the atmosphere.
Natural gas - costs to produce it, price is steadily increasing, emits byproducts into the atmosphere. (Main supply is in Asia, i.e. Russia).
Wind energy - Intermittent source of energy. Capacity is therefore very limited.
Solar energy - Intermittent source of energy. Capacity is therefore very limited.
Hydrogen fuel cell - Still costs about the same as gasoline to process with byproducts emitted into the atmosphere. Wator vapor is the only emitted byproduct when the fuel is used.
What about Nuclear power?
I am open to comments on the above, and I certainly do not believe I am an expert.
Care to comment?
Bovine maybe?
MoneyHawk,
Are you a carbon based being, or a silcone based being?
Everything in this creation is carbon based, I believe.
Correct?
Silicone. Mistyped.
Global Cooling Now! Hurry, Build Some Coal Plants!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346310,00.html
U.N. Forecasters: Global Temperatures to Decrease
Friday, April 04, 2008
Average global temperatures in 2008 are forecast to be lower than in previous years, thanks to the cooling effect of the ocean current in the Pacific, U.N. meteorologists say.
The World Meteorological Organisation’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, said it was likely that La Nina, an abnormal cooling of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, would continue into the summer.
If the forecast holds true, global temperatures will not have risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
Bovine maybe?
If your fingers looked like mine, you’d have a heck of a time stringing two words together, too.
8^b~~~~
some carbon based life exudes silica…
It’s been proposed more than once that life may not have began in the oceans but in the mud. (ashes to ashes, dust to dust). Some biologists are considering whether life actually began in a clay matrix. And even at the deepest mines there are bacterial thriving on chemosynthesis.
I’m carbon-based, near as I can tell.
I’ve been sustained by a lot of existing carbon-based life forces for a few decades now.
But I’ve contributed to the release of untapped carbon by burning carbon-based fuels that previously were safely protected from the atmosphere bere coal miners dug up stuff and oil companies pumped it out of the gournd.
A couple of hundred years ago, when my ancestors burned wood, the carbon output into the atmosphere was dirty, but did not introduce new carbon into the environment.
That was the technolgy du jour.
That time is — or should be — coming to an end.
Renewable energy is the only option, ultimately.
Digging up and pumping out finte energy sources is a fool’s game on so many lvels.
The cost at the gas pump, the questions of carbon-based climate change, delivery systems… they’re all just distractions to preserving the life-support system whidch seems, for now at least, a uniquely Earth-based issue.
A Star Trek Series had an alien refer to humans as “bags of water.”
The water is there to cool the hot air.
I was going to post links to new studies debunking global warming but in order to protect all of us from “spam” this site wouldn’t publish the links.
I wish I could say I was surprised but I’m not.
Facts are Global Warming is a hoax. Al Gore and his cabal are money grubbing, greedy, extortionists, and we as people deserve to be cheated because we are too stupid, lazy, naive, (add your own personal description here) to find out for ourselves what is really happening.
We deserve the leaders we get. People who treat us like the rubes we are. People who treat us like cattle. People who expect us to allow them to abuse us for past events or who expect us to give them a pass because of their race, gender, age or whatever victimized identity they chose to embrace.
The Wichita City Council and Sedgwick County Commission are perfect examples. In a time when the country is teetering on recession they are spending OUR money like drunken sailors. Grow up, get a clue and tune in before there’s nothing left to worry about.
No we shouldn’t. He is NOT uninformed, in fact he is more up to date that the WE board has ever been.
This is from the head of the IPCC…
“The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ..”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
More on where did the heat go. New sensors just now returning data….no warming in the oceans at all….oops.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
The whole thing is under further consideration as it should be.
Tiahrt ranks in the top 5 for getting money from the oil companies:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=e01&cycle=2008&recipdetail=H&Mem=N&sortorder=U
Of course he’ll be a denialist, he employers tell him to. Oh that, and he’s not very bright.
drop the http//www garbage and they go through. I had that trouble earlier.
Otherwise, by my view you’re missing the bigger picture. I’m not totally convinced, either.
However, say everyone acts like you’re right, and you happen to be wrong, who loses?
Conversely, assume everyone acs as if the global warming promoters are right, and they happen to be wrong, who loses?
