New Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson offered a deal to Sunflower Electric Power Corp. of Kansas, the company that had been lobbying for two coal-fired power plants for well over a year. Parkinson is allowing Sunflower to build one of those coal plants. With this settlement Kansas has given up its place as a national leader on clean energy. Under former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Kansas was well-positioned to make contributions to slow global warming. This agreement is a significant setback. The concessions made to the coal industry will greatly outweigh any so-called benefits for the state. The new coal plant actually increases Kansas’ contributions to global warming. While the country is moving away from polluting fossil fuels, Kansas has opened the door for outdated, dirty technology other states are rejecting. The agreement appears to invite Sunflower Electric to build another coal plant in two years. This is not a compromise, but a giveaway to the coal industry Kansans have stood up against. — Bruce Nilles, Sierra Club, for the Huffington Post
The number of planned coal plants across America has plummeted from 150 to 60 in the past five years. Last year 5,465 megawatts of new electricity were announced, but more than twice that capacity was subtracted because of cancellations or delays. Environmentalists, though thrilled, know they still have a long way to go. Renewable resources can’t yet begin to replace coal as providers of power. But a deal struck in Kansas on May 4, ending 19 months of impasse between Sunflower Electric Power Corp. and the state government, shows under what conditions coal may be able to survive. Two coal-fired plants had been planned by Sunflower. It will now build just one, which will use new clean technology, offset carbon dioxide emissions and develop wind energy on the side. In return, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment cannot impose any greenhouse-gas regulations that are tougher than those emerging from Washington. Suddenly, that seems a pretty high bar. — the Economist magazine
190 Comments
Clean technology? Then I guess there’s no need to offset those emissions because it’s clean, no emissions. If we are building “clean” technology coal plants perhaps we can build some safe nuclear bombs. They’re safe, so we can drop them without killing people.
Has the pro-pollution crowd ever been honest in their rhetoric?
Coming out of Washington is a sell out climate bill which will give away 85% of the carbon credits to polluters. Before 100% of the credits were to be sold which would generate billions so America could invest in a cleaner, more efficient national infrastructure (infrastructure has been ignored for decades which foreign countries invest in theirs). In order to compromise with the pollution crowd we have insured that our nation will make no progress. Metaphorically speaking, while other nations will have electric cars we’ll go back to the horse and buggy. Realistically speaking, they’ll have high speed maglev trains and we’ll have slow, diesel trains on an ancient rail system.
Pro-con: did environmentalists lose on coal deal?
Answer: YES. THE ENTIRE STATE OF KANSAS LOST ON THE COAL DEAL. Kansas lost on both the increased level of polluting gases issue AND on the continued destruction of the deep underground Ogallala pure drinking water issue.
And there is another issue I don’t see mentioned by the news media. The original plan was to build two additional coal fired power plants. The new plan is to allow one additional coal fired power plant BUT SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN EITHER OF THE ORIGINAL PLANNED POWER PLANTS.
A major sleight of hand here as they say. A politicians lie as others would say.
The purpose of the additional power plant of course is to feed the frenzy for additional power by the Denver front range metroglop at the expense of Kansas environment and water.
Another question is how much is this power project costing Kansas taxpayers and Kansas customers of electrical power? Haven’t seen that answer yet … have you?
And, of course, the justification that this new power plant project will finance high capacity power lines for future wind energy projects is so much hocum from Holcomb. The location of future high capacity power lines to serve future Kansas wind farms is not even known yet.
So once again Kansans are losers in this high stakes chess game to turn Kansas into a huge industrial farm to serve the 21st century.
Hold Sunflower and the “clean” coal industry to their promises.
If they actually come up with magic algae that neutralizes the carbon emissions, groovy.
If they’ve been blowing smoke (so to speak) hold their asses to the fire.
