WE Blog

Thank God this man will be out of any position of power in about 200 days.

What a miserable failure of president. What a miserable failure of a man.

When Greenland’s ice melts, it will raise ocean level twenty feet.

Say good bye to the Netherlands to Manhattan to Singapore to Hong Kong to Tokyo to Shanghai to Miami.

It’s like CondiLiar Rice saying “who knew terrorists wanted to fly jets into buildings?”

You just can’t see it coming . . . especially if you keep your eyes closed.

Well, sure, Nathan.

If you have the capacity to delude yourself that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, you have already rejected the scientific method and any conclusions you don’t like.

Talking to you about global warming is like talking to an Amishman about nuclear physics. You already reject the premise of how knowledge is determined.

You have nothing to offer a thinking person on this subject.

CapnAmerica,

My belief on Creation has nothing to do with this discussion.

My belief in Creation is no more a rejection of “science” than your belief in God is either.

You are no better than Regular with this type of trollish behavior either.

Just remember that next time you are on one of your 400 post rants with him.

Too little, too late from Bush on climate change

———-

Ah, the arrogance and/or well-meaning stupidity of those who think we have a global thermostat, if we would only use it.

And that that thermostat involves carbon credits. What a waste of resources that we will need to adapt to the coming changes. There can be no long term climate status quo.

Meanwhile, the planet cools from lack of solar activity.

Conservatives are showing they know as much about climate science as they do about economics. I don’t think I’ll waste my time trying to educate the willfully ignorant.

Anyone willing to bet their life savings that the Alarmists are absolutely correct that man made Global Warming is the cause of all things bad? :D

(hears echoes of climate uncertainty backpedaling from the alarmists)

“Try to think about everything that is produced that uses oil.”

C’mon maggotpunk. Do you not know what the single largest end use of oil is? Of course you know. By a long shot, it’s your car combined with a million others.

Try thinking about everything that YOU do that consumes oil. There are a number of I’s that comprise the “we” that are guilty of being addicted to order.

Blaming the president for you own oil consumption is illogical and hypocritical. Hence the problem with those who are looking for a scapegoat in global warming.

Scapegoat identified: George W Bush
Solution identified: ?

“You are no better than Regular with this type of trollish behavior either.

“Just remember that next time you are on one of your 400 post rants with him.”

Hopefully Nathan will be as good at following his own advice as he is providing it, the next time he is in a 400+ rant with WS Clark. No wait, this latter is more properly termed a “debate” – sorry, I forgot.

“Well, Cosmos was using it (solar minimum) as one of two reasons for the global cooling that occurred last year.”

True, Cosmos delivered to us on cue an explanation for why 2007 was cooler then “normal”. Of course this explanation for 2007 of a solar minima was provided well into 2008.

I guess the predictive climate models are not intended to include such influences as El Nino, La nina and solar minima.

It’s a good thing we have the past to calibrate those climate models. Kind of makes you wonder about their ability to predict the future however.

RFL,

The idea behind Man-made climate change is to keep “raising and lowering the bar” so they can “always” be right.

Some of us are not blind to the trickery.

What’s the rush? Did either ice cap melt yet?
Any dead polar bears?

Geez, the climate has been changing since the first caveman farted. (U.N says that farts contribute 18% of the current co2 increase.)

Al Gore just made his movie last year – and you want Mr. Bush to have resolved the issue during his term?

That someone is using due diligence to examine the environmental studies has a calming effect over the irrational clamour for quick change.

Some of you sixties people screaming, “We want it now!” are having a hard time adjusting to not rushing in like a bunch of fools.

And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, there will be heat; and it cometh to pass. (Luke 12, 54)

cooler than normal? NO. A bit cooler than the past very warm years? YES.
And the models DO inclide ENSO and the very small solar fluctuations.