1st category: Everyone, and every living thing.
2nd category: Business way too big to effectively restructure in a minimal amount of time.
Not knowing which is true and which isn’t, which causes the most harm to the most people?
seanmahair,
Just take out the http//. Works fine.
“We deserve the leaders we get” — Sean.
How true.
ghotiphaze,
The truth is that the AGW alarmists predict only a miniscule effect from anything that they want to reduce AGW and a a huge cost!
But, Al just continues to lease Gulstreams (highest carbon foot print in transportation)and live a huge mansion in Tennessee!
Go figure.
American of the USA. Are you really just Steven Colbert putting us on?
C’mon.
“want to do to reduce AGW and at a huge cost!”
Nub fingers.
how many al gores equal one holcomb?
Nub fingers.
I’ll put my fingers against yours anyday. I can pick my nose around corners.
“ksagnostic
Posted April 4, 2008 at 11:28 am | Permalink
American of the USA. Are you really just Steven Colbert putting us on?
C’mon.”
It wouldn’t be as effective, if I was, because I could not stare you down!
Tiahrt is no Ted Turner that’s for sure.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2008/04/03/turner_0404.html
El Nino causes short-term warming.
1998 had warming from a record warm El Nino.
La Nina causes short-term cooling.
A decrease in solar causes cooling.
2007 had cooling from a La Nina, and a solar minimum.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007
“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.”
2007 tied the very warm 1998.
Why was 2007 as warm as 1998? Because human-added GHG’s are causing a gradual, long-term warming trend.
And all of the lies, ignorance, stupidities, etc from AGW deniers cannot change that fact.
jimmymac posted April 4, 2008 at 9:11 am
“Yeah, 0.037 percent of atmospheric gases (man made co2) is solely responsible for climate change.”
Little jimmymac LIES about climate science.
Natural factors such as solar and ENSO are included. Other human-added GHG’s such as methane and CFC’s are included.
jimmymac will now prove that miniscule factors are unable to cause significant impact, by volunteering for a Ebola virus medical study.
An August 2007 post (just change “Kansas” to “jimmymac”)
“Kansas” is one of many of jimmymac’s (Regular) old nics.
——
Doesn’t Kansas know that a NATURAL DROP in CO2 seems to have triggered an ice age?
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/wethring.htm
“The rise of the Appalachian Mountains may have caused a major ice age approximately 450 million years ago, an Ohio State University study has found.
The weathering of the mountains pulled carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, causing the opposite of a greenhouse effect — an “icehouse” effect.
…
It also reinforces the notion that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a major driver of Earth’s climate.”
Now, go ahead Kansas, and give all of us YOUR theories on WHY if a NATURAL DROP of CO2 caused an “icehouse”, the recent human-caused INCREASE of CO2 would NOT cause global warming.
And then do the same for human-caused global increases of methane and N2O.
Yeah cosmos, co2 may be a driver, but man made co2 is 0.037 percent of all green house gases.
That’s 37/100ths of 1 percent. Hardly an influencing force in driving climate change.
That’s 37/100ths of 1 percent.
you either dropped a 0 or you need remedial math. Your call.
jimmymac,
Thank you for posting more falsehoods.
That’s all that you can do, because you don’t have any science on your side.
mrbill posted April 4, 2008 at 11:11 am
“He is NOT uninformed, in fact he is more up to date that the WE board has ever been.”
mrbill’s very deceptive link, and Jennifer Marohasy is part of
‘The Disinformation Cycle’
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/the_disinformation_cycle.php
Yeah cosmos deceptive…
How many SUV’s were around in your Appalachian Mountains examples?
jimmymac,
Thank you yet again for proving that you don’t have any science on your side.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSBKK28941120080404?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true
The global warming money machine is running a little squeaky.
T posted April 4, 2008 at 8:22 am
“Just 30 years ago we were entering a new ice age…all the scientists agreed.”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…
LIARS like “T” are such a hoot!
‘What 1970’s science said about global cooling’
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html
Note the graph in Figure 1.
Dang, Cos, what do you use for a search engine? Copernic or one of the high-dollar, pay-per-view metasearchers?