I invented and sent a Power Plant Concept to them and they ignored it. Here it is: Can Crude Oil into 1 gallon cans. Get more Oil from Offshore using Submarines to drill the ocean floor through hatch doors on the bottom of the subs using the torpedo door technology. Put 6, 1 gallon cans per case. Place a 10 foot wheel on an axle. Place a toothed gear on the outer edge of this 10′ wheel. At the bottom of the wheel On the attach a 1 foot wheel which attaches to a drive shaft. When the 10′ wheel spins 1 time the 1 foot’ gear turns 10 times. This drive shaft is hooked to the power plant generator. Slide the cases of oil over the top of the wheel and the weight turns the wheel. It works like a dry paddle wheel. This design works like a production line. As the cases slide down the assembly line slide, they come off at the top, or 12:00 o’clock, of the wheel and come off at about 1/4 forth, or o’clock and continue along the assembly line. The Crude Oil can be transported safer, and in a multitude of transport vechicles when canned and cased. The wheel and drive wheel sizes can vary depending on the power generator speed or RPM needs. A transmission can be used to also gear reduct or control the RPM, revolutions per minute. We have all seen a canning plant. The cans all slide down from above. We can use this momentum to generate energy. We can us gallon cans of anything. Corn, peas, cooking oil, peanut butter etc:.. 1 gallon cans of any and all products weight the same. This Plant does not have an engine. It doesnt burn coal. It has zero emissions! The Plant can run as a distribution center. The cases of product are stored and then slide down the ramps when needed for shipping. This turns the wheel. A repeat system with elevators/conveyers and diverters, for directional pathes, can be developed. It is basically run just like a Roller Coaster, but for for case’s of goods. The Generator gives off electricity when it turns. The Power Plant Engines turn the Generator. Dams us water as it flows through turbines to turn Generators. Momentum works. Tell the EPA and the State and Federal Governments what you think, I did. What are we going to have for energy when the Wind Mills Ice over lioke the rest of Kansas does in the last 3 winters? When they ice up they freeze in place. They don’t turn, they don’t generate energy. Herbert West 3rd, HerbertIII at http://www.twitter.com west.herb@yahoo.com Demand they listen, they work for us. We are their bosses, they are not our boss. They did not Vote for, or Hire us.
Ha ha ha!!!
Finally a decision out of the governors office that makes economic sense, based on existing law, and one not based simply on a political agenda.
Coal, our most abundant and inexpensive source of power today, good for Parkinson.
What tickles me is now maybe the state will return to doing business and making these decisions based on the law now that Parkinson cut the legs out from under that political hack Heath and Human Services Secretary Rob Bremby.
I sat here and listened to all the DimLib greenies pontification in their chicken little voices and knew this plant, and very likely the other one too, would be built because there is a need and alternate sources of energy, of which I have no objection to if practical, are not fully ready yet.
Funny, a couple weeks ago while driving back from northeast KS along I-70 north of Ellsworth where there are hundreds of wind turbines and not a single one was running in that wind….not one. That’s a lot of money and destruction of the natural prairie just sitting idle.
Gee, “Boxlock20″ –
And you’d convinced me burning aborted late-term fetuses was America’s most abundant and inexpensive source of fuel.
Now you’re changing your tune?
No political agenda there.
The extreme environmentalists may have lost but the more reasonable environmentalists won a better paced transition into renewable alternative energies. We’re still waiting for ethanol to pan out and solar also turned out to be too expensive.
The poor libs are upset with their Gov. how funny is that?
Parkinson has shown us all that he is a wolf (repub.) is sheep’s (Dem.) clothing. Once a wolf, always a wolf I guess!
Boxlock20
Posted May 16, 2009 at 7:34 am | Permalink
Ha ha ha!!!
___________________
Leave it to a Republican to consider the fouling of our environment some kind of victory.
“Funny, a couple weeks ago while driving back from northeast KS along I-70 north of Ellsworth where there are hundreds of wind turbines and not a single one was running in that wind….not one. That’s a lot of money and destruction of the natural prairie just sitting idle.”
There’s a main transformer down. They’re waiting for the replacement.
Duh Libs lost because they are dunderheads. It’s just stupid to block a business on their own terms. If you want to block development of something you don’t like, you take away its foundations.
For instance, if there is a concern about water, pass aggressive legislation on water use, keep it in court until the legislation is passed. Demanding a long term study be conducted is one way to hold up the works. There are other methods.
Instead, the local yokels cried about co2 emission of which no one is really convinced is a threat and selling energy to another state.
Yeah, what a plan – dunderheads.
XXX posted May 16, 2009 at 8:58 am
There’s a main transformer down. They’re waiting for the replacement.
—————–
boxlock does not let facts interfere with his ignorant denial of reality.
“There’s a main transformer down. They’re waiting for the replacement.”
Oh, well I guess it’s a good thing we have coal and gas plants then isn’t it.
Or is the green agenda more important than the folks having power.
And what happened to the ‘old’ transformer, why’d it go out?
#
Boxlock20
Posted May 16, 2009 at 9:19 am | Permalink
“There’s a main transformer down. They’re waiting for the replacement.”
And what happened to the ‘old’ transformer, why’d it go out?
____________________
Stuff happens. Deal with technology much? Never had anything fail on a car?
The bad part is, the transformer is made in China. Maybe that’s why it failed.
That’s one big S.ucker
A new transformer is expected to arrive here this week, thus allowing the Smoky Hills Wind Farm to restart Phase One turbines sometime in May.