“The planet was much snowier and warmer than usual during the winter of 2007-2008″

NOTICE IT SAYS WARMER, NOT COOLER, THAN USUAL.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=916&tstamp=200803

“Why did we see record snows this winter, if global warming is occurring?
Beware of global warming skeptics trumpeting record snowfalls this winter as an excuse to doubt that global warming is occurring. One should primarily look at global temperatures on a scale of decades to judge the validity of global warming. Dr. Ricky Rood, who writes our Climate Change blog, put it this way in his current blog, Creeping Onset of Spring and in an earlier blog, Water, water, water:

This year has been very snowy in the northern hemisphere. That it is snowy does not suggest that it is colder. If it gets warmer, it does not mean that we no longer see freezing temperatures in places like Michigan. If it gets warmer there is more water in the atmosphere, and when there is precipitation there will be more precipitation, and if it is below freezing, then that precipitation will be ice and snow. The high mountains near the coast, like the Cascades and the Sierra Nevada would expect more snow. This is also true for the high altitudes parts of Greenland and Antarctica. From a climate point of view it is more important to look at snow cover in the late winter and early spring. Is the snow melting earlier?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

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.

Computer Models have projected that if we stopped ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY in 1990, there would be no detectable change in temperature outside of normal climate parameters by 2050.

P.S. I can already see that this thread is going to degenerate from a discussion of Bush’s climate proposals into the standard anti-GW antiscience rhetoric.

Agreed, Rage. And as I’ve said before, it doesn’t matter who is wrong or right, it’s which way to act is the most prudent.

Steven,

If you have noticed, I am not doing that anymore.

On top of that, I have adopted your style of posting. Just throw a couple of quick jabs in and don’t come back.

Identify as quickly as possible that you are in a pissing match and get out!

On top of that… 80% below 1990 levels?

Back to the stone age, just like Al Gore wanted.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

Hmmmmm….

Whether global climate change is man-assisted or not, is, IMHO, immaterial. That the global climate is changing is not. It is happening, and anyone who looks at the evidence with unbiased eyes can see that.

So the question is: Can man do anything to stop it? Again, I think it is immaterial. What I do advocate is a collective approach to addressing a worst case scenario. I would look at this as a global Katrina, and what do we do to prepare for it? If thought out to a logical conclusion as to what would need to be done, then plans can be made.

Notice I said plans, not actions. If it never happens, or turns out to be minor in global shifts, we would be prepared to attack the problem, or not as the case may be.

One of the scenarios I can predict, in the case of radical shifting, is loss of oil reserves, and no one to sell it to us. So shouldn’t an all out assault on energy problems be considered fruitful planning? And couldn’t that same assault produce dependable renewable energy sources, reducing our dependence on oil as a bonus?

Seems to me, this whole topic has turned into a freakin’ pillow fight, with both sides failing to see the big picture. I call that just plain stupid.

The funny thing about carbon credits is there is a bit of logic. For every cubic meter, there is a cost involved to reduce that same amount by a natural means, i.e., trees, etc.

The problem is, and I can’t see why the Republicans don’t like it, carbon credits are a marketable commodity. Middle men are taking their cut, then passing the rest on down the line, so I doubt the end result is the natural absorption equaling the emissions.

Somebody decided they were going to broker the credits, and the corporations involved said “hey! cool idea”, and so it is. Isn’t that what business is all about in this country? Heck, I wish I’d a thought of it:-)

“pseudo science”

Ah, the arrogance of a non-scientist.

#
bth
Posted April 17, 2008 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

“pseudo science”

Ah, the arrogance of a non-scientist.
————————————

So Ben, you just want everyone else to shut up and take it like good little boys and girls?

When science gets intermingled with politics (IPCC), then it becomes my job, along with others to step up and say. You’re not promoting science, you are promoting a politically driven agenda!

Besides Ben, where is your Peer-Reviewed Paper on Climate Science?

As cosmos would say, get back to me when you have submitted a paper on Climate Science and have it peer-reviewed and accepted.

I’ll wait.

C’mon, Republiar or Nathan or Outlander,

Let’s hear you say, “George W. Bush is wrong.”

Or we’re you wrong when you said global warming is nothing?

It’s got to be one or the other . . . so which is it?

regular – I have never calimed to have published in that field – my peer-reviewed publications are in other science fields. That is why I go to that literature rather than solely to my own.