Yeah outlander, the carbon credit scams are giant ponzi schemes.
It makes a very few rich and does very little towards technological innovation.
It’s one of the biggest scams ever attempting to be forced on humans.
Smart people ain’t buying it.
ever attempted…
Yeah outlander, the carbon credit scams are giant ponzi schemes.
It makes a very few rich and does very little towards technological innovation.
it’s run by the oil industry?
#
ghotiphaze
Posted April 4, 2008 at 1:46 pm | Permalink
Yeah outlander, the carbon credit scams are giant ponzi schemes.
It makes a very few rich and does very little towards technological innovation.
it’s run by the oil industry?
=======================
Being cute or ignorant?
Look up carbon credits and how it works. You’ll find that it benefits only the very few financially on top of the cash heap.
The rest of us get to pay the bill.
outlander posted April 4, 2008 at 8:09 am
“I think it says a lot about the nature of folks that global warming alarmists have been able to gin up all this concern, when global temperatures haven’t risen in about 10 years and recently have been cooling.”
It says much, much, more about the AGW deniers.
They are unable to understand that the variabilty of Earth’s climate, caused by ENSO and other factors, adds “noise” to the gradual, long-term AGW “signal”.
They are unable to understand the significance of 1998 (record El Nino) tieing 2007 (La Nina and solar minimum).
ghotiphaze,
I use Google.
A one-degree temperature rise was observed over the past century. National Science Foundation
Is anyone breaking out in a sweat?
That doesn’t even qualify for a laughable margin of error on a scale of 100.
I use Google
You gotta have a monster pipe to the net, tabbed browsing like netcaptor or firfox, and a b’jillion windows all tiled.
Or your favorites is 1/2 your hard drive.
Poor little jimmymac does not seem to know that the Earth is not warming uniformly.
jimmymac yet again proves that he is clueless about climate science.
ghotiphaze,
Or I remember what is at sites.
Poor little cosmos does not seem to realize that he is a giant butt kisser of Al Gore and has bought the scheme hook, line and sinker.
cosmos has stated many times on this blog that climate computer models on which the Alarmists rely upon is inaccurate.
And trapped in the corner, with no science, little jimmymac predictably responds with a false ad hominem, and a misquote.
C-lane posted April 4, 2008 at 7:33 am
“The CLIMATE CHANGES because of factors like LaNina, ElNino etc…..Good Grief!”
Correct… and one of the “etc”, is human-added “greenhouse” gases.
I repeat a post from earlier:
American, of the USA
Posted April 4, 2008 at 11:27 am | Permalink
ghotiphaze,
The truth is that the AGW alarmists predict only a miniscule effect from anything that they want to reduce AGW and a a huge cost!
But, Al just continues to lease Gulstreams (highest carbon foot print in transportation)and live a huge mansion in Tennessee!
Go figure.
How do you get around, cosmos? Eh?
“want to do to reduce AGW and at a huge cost!”
Nub fingers again.
Or I remember what is at sites.
*drools envy*
by time i dig up everything I remember reading it’s usually about 2 days later.
I can usually narrow things down to a dozen books or a particular author, but never remember exactly where I saw it.
Wow you must be some steward of the creation of that “God” you keep telling us about there “Am of the usa”
AGW alarmists use the same basic type of assumptions that are used to proove evolution. They don’t proove anything.
“And trapped in the corner, with no science,…”
Is this the same science that begins and ends each dire prediction with “maybe, could be, and possibly”?
I do a very good job of it, by the way.
What I do not do is say one thing and do another.
Look at Howard Dean. He presented himself as in favor of reducing AGW, preached about not using gas guzzlers, but later we found out he drove an SUV.
Duh. Go figure.
on AGW. Just have far back does recorded climitological history go to proove that AGW exists? 200-300 years?
Not enough to prove it. Period.
Nobody has answered my blog from earlier:
With regards to existing sources of energy related to gasoline and others:
Ethanol - Costs more to produce, costs more at the pump, emits byproducts into the atmosphere.
Natural gas - costs to produce it, price is steadily increasing, emits byproducts into the atmosphere. (Main supply is in Asia, i.e. Russia).
Wind energy - Intermittent source of energy. Capacity is therefore very limited.