The 349,000-pound transformer is in California, awaiting shipment by truck to Kansas, county clerk Jan Andrews told Ellsworth County commissioners at their April 13 meeting. The equipment started its journey in Taiwan.
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/04/24/new-wind-farm-transformer-on-the-way/
The Sierra Club and it’s fellow wackos has cost this country billions of dollars in their environmental craziness. In my opinion there is no global warming or climate change that man or governments can control regardless of how many dollars we throw at it. Bring on the coal plants.
Boxlock20 posted May 16, 2009 at 9:19 am
“There’s a main transformer down. They’re waiting for the replacement.”
Oh, well I guess it’s a good thing we have coal and gas plants then isn’t it.
————————
boxlock,
Do you actually believe that “coal and gas plants” run non-stop from the second they first go online?
They sometimes fail. And they also go off-line for weeks at a time for maintenance.
george posted May 16, 2009 at 9:51 am
In my opinion there is no global warming or climate change that man or governments can control regardless of how many dollars we throw at it.
——————
And all that you have is your “opinion”, george. You don’t have any science.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
These turbines have hardly gotten started.
I have no problem with them, but they are high maintenance, not as reliable, don’t work when the wind doesn’t blow and have have to be backed up with coal, gas or nuclear.
And the fact remains, they have been off line for a long time, feathered in the wind, so to speak.
Good ol coal and gas keep things going.
“There’s a main transformer down. They’re waiting for the replacement.”
======================
Stuff happens. Deal with technology much? Never had anything fail on a car?
======================
This pretty well illustrates the problem with wind energy. There will always be demand for electricity. Over the last few decades that demand has been increasing.
You can build a million wind mills, but if the wind is not blowing, you have no energy.
It’s not like a car at all. A car missing a part means one driver is off the road. But the demand does not go away. There must be a reliable, ready source to meet the electricity demands of the entire grid.
So not only do you have to deal with increasing demand, which to some small extent can be met with technological improvements but you also have to increase your permanent ready and reliable energy sources which are available 24-7.
Wind is not the answer.
Boxlock20 posted May 16, 2009 at 10:13 am
Good ol coal and gas keep things going.
————-
. . . the same way as wind farms.
When coal and gas plants go off-line, other sources on the grid replace it.
“For instance, if there is a concern about water, pass aggressive legislation on water use, keep it in court until the legislation is passed. Demanding a long term study be conducted is one way to hold up the works. There are other methods.”
Regular’s not wrong here. I think there were several arguments against the plant that got shorted because of the emphasis on CO2 emissions (not that that argument is irrelvant). The water use was one, another was the obvious question. If Colorado needs that power, why couldn’t they build the plant in Colorado. Also, Sunflower has not really come forward with the technology that they claim they will use (and in fact, I think a lawsuit to see what they really are planning is in line, particularly since Sunflower did pull a bait and switch).
Parkinson screwed the pooch on this one, but the argument against the plant should have been, as Regular indicated, more broad based. More to the point, also as Regular indicated, other means should also have been used to make building the plant more expensive in time, effort, and eventually money, and Regular’s list of some of those strategies is well taken (although I am not sure how realistic aggressive legislation regarding water use is in this state, particularly with the truly dunderheaded legislature we have now where the coalition conservative fanatics have taken over).
And by the way, the question at the head of this thread is the wrong one. Contrary to the effots of some conservative fanatics to portray it otherwise, the “environmentalists” are not some special interest block. The question is, does Kansas lose on this deal? I think we do.
“Wind is not the answer.”
We are not talking about THE answer, we are talking about part of the answer. Wind is PART of the answer. More to the point, other renewable sources, such as solar, have been effective. The problem is, the research and development into alternative energy sources has been spotty, and it will take a public effort to redirect private and public entities to really exploring renewable, carbon neutral alternatives. They would work, and certainly work to the extent that additional coal plants would be unnecessary and economically losing propositions.
The “solution” is multi-faceted, and includes alternative energy sources and increasing efficiency so that less energy is required to do the same amount of work.
‘Parkinson’s dirty deal, part 1‘
http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2009/05/parkinsons_dirty_deal_part_1.php
http://www.sierraclub.org/energy/factsheets/basics-coal.pdf
Hey cosmos,
Give me your address so I can send you a big lump of coal to put on your mantel to look at everyday.
Just a reminder that ‘reason’ and practicality wins out in the long run. And this is a good example.
‘Clean Renewables and Efficiency, not Coal, are the Key‘ (11 Kb PDF)
https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E00-34_CleanRenewEffic.pdf
I am a LIBERAL but I am not really into this whole “global warming” junk. I mean we just came off of one of the coldest winters in decades! Even if it was true that the Earth is getting slightly hotter I don’t really know what causes it or why- and to be honest I don’t really care. Hopefully we will enjoy warmer winters someday!