You don’t need to dignify Reguliar with a response, BTH.

Here’s the guy who badgered cosmos to death about “his science degree?” but since you have a PhD in science, he now claims it’s not important.

It’s like how he was once married and then he was never married, or how he served in Vietnam but then he was too young to have served in Vietnam, or how he was never going to post here after Jan 1st and yet he’s still posting on April 17th.

#
bth
Posted April 17, 2008 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

regular – I have never calimed to have published in that field – my peer-reviewed publications are in other science fields. That is why I go to that literature rather than solely to my own.
————————————-
As do I.

Unless you care to be arrogant about it and state you are the only one that understands science.

The GORACLE is not a scientist, yet you praise his every move. What’s up with that?

I’ll tell you what is up with that. It’s a politically driven agenda, that when non-scientists such as Gore use power and money to promote his ideologies, it no longer becomes science but politics.

That’s where I and others come into play. When have an absolute right to display whatever objectives we dislike about the politically driven alarmist movement.

Scientists give concepts, theories and ideas, they don’t force those down people’s throats.

Or is that a part of science that is only taught in the Liberal side of science?

Even the IPCC admits there are too many “uncertainties” to predict accurately.

Leave it to the Crapn to go on the personal attack when he can’t get his way and control others.

Sorry Crapn, you are too little of a man to impose your will on me.

Like I said, it sucks to be you.

“The GORACLE is not a scientist, yet you praise his every move” NOT TRUE and you know it.

Science has its own sort of “Hippocratic Oath” and when we see actions that will endanger people we are required to speak up. That is true if we know a dangerous chemical is being improperly marketed and it applies here as well.

It would appear bush hasn’t done anything to win friends and influence people on this issue.

Developing Nations Rip Bush Emission-Cut Plan

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120845683885323553.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

RFL–

Let me clear it up for you. What Bush says finally is right about global warming. What he’s doing and what he’s done is exactly nothing.

So he’s both right (in his opinion) after saying nothing for 7 years as President and a miserable failure in doing anything in a timely manner.

******

As for Reguliar’s assertion that Bush “wasn’t talking about global warming” or some such nonsense, here’s the actual article:

President Bush warmed to the possibility of reduced greenhouse gas emissions Wednesday, fueling the ongoing debate over a Kansas coal power plant.

Bush proposed that by 2025, the country halt the growth of carbon dioxide emissions, which many scientists link to global warming.

He offered few specifics on how to attain that goal, but singled out power plants as needing attention.

“To reach our 2025 goal, we’ll need to more rapidly slow the growth of power sector greenhouse gas emissions so they peak within 10 to 15 years, and decline thereafter,” he said, according to a transcript of his speech.

“By doing so, we’ll reduce emission levels in the power sector well below where they were projected to be when we first announced our climate strategy in 2002.”

Remember there will be an increased Democratic majority next year in the House and Senate.

Remember too that the deniers of global warming and the foot draggers are increasingly marginalized out of the discussion.

There’s a REASON why the fossil fuel companies are flooding the airwaves with how eco friendly they pretend to be.

They feel the ground sliding out from under them.

J R sings…
Ch ch ch changes!

Reguliar also neglects how to explain that simply repeating his own words is “a personal attack.”

HAZMAT instructor?!?

“Used to be”?

Hippocratic oath for former HAZMAT instructors?!?

:lol:

Hell, in all the famous WEblog scientific “debates” why didn’t you use the magic words, “former HAZMAT instructor,” a lot earlier and spare us all a lot of egg on our chins?

“Nathaniel
Posted April 17, 2008 at 1:09 pm | Permalink
Steven,

“If you have noticed, I am not doing that anymore.

“On top of that, I have adopted your style of posting. Just throw a couple of quick jabs in and don’t come back.”

Nathan, Nathan, I don’t care what you post, whatever it is, it is ALWAYS total crap. You can jab or not, who cares you dumb ass. Go f*ck yourself; The only chance you will have with a female.

Night, night…