Solar energy - Intermittent source of energy. Capacity is therefore very limited.
Hydrogen fuel cell - Still costs about the same as gasoline to process with byproducts emitted into the atmosphere. Wator vapor is the only emitted byproduct when the fuel is used.
What about Nuclear power?
I am open to comments on the above, and I certainly do not believe I am an expert.
Care to comment?
#
American, of the USA
Posted April 4, 2008 at 2:46 pm | Permalink
on AGW. Just have far back does recorded climitological history go to proove that AGW exists? 200-300 years?
Not enough to prove it. Period.
——————-
Not even that far. Climate wasn’t really defined until the 19th century and temperatures were recorded until the latter part of the same century.
The liberals and the media are far worse today towards those who dissent on the Global Warming “concensus” than they accuse McCarty of ever being.
You don’t believe in the Global Warming Concensus?
How Dare You!
They will fire you, the media will label you stupid, they will try to make you an outcast, and they will do everything to make sure no one listens to you.
American, of the USA,
If you use a gasoline powered car, do you add Sta-bil to the gas, because you rarely drive it?
What is the cheapest “source” of energy? Higher energy efficiency.
How much would it cost to move coastal cities, like Houston, inland, to higher ground?
How often does Gore fly “Gulfstream” instead of commercial?
How does the energy use at Gore’s LEED Gold rated home/office compare to the energy use of previous owner(s)?
Do you believe that attacks on a person’s carbon footprint refutes AGW science?
jimmymac,
Thank you for posting more LIES about climate science.
Nathan posted April 4, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“The liberals and the media are far worse today towards those who dissent on the Global Warming “concensus” than they accuse McCarty of ever being.”
Nathan just cannot understand that the AGW debate is between the credible scientists — not the “liberals”, and not the “media”.
Unfortunately for Nathan, he doesn’t have any credible scientists on his side. Just people like Steven Milloy, Dennis Avery, Fred Singer, Jennifer Marohasy, et al.
So Nathan instead attacks the wrong people.
Richard Lindzen is on my side.
Unfortunately, cosmos is not a scientist, but nearly a hanger on to the GORACLE’s coat tails
- Cosmos who likes to claim hero status of the environment, when he actually is an enemy to the entirety of mankind and obstructing those needing the funds for real problems like the starvation and those with diseases.
Cosmos wants to steal from the starving and diseased to give to the wealthy like Al Gore.
And Lindzen gets paid a lot for that too.
#
Ben
Posted April 4, 2008 at 3:56 pm | Permalink
And Lindzen gets paid a lot for that too.
——————–
And Gore gets paid millions for his spiel.
Ben,
And all those climate scientists get paid alot for what they do too.
Actually, the less of a problem the climate is, the less interest there would be in paying them to study it. Seems like they would be just as motivated by money as you insinuate Lindzen would be.
Nathan,
Please tell us how many times Lindzen has submitted, and withdrawn his “Iris” theory.
jimmymac,
Thank you for more ad hominems and lies.
I’ve read comments that suggested Lindzen’s long-term, multiple refusals to admit that his “Iris” theory is wrong is due to his ego — not his funding.
Nathan posted April 4, 2008 at 3:58 pm
“Actually, the less of a problem the climate is, the less interest there would be in paying them to study it.”
Nathan has it backwards.
Earth’s climate is very important to our human civilization. It is an important “interest”.
Unusual weather in the 1970’s caused concerns about the future climate, and caused increased scientific research.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
Another one of cosmos’ attributes, character assassination on distinguished Scientists of whom cosmos couldn’t even hold their briefcase without first upgrading his education.
cosmos is not a scientist.
Cosmos,
Do you think there was more or less interest in studying the climate now verses 15 years ago?
I don’t have anything backwards.
Lindzen?
Paid off by the oil companies. TOTAL tool.
Look.
Global warming IS real.
Human activity IS adding to it.
And there is NOTHING to be lost by addressing global warming proactively.
THAT’S why we ARE going to do it.
And again, more ineffective ad hominems from jimmymac.
Nathan,
Governments worldwide have been funding scientists for decades to research climate, because climate is very important to human civilization.
The interest re climate came first, then the funding.