As for the power plant I have a more practical kind of objection to it- Kansas will have the waste, air pollution and water use but it looks like the volts are going to be shipped to Colorado! So why not impose a “severance tax” on the power much like Texas does on oil and natural gas that goes out of the state? That way the people of Kansas will get something out of it too.
BTW wind and solar are a joke. Wind might work if you can find a place like west Texas where it blows all the time. Solar might work in a place like Arizona where it shines all the time. But for the rest of the country, it is not at all practical. I would prefer nuclear power expansion myself along with mandatory energy conservation measures such as time-of-day peak metering and the elimination of incandesant light bulbs and allowing the power management centers to control air conditioning units switching them off for 10 minute intervals on high demand days to balance the load out and reduce the need to build “peak” power plants to meet high demand on only a few very hot days of the year. If we did all these things, we probably would not need more power plants at all.
Kev
Darn fella, you are one practical self-described liberal and I can tell you that, although I consider myself to be conservative, I would figuratively very much like to buy you a beer.
But wait, “the elimination of incandesant light bulbs”, though I have CFBs throughout the house, and are happy with them in most situations that I have them, they don’t work with a darn on outside and are not for places like closets where the lights are turned on for only short periods, or those areas where they are not on but a moment or two and cycled off and on frequently.
And the government and the power companies have no business in my home or others, “allowing the power management centers to control air conditioning units switching them off for 10 minute intervals”. We are nowhere near needing that kind of intrusion in our lives. Plus, it opens the door for increasingly allowing bureaucrats to make decisions on our behalf in control of our lives.
Otherwise, good thoughts and post, I agree with you.
“Kev” –
The Buddhists have a koan that contemplates a single water lily in a pond that doubles each day. If the pond is covered by water lilies, all fish die and it’s reduced to fetid, worthless muck. (It’s a variation on the West’s “give me a penny today, two pennies tomorrow, four pennies the next day…” problem.)
When do you get concerned about the water lily problem? When the pond is half-covered? Too late? When the pond is 1/8th covered? Probably too late, too.
CONs seem to forget life is a pretty fragile situation. We haven’t seen it yet in fifty years of space exploration. Science has discovered certain circumstances which tend to support life. But so far, we earthlings are pretty alone in the universe, best anyone can tell.
So let’s look at life.
98.6 is the typical body temperature. Raise it to 100 degrees (less than 2%) and you’ll call in sick for work. Four percent and the EMTs will haul you to the hospital. Eight percent and your family will be making arrangements with the mortuary.
Less than TEN PERCENT change and you’re taking the dirt nap.
As far as polluting gasses from fossil fuels, we might be (to borrow from the double-the-pennies-a-day model) up to a dollar-twenty-eight today and owing $2.56 tomorrow, I dunno. A lot of evidence suggests we’re further along that route.
Can we opt out of the deal to double the contribution to the double-the-penny scheme? I hope so.
Meanwhile, fossil fuels are a finite resource on this planet which (so far) has proven unique in its capacity to sustain life.
Gambling with doing what we’ve always done seems like a pretty high-stakes game to me.
In the battle between progress and conservatism conservatives have always bet against progress. And conservatives have always lost.
Boxlock20 posted May 16, 2009 at 11:48 am
Plus, it opens the door for increasingly allowing bureaucrats to make decisions on our behalf in control of our lives.
—————–
Yeah. . . we don’t want customers to help keep utility bills lower by eliminating the need for new power plants, by volunteering to allow their A/C to be cycled off for short times during peak demand. /sarcasm OFF
‘Closing the Efficiency Gap ‘
http://ert.rmi.org/research/cgu.html
“…
In total, up to 30 percent of current electrical consumption could be curtailed nationwide by closing the electric productivity gap.
…
Closing the gap the ‘largest near-term opportunity’
This finding is extremely significant because if laggard states achieved the electric productivity of the top ten performing states through energy efficiency, more than 60 percent of coal-fired generation could be displaced in the country. “
cosmos,
Horse pucky!
KANSAS and Kansans lost on the deal.
But then, Kansas is a well known, lost cause. The thing for Kansas to be proud of is that it held out as long as it could until a corrupt, evil politician sold us out.
The important upshot is that precedent was set. Carbon dioxide IS a pollutant and that fact can and will be used by other, more forward thinking states and people to get us away from burning rocks for energy.
“where there are hundreds of wind turbines and not a single one was running in that wind….not one”
maybe YOU shouldda stopped got out of your bigg ol’ suv and stood there talking to them… that’ll generate a bunch of hot air movement.
lil phil brownlee always takes the repuke side of every issue to the extent that it gets redundantly redickulass.
now phil trys to fake concern for the enviroment while admitting the coal plant hurts people more than it helps the ‘pukes fav money source, big business.
should we be impressed, sad, or just surprised phil let somebody else write this and he signed off on it.
BlueJay spews:
Carbon dioxide IS a pollutant
Explain that co2 is a pollutant to a botanist.
BlowJ,
What’s your address, I’ll send you a big chunk of coal as a consolation prize as well as cosmos.
Maybe you can learn to eat the stuff waiting around for the government to take care of you, or at least burn it to survive when they cut your power off.
“Explain that co2 is a pollutant to a botanist.”
Or to a photosynthesizing plant.
Kev posted May 16, 2009 at 11:29 am
I would prefer nuclear power expansion myself . . .
—————–
http://www.oilendgame.com
“In round numbers, electricity from new light-water reactors will cost
twice as much as from new windfarms,
five to ten times as much as distributed gas-fired cogeneration or trigeneration in buildings and factories (net of the credit for their recovered heat), and
three to thirty times as much as end-use efficiency that can save most of the electricity now used.
Any one of these three abundant and widely available competitors alone could knock nuclear power out of the market, and there are three, with more on the way (ultimately including cheap fuel cells).”
Regular,
Tell your hypothesis re global warming since the mid 1970’s (orbital changes?) to a peer-reviewed climate science journal.
Boxlock20 posts
I’ll send you a big chunk of coal [twice]
. . .
Horse pucky!
——————–
The knowledge, and persuasive power of boxlock, one the WE blog’s most prominent examples of Republicans, is overwhelming. /sarcasm OFF
“What’s your address, I’ll send you a big chunk of coal”
How ’bout you meet me in person and I’ll feed it to ya while your wife holds my coat?
“How ’bout you meet me in person and I’ll feed it to ya while your wife holds my coat?”—guess who’s issuing physical threats again, ha. Want to go stand in the cold again dummy, I can do it to you again. Chuckles!
I’m getting to you BlowJ*b, and tickled I can add a little spice your otherwise worthless life.
Another one of the BlowJ*b’s impotent threats, what a character midget.
That coal will survive, even flourish, as a power source is beyond doubt. It’s cheap and plentiful. The only other viable option for keeping the lights on is nuclear, and the resumption of nuke-plant construction is at least 10 years away. The development of wind, solar and other “clean” options for power-generation is cool. But even in Kansas, the wind doesn’t always blow. And the sun doesn’t always shine. If the objective is to keep the lights on and the A/C powered up during the hot months, coal has to be part of the solution. For that reason especially, I like the compromose Parkinson made. It’s a good thing.
“I’m getting to you BlowJ*b”.
Hardly.
People like you are at most a minor irritant in that you hold your country back because you and your thinking are trapped by your own narrow mindedness.
I’m the future. You’re the past.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted May 16, 2009 at 12:47 pm | Permalink
Regular,
Tell your hypothesis re global warming since the mid 1970’s (orbital changes?) to a peer-reviewed climate science journal.
============================
cosmos thinks co2 is a pollutant as well.
Since cosmos probably skated through science classes, we better not clue him into the Krebb’s cycle, fermentation and other natural processes.
“The only other viable option for keeping the lights on….”
Just why are we keeping so many lights on?
The greatest untapped source of energy we have is in conservation of what we already waste.
“I’m the future. You’re the past.”—BlowJ
Oh Gawd! No response necessary.
“Just why are we keeping so many lights on?”–the same mindless simply organism.
Ah….BlowJ, we don’t want to be stumbling around in the dark like you seem to be.
Hey, I still want to see some of that clean coal! Is it really white?
BJ,
“I’m the future. You’re the past.”
LOL. What future is that? One populated with single fathers who will not get a job that will allow them to take care of their own children because they don’t want to work for the man?
If you are the future, may God help us all.
If you are the future, there isn’t going to be a “man” to take care of your sorry self.
Well Nathaniel it will certainly not be a future determined by grown men like you who live in their stepmother’s basement, play with dolls, and consider it some sort of achievement that you can bark “SIR YES SIR” while you march in a line!
Conservation and innovation are in. THAT’S what we are finally teaching the kids and it is long past time.
“Conservation and innovation are in. THAT’S what we are finally teaching the kids and it is long past time.”—BlowJ
And how to be a parasitic drag on society, is that what you have to teach BlowJ?
How can coal be cleaner than our air or water? Both of which contain a lot of contaminants. Lot of mold in the air so there is no clean air or clean water. Strictly clean in anything rarely exists.