Fossil-energy groups later began funding deniers, because those groups opposed reductions of carbon emissions.
Cosmos,
I could just as easily argue about the motives of the Governments in funding climate science being far worse than those who fund the scientists who disagree.
Nathan,
Okay. Explain why the “motives” of U.S. taxpayer funding of NASA, NOAA, etc. are “far worse” than the motives of the people who funded GCC, George Marshall Institute, OISM, SEPP, etc listed here,
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
That’s the coal industry, Reverend Moon, et al.
BTW: Your “scientists who disagree” do not have any science to back up their “disagreement”.
hey cosmos!
How about that tremendous 1 degree increase in temperature over a 100 year period?
That’s from the National Science Foundation, btw. Or are those people in the NSF not credible?
Are you sweating yet due to the high temperatures?
Cosmos,
Well, I am glad you asked!
It kind of goes along with the proposed solutions to this problem.
Lets look at the Kyoto treaty. It basically amounted to little more than a power control scheme. Governments are interested in more power and what better way than to come up with a scheme which unfairly targets America with massive restrictions on consuption of energy.
Governments have a huge interest in manipulating energy consumption and control.
That is why many will pump money into “science” which will help them get the people convinced to support them and demand those changes.
Global warming is a scam when you start looking at the solutions.
jimmymac,
See my post upthread at 2:09 pm.
Nathan,
So you believe that all of the science supporting AGW, is refuted by proposed “solutions”, like Kyoto?
Excuse me for not wasting my time explaining how stupid that is.
Also, the scientific debate re AGW is over. Most of the funding is now going to adaptation and mitigation.
Cosmos,
You still don’t have any idea what I really think at all.
No, I don’t think that all of the science is refuted because of the solutions.
If the debate is over, then why are you still here talking about it and why is the Eagle creating threads on it?
Cosmos,
In science, the debate is never over. Science welcomes questions, welcomes different opinions. Another reason why many of the supporters of the concensus are wrong when they treat anyone who would dare disagree with them the way they do.
Hey Cosmos Man - How are ya doin?
Answer and questions for you!
“cosmos
Posted April 4, 2008 at 3:10 pm | Permalink
American, of the USA,
If you use a gasoline powered car, do you add Sta-bil to the gas, because you rarely drive it?”
I drive my car to work everyday. Do you work?
“What is the cheapest “source” of energy? Higher energy efficiency.”
Okay, what is the cheapest source of energy, since you asked of course?
“How much would it cost to move coastal cities, like Houston, inland, to higher ground?”
I never said anybody would have to. So how much would it cost then? Are you an economist too? Wow man!
“How often does Gore fly “Gulfstream” instead of commercial?”
Why isn’t he riding a bicycle? He has plenty of time now since he is no longer VP. That would be his best carbon foot print, even though he exhales so much!
“How does the energy use at Gore’s LEED Gold rated home/office compare to the energy use of previous owner(s)?”
President Bush has a much more green residence than Gore by far.
“Do you believe that attacks on a person’s carbon footprint refutes AGW science?”
I don’t have to refute anything because you cannot proove it with your so-called theory!
Also, the scientific debate re AGW is over. Most of the funding is now going to adaptation and mitigation.
Translated, that means the wallets of the Carbon Credit scam artists are getting larger and they are sticking fingers in their ears saying “la la la la la.”
(chortles)
Cosmos,
You fail to realize that there are plenty of things in the works to improve air travel and make it much more fuel efficient.
Take the case of the Boeing Dreamliner, which is projected to get somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-30% better fuel efficiency. Someone verify that for me if they can, I might be off.
Cessna, Bombardier and other aircraft manufacturer’s have designs in work similar to Boeing’s to produce composite aircraft with some of them to have a geared turbofan engine which together is projected to get 15-30% percent better fuel efficiency. It’s not like nobody is doing anything, is it just better for private industry to do it and not the government.
What is driving this? The price of oil mainly, but somewhat, in a very minor way, because of the carbon credits everybody is buying into.
I will not argue with Flat Earther’s. What is the point?
It’s pretty obvious to me that this is nothing more than an anti-Tiahrt editorial hit piece.