LonnythePlumber,
So you believe that it’s okay build more coal-fired plants that emit sulfates, mercury, and other toxins into Earth’s air and water, because “there is no clean air or clean water”?
You sound like a Republican, Lonny.
I have no problem with wind turbines except for a nagging suspicion that somehow T.Boone Pickins will end up owning the air we breathe.
I drove out to Beaumont a while back (I didn’t have a plane), had a great lunch at the hotel and took pictures of those monsters. It was still a bit foggy and they looked just like War of the Worlds!
Make the drive sometime. It’s an impressive sight!
Kansas Democrats got sold down the river on this.
Not only do we get the pollution, we also lose billions of gallons of desperately needed water from an already overbooked aquafier.
To those who believe that tanks of algae are going to solve coal dust and mercury pollution, I have one simple question:
if it is such a good solution, why isn’t Sunflower Electric doing it now?
Duh. Because maybe it really doesn’t work and this is just window dressing to push a plant expansion through.
Yeah. I’m guessing that.
CapnAmerica,
You just don’t understand how it works.
They wanted to build two coal-fired plants.
If only one plant is built, the plant not built cancels the emissions from the plant that is built. /sarcasm NOT off
And all that you have is your “opinion”, george. You don’t have any science.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Opinion, that is rich when you link to the opinions of the IPCC. After all ~20% of their “experts” have had some dealing with climate. That somehow makes their opinion more valid.
It is to laugh.
What’s funny (and sad) is that soldevvb cannot understand the difference between an opinion, and science.
The IPCC offers their opinion on other’s work. The IPCC does not do research.
And only ~20% have had some dealing with climate.
And poor cosmo still follows them faithfully.
Silly cosmo.
soldevvb cannot understand the differences between an opinion, and science.
Then explain where my statement is incorrect.
Betcha can’t. Hell I know you can’t.
soldevvb, I also bet that I can’t explain to you what other people already easily understand. . . because of you. Everything personal.
Didn’t think so cos.
You lose.
And the opinion of those at the IPCC (of which ~20% have had some dealing with climate) is just that: An opinion.
No soldevvb, you lose.
soldevvb doesn’t understand the difference between the viewpoints that are based on science, expressed by scientists worldwide, in reports from 1 out of 3 IPCC groups — versus an opinion that is based on denial of that worldwide scientific research
the difference between the viewpoints
view?point??/?vyu?p??nt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vyoo-point] Show IPA
–noun
an attitude of mind, or the circumstances of an individual that conduce to such an attitude: new marketing techniques seen from the consumer’s viewpoint.
o?pin?ion??/??p?ny?n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
–noun
the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
_____________________________________________________________________
An opinion is an opinion is an opinion, even if it comes from a political group of which ~20% have had some dealing with climate.
2 out of 3 Americans STILL do not believe in man-made Global Warming.
Try harder Cosmos.
Post more links.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
More opinions from a political group of which ~20% have had some dealing with climate cosmo?
Makes about as much sense as proving realclimate is valid because realclimate says so.
Silly cosmo.
JimJohnson,
boxlock posted some links that you should love. The pages seem to be written by a West Virginia mine safety engineer.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/05/open-thread-517-2/comment-page-3/#comment-575032
soldevvb,
Since you’re the expert on the issue, is that “~20%” re only WG1. . . or the entire IPCC?
Ok Sol your turn.
I’m betting Cosmos will post until He11 freezes over here, and will have the last post on this topic He11 or High Water.
wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/william-schlesinger-on-ipcc-something-on-the-order-of-20-percent-have-had-some-dealing-with-climate/
JimJohnson,
So you think that it’s okay for soldevvb to attack WG1’s reports, when he does not know if his “~20%” claim is only re WG1, or the entire IPCC?
William Schlesinger on IPCC: “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.”
You do know old Billy don’t you?
soldevvb,
So you do not know the percentage in WG1? Okay. . .
Being as it came from your buddy Billy, figured you’d know more about it. Wasn’t like I made the statement, your good buddy Billy did. And they are the political organization you worship.
Looks like you don’t know much about the IPCC do you?
Right then.
During the question and answer session of last week’s William Schlesinger/John Christy global warming debate, (alarmist) Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists. It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist.
Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC – trained initially as a railway engineer
#
SolDevVB
Posted May 18, 2009 at 3:03 pm | Permalink
Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC – trained initially as a railway engineer
========================================
Vile diesel fume spewer!
soldevvb,
I’m not responsible for your not knowing the percentage in WG1.
LMFAO.
Spin away cos. Your boy made the statement.
That’s gotta suck. All those times when you attacked the source… looks like the IPCC doesn’t meet muster either.