Is this how the Wichita Eagle defines journalistic research and journalistic integrity?
Nathan,
Science is not just about “questions” and “opinions”. It’s about research, data, hypotheses, and credible peer-review.
Your side just offers “opinions”. An “opinion” by itself is not science.
American, of the USA posted April 4, 2008 at 5:55 pm
“You fail to realize that there are plenty of things in the works to improve air travel and make it much more fuel efficient.”
I do not “fail to realize that” — and it applies to all vehicles, and other energy demands.
http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
Last winter was the coldest nationwide and globally since 2001, and predictions are that, again because of La Nina, we’re in for another very cold winter. Climate fanatics continue to insist that – uhhh, average temperatures might rise within 5 years – then RUN FOR THE HILLS FROM THE CANNIBALS!
Meanwhile, other scientists predict that, in a solar cooling cycle in the near future, we will need more CO2 in our atmosphere to help stabilize our climate.
I suspect that what’s holding the congressman back on global warming is his need to prioritize cause and effect. For instance, he might be thinking that if the earth is getting warmer from carbon dioxide, then it would inevitably follow that some of the same heat would melt at least a portion of the high quality blue cheese away from the moon (wouldn’t it drip on the stars?). Yet some scientific groups continue to report that the moon contains roughly the same thickness of blue cheese that was present when American astronauts landed there in the 60’s and stuck a salad fork (okay, a flag) into the heretofore uneaten salad dressing type substance. Until scientists can explain why blue cheese supplies on the moon seem to remain constant, carbon dioxide driven global warming arguments may remain a tough sell to holdouts like the congressman.
parkay posted April 4, 2008 at 7:40 pm
“Last winter was the coldest nationwide and globally since 2001”
[I will just repost my post to parkay from last month]
parkay posted March 24, 2008 at 9:32 pm
“ environmental restrictions to prevent global warming [now that we’ve had the coldest winter since 2001]”
Both a La Nina, and a solar minimum, caused global cooling in 2007.
It got so cold, it tied the very warm year in 1998, that was caused by a record warm El Nino, plus human-caused warming.
Tied. Two natural cooling factors in 2007, tied a record natural warming factor in 1998. Think about that.
“Tied. Two natural cooling factors in 2007, tied a record natural warming factor in 1998. Think about that.”
Yeah, it all balanced out! And, it will continue to do so irregardless of all your monotonous bellyaching.
Boxlock posted April 4, 2008 at 9:19 pm
“Yeah, it all balanced out! And, it will continue to do so irregardless of all your monotonous bellyaching.”
Boxlock is too [ * ] to understand that it was NOT supposed to “balance out”.
2007 should have been cooler than 1998.
* = fill in your favorite word(s) and/or phrases, since we’re not supposed to make personal attacks on the WE Blog.
There are records of climate composition and temperatures dating back thousands of years:
http://www.sciencepoles.org/index.php?s=2&rs=home&uid=922&lg=en
Its similar to putting your finger over a straw and pulling liquid from a cup. From this scientists can view and analyze past years just like they are able to from tree rings. While I do believe that warming is happening, I understand
why people are hesitant. But if it were to help us become less dependent on foreign oil and provide cleaner air (which by the way asthma and respiratory allergy rates are soaring) then hey. why not?
The Europeans have done amazing work in these fields over the past 20 years. Spain has become known for their solar power and yes some of their solar plants can provide continuous energy for 24 hours without sunlight. Germany and the Netherlands are ahead with in wind power. I’ve heard the Netherlands has even gone as far as creating offshore wind farms. Its time we caught up with the world before we are left behind.
actually many christians have started to acknowledge global warming.
tiahrt isn’t that smart anyway.
maybe he smoked too many drugs in college to understand anything that requires some thought.
“Boxlock is too [ * ] to understand that it was NOT supposed to “balance out”.”
cosmos you crack me up…you’re like the hypochondriac who’s life is simply miserable over worrying about a disease that exhibits no symptoms, ha.
Yeah PCM, yet the European co2 emissions have gone up since the Kyoto Treaty.
Boxlock,
Thank you for confirming that you are too [ * ] to understand the obvious “symptoms” — 2007 should have been cooler than 1998.
“2007 should have been cooler than 1998.”