Hmmm. Wonder what gives them the authority to give their opinion on other people’s work?
Oh THAT’S right, it is a political organization!
A political organization presided over by a former railway engineer.
You must be ever so proud.
Silly cosmo.
soldevvb,
Yes, he made the statement about the entire IPCC, not just WG1.
The AGW science consensus would still exist, even if there was no IPCC.
And the reports from WG1 are out-dated, and generally underestimate the risks.
As the evidence is gathered “The AGW science consensus” is turning more skeptical.
“Washington, DC: Fifty-nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. This updated report – which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007.
The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.”
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3
________________
Google:
inhofe 400
inhofe 650
inhofe 700
Hi, you have a great site! I also recommend this site: http://www.yezarm9oyad.com zfy5f , thanks!
Inhofe 700?
31,000 Signatures Prove ‘No Consensus’ About Global Warming
http://www.aim.org/briefing/31000-signatures-prove-no-consensus-about-global-warming/
#
cosmos_originally
Posted May 18, 2009 at 8:09 pm | Permalink
Google:
inhofe 400
inhofe 650
inhofe 700
________________
WOW they find one on the list that has is a creationist and the alarmists want to throw out the whole list. So now it’s 12.99999 times more than the UPCC scientists.
“The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields,
including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology;
oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics,
engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes
for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of
the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists
hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA;
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the
Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the
Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of
Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the
Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of
Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University
of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of
La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of
Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of
London.”
Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement
does not hold up to scrutiny. Recent research by
Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process
for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for
Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a
process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle,
not a scientific process)
One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told EPW how the UN IPCC Summary for
Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying
precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South Afican Nuclear
Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author
who has authored over 150 refereed publications. [Also see: Internal Report Says U.N.
Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices - Fox News – December 4, 2008 ]
Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements
endorsing the so-called “consensus” view that man is driving global warming. But both the
NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate
statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these
institutions produced the “consensus” statements.This report gives a voice to the rank-and file scientists who were shut out of the process.
Link to Full Printable 255-Page PDF Report
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
#
cosmos_originally
Posted May 18, 2009 at 4:56 pm | Permalink
soldevvb,
Yes, he made the statement about the entire IPCC, not just WG1.
The AGW science consensus would still exist, even if there was no IPCC.
And the reports from WG1 are out-dated, and generally underestimate the risks.
__________________
cosMo backs away from the IPCC and gives an unscientific OPINION.
The latest on the “The AGW science consensus”.
Peter Alford, Tokyo correspondent | March 14, 2009
Article from: The Australian
THREE senior Japanese scientists separately engaged in climate-change research have strongly questioned the validity of the man-made global-warming model that underpins the drive by the UN and most developed-nation governments to curb greenhouse gas emissions…..
Dr Maruyama said yesterday there was widespread scepticism among his colleagues about the IPCC’s fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century “is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.
When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he said, “the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report”.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25182520-2703,00.html
UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory
Scientists Claim Earth Is Undergoing Natural Climate Shift
POSTED: 3:18 pm CDT March 15, 2009
UPDATED: 11:50 am CDT March 16, 2009
http://www.wisn.com/weather/18935841/detail.html
donndublin posted May 19, 2009 at 8:38 am
UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory
Scientists Claim Earth Is Undergoing Natural Climate Shift
——————
Swanson and Tsonis: “Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing.“
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OISM_Petition
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/not-sparta-inhofe-and-the-400/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2218174/posts
soldevvb,
OISM, right-wing-nut Heartland Institute, farm economist Dennis Avery, et al. . .?
soldevvb, you’re an excellent example of Ron Paul supporters.
soldevvb, you’re an excellent example of Ron Paul supporters.
Thank you.
And realclimate.org cos? C’mon, you can’t get a more liberal rag to post from?
You are an excelent example of al-Gore’s sheeple.
The ice is still growing in parts of the Arctic circle.
May 19, 2009 weather report for
GJOA HAVEN, NUNAVUT, CANADA
Weather report as of 21 minutes ago (21:09 UTC):
The wind was blowing at a speed of 9.8 meters per second (21.9 miles per hour) from North/Northwest in Gjoa Haven, Canada. The temperature was degrees Celsius ( degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was hPa ( inHg). Relative humidity was 100.0%. There were broken clouds at a height of 488 meters (1600 feet). The visibility was 6.4 kilometers (4.0 miles). Current weather is Light Snow Moderate Low Drifting Snow .