-Cosmos
Let me see if I got this right:
According to Cosmos:
1998 was warmed by man made influences and no NON man made influences are considered.
2007 was cooled by natural influence (La Nina and solar minimum) and no man-made influences were considered.
Therefore:
In 1998, we can ignore all NON man made effects that tend to warm the planet.
In 2007 we can ignore all man made effects that tend to warm the planet.
We will assume that in 1998 only man-made effects impacted the warmth of that year. Conversely, in 1998 we can make the COMPLETELY OPPOSITE assumption that no man made effects had any impact on 2007.
That’s why Cosmos in his infinite wisdom can say:
“2007 should have been cooler than 1998.”
rfl,
You really should read the thread before posting.
cosmos posted April 4, 2008 at 12:44 pm
“El Nino causes short-term warming.
1998 had warming from a record warm El Nino.”
—-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
“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.”
“El Nino causes short-term warming.
1998 had warming from a record warm El Nino.”
-Cosmos
What about the man made warming in 1998?
“Both a La Nina, and a solar minimum, caused global cooling in 2007.”
-Cosmos
What about the man made warming in 2007?
Cosmos says:
“It got so cold, it tied the very warm year in 1998, that was caused by a record warm El Nino, plus human-caused warming.”
But he completely IGNORES the man made warming that “should” have happened in 2007?
Why does Cosmos ignore the affects of man made warming in 2007 but does not do the same service to 1998?
cosmos
Posted April 5, 2008 at 12:38 pm |
“— 2007 should have been cooler than 1998″
Don’t you realize how asinine your statement is?
2007 was the temperature it was…because that’s the temperature it was supposed to be, and was. You don’t run the universe cosmos, and neither does any other person or persons.
What an ego-maniac.
rfl,
Are you unable to read, or unable to understand the phrase “gradual, long-term warming trend”?
cosmos posted April 4, 2008 at 12:44 pm
“Why was 2007 as warm as 1998? Because human-added GHG’s are causing a gradual, long-term warming trend.”
ENSO factors are “short-term”.
Boxlock posted April 5, 2008 at 1:50 pm
“You don’t run the universe cosmos, and neither does any other person or persons.”
Actually, Earth’s climate is being partly “run” — by all of the “persons” who have caused CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide levels in the atmosphere to rise.
cosmos
Posted April 5, 2008 at 2:06 pm
“Actually, Earth’s climate is being partly “run” — by all of the “persons” who have caused CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide levels in the atmosphere to rise.”
OH HOGWASH!
And cosmos, aren’t you even more confused than normal? Nitric oxide, the pollutant should not be confused with nitrous oxide (N2O), a general anesthetic. Your confusion all starts to make since if you’ve been breathing nitrous oxide (laughing gas). Nitric oxide (NO) is normally manufactured from the reaction of sulfur dioxide with nitric acids. Nitric oxide is a component of smog, nitrous oxide just kills pain and makes you stupid.
Though nitric oxide is considered a pollutant it has some nice effects on the body. It is a dilator of the cardiopulmonary vasculature. NO accounts for the physiological effects of vasodilating drugs such as nitroglycerin, and Viagra. Maybe if you were breathing a little more NO in the atmosphere you’d have more pleasurable things to think about than AGW.
A little nitric oxide won’t hurt you, you might have fun, but stay away from that nitrous oxide, you’re stupid enough as it is.
Humor aside;
Though, nitrous oxide is actually considered a pollutant “Damage to plants by N2O has only been observed near nitric acid facilities and no evidence of NO damage has ever been seen outside the laboratory. It was concluded that the level of concentration of these gases is too low to cause significant problems at this time.”
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/pollution.htm
“The category of Nitrogen Oxides is made up primarily of three different gases; nitrogen dioxide (NO2 ), nitrous oxide ( N2O), and nitric oxide, NO. Nitrous oxide is over four times more toxic than nitric oxide. Nitrogen dioxide is generally not considered a pollutant because it is not toxic and usually not produced by humans. On the basis of mass, the nitrogen oxides make up the smallest group of pollutants and have the second smallest effect on life, behind CO. As with carbon monoxide, nature emits greater amounts of these gases than humans do. The leading natural causes include the decomposition of soil, bacterial activity and lightning. Anthropogenic emissions are mostly due to the combustion of fuel. Natural air is composed of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, which don’t react at normal temperatures, but can react if the temperature is hot enough (1300-2500° C). In these cases, the quantity of nitrogen oxides released varies depending on the temperature and the ratio of nitrogen to oxygen. The increasing use of nitrogenous fertilizers is among the reasons that emissions of N2O have been on the rise. Damage to plants by N2O has only been observed near nitric acid facilities and no evidence of NO damage has ever been seen outside the laboratory. It was concluded that the level of concentration of these gases is too low to cause significant problems at this time.”
Boxlock,
Nitrous oxide, N2O, is a “greenhouse” gas.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html
“Nitrous Oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.”
And your explanation of why 2007 was as warm as 1998 seems to only be: “OH HOGWASH!”
That’s not persuasive. But it does show that you’re clueless about climate.
“His constituents should call him on it.”
Well we could try.
But Toad Tiahrt only works for the interests of SOME of his constituents. Others he does not answer much less answer to.
cosmos drones on, and on, and on,……., and …on…
“Nitrous oxide, N2O, is a “greenhouse” gas.”
From my earlier reference;
“As with carbon monoxide, nature emits greater amounts of these gases than humans do. The leading natural causes include the decomposition of soil, bacterial activity and lightning.
The increasing use of nitrogenous fertilizers is among the reasons that emissions of N2O have been on the rise.”
How ya gone’a stop those natural causes cosmos, like decomposition of soil, bacterial activity and lighting…that’s what I want to see you do cosmos, stop the lighting.
And there is a big world to feed out there cosmos, ya want to stop using fertilizers and starve folks to satisfy your “peer review” scientists over science certainly not everybody even agrees with.
Boxlock,
To sum up your arguments so far,
* Humans cannot change Earth’s climate. So a massive nuclear war, causing dust to greatly reduce solar energy = no effect?
* “OH HOGWASH!” (very persuasive, Not!)
* Various personal insults and false ad hominems.
* Falsely claiming that I confused N2O with NO.
* Falsely claiming that I advocated N2O reductions.
* The very vague ‘nature emits greater amounts than humans’, which is irrelevant, considering the long “lifetime” of the gases.
But I guess that is the best that you can do Boxlock, since you do not have any credible science to support your opinions.
No cosmos, you simply do not read anything except what you what to be the case.
It is your RELIGION.
But many, or most, are simply sick of your one topic monotone monologue. Many JUST DON’T CARE, and are sick of listening to you.
I was making an analogy that you are impotent on this topic, and who knows what else, you can’t effect anything, and that just maybe a little nitric oxide would actually help you.
END….you’re boring!
Thank you, Boxlock.
Adding to my 8:46 pm list,
* Boxlock does not understand the huge difference between scientific methodology, and “religion”.
(plus Boxlock posts more false ad hominems, and another OT rant).
At least Boxlock, cosmos doesn’t stalk you across threads for a entire year, making the same asinine comment about the Sierra Club over and over for a year.
Personally, I think cosmos is an insane nut dangerous to society.
No one does that unless they are totally insane.
Regular,
Though I rarely, if ever, disagree with you, I disagree. Cosmos WOULD be dangerous if he weren’t so completely ineffectual at doing anything except droning on and on, but accomplishing absolutely nothing except boring readers.
What cosmos is completely blind to when saying I don’t understand the difference between scientific methodology and religion is he has made a religion out of his science. And, what really shows his naivety is that he seems incapable of realizing there are many factors his ’scientists’ and computer models and peer reviews don’t yet know and understand and factor in. He thinks he has all the answers now, yet as we’ve seen he can do and effect NOTHING.
Oh, and I might add;
The Earth will take care of itself, and will do so without checking in with cosmos for his, or his scientist’s, approval.
You’ll change your mind when he posts comments totally off topic in other threads that have nothing to do with what is being discussed, so he can put in his spiel about GW, or say something “like Boxlock falsely states or Boxlock lies when…” and he does that daily for year.
Then, you’ll change your mind about his sanity.
The guy is a 100 percent loon.