May 19, 2009 weather report for
TISKI, RUSSIA
Weather report as of 31 minutes ago (21:00 UTC):
The wind was blowing at a speed of 7 meters per second (15.7 miles per hour) from East in Tiski, Russia. The temperature was -5 degrees Celsius (23 degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was 1,001 hPa (29.56 inHg). Relative humidity was 92.7%. There were overcast at a height of 152 meters (500 feet). The visibility was 2.5 kilometers (1.6 miles). Current weather is Light FreezingDrizzle Moderate Mist .
May 19, 2009 weather report for
KHATANGA, RUSSIA
Weather report as of 32 minutes ago (21:00 UTC):
The wind was blowing at a speed of 5 meters per second (11.2 miles per hour) from East/Northeast in Khatanga, Russia. The temperature was -8 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was 1,007 hPa (29.74 inHg). Relative humidity was 85.4%. There were a few clouds at a height of 610 meters (2000 feet). The visibility was >11.3 kilometers (>7 miles). Current weather is .
ay 19, 2009 weather report for
RESOLUTE, NUNAVUT, CANADA
Weather report as of 33 minutes ago (21:00 UTC):
The wind was blowing at a speed of 10.3 meters per second (23.0 miles per hour), with gusts to 12.9 meters per second (28.8 miles per hour), from North/Northeast in Resolute, Canada. The temperature was -3 degrees Celsius (27 degrees Fahrenheit). Air pressure was 1,013 hPa (29.90 inHg). Relative humidity was 73.8%. There were a few clouds at a height of 549 meters (1800 feet), broken clouds at a height of 1402 meters (4600 feet) and overcast at a height of 2134 meters (7000 feet). The visibility was 16.1 kilometers (10.0 miles). Current weather is Light Snow Moderate Low Drifting Snow .
http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/contributor-bios/langswitch_lang/zh
donndublin posted May 19, 2009 at 4:38 pm
The temperature was degrees Celsius ( degrees Fahrenheit).
—————
donndublin, did you even read your own copy/paste, to check for dropped data?
‘Climate Change Odds Much Worse Than Thought‘
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm
The ice in Antarctica is already growing as it approaches it’s winter season.
http://weather.yahoo.com/Antarctica/AYXX/regional.html
This is where 90% of all the world’s LAND ICE is located which effects the sea level. The sea ice has little affect on sea level.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted May 19, 2009 at 4:47 pm | Permalink
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/contributor-bios/langswitch_lang/zh
______________
cosMo, How many times are you going to post that four and a half year opinion by the fruad Mike Mann from that leftist blog?
#
cosmos_originally
Posted May 19, 2009 at 4:50 pm | Permalink
‘Climate Change Odds Much Worse Than Thought‘
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm
___________
cosMo again pays homage to his gods, the computer models. Why didn’t they predict cooling period we’ve had over the last ten years?
Praise be.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted May 19, 2009 at 4:49 pm | Permalink
donndublin posted May 19, 2009 at 4:38 pm
The temperature was degrees Celsius ( degrees Fahrenheit).
—————
donndublin, did you even read your own copy/paste, to check for dropped data?
________________
cosMo, did you not read, “Current weather is Light Snow Moderate Low Drifting Snow”? This probably means the temp it under freezing.
Did you not read the other locations?
donndublin continues to make completely ineffective arguments. . .
#
cosmos_originally
Posted May 18, 2009 at 8:09 pm | Permalink
Google:
inhofe 400
inhofe 650
inhofe 700
______________
Notice a pattern here? 400-650-700-850-1000-1200-1500
#
cosmos_originally
Posted May 19, 2009 at 5:37 pm | Permalink
donndublin continues to make completely ineffective arguments. . .
___________
cosMo continues to capitulate.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread459412/pg1
soldevvb,
Peer-reviewed papers are only an intermediate step in the scientific process.
The existence of natural climate factors does not refute AGW.
“Melatonin” made an inaccurate claim.
Anbthropogenic Global Warming? LOL!
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHB-3SW03B6-H&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3da60f982cf8e9b477d609a752a36e6a
Great googlie mooglie Batman. cosmo found a typo!!!
How pathetic is that?
donndublin,
Professional engineers should be better at recognizing patterns.
400 + 250 + 50 + . . .
It looks like Morano was running out of scientists to quote-mine (they actually agree with the AGW theory) and TV weather-people, economists, etc.
And Morano (Rush’s former “Man in Washington”) quit working for Sen Inhofe (R-Oil), so ‘700′ may be the end of Inhofe’s list.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
soldevvb,
Peer-reviewed papers are only an intermediate step in the scientific process.
Would someone here teach Donny how to not copy-and-paste? If he has something to say, he ought to say it himself!
You can’t expect dondublin to say it himself — he has to rely on people like Marc Morano.
You can’t expect dondublin to say it himself — he has to rely on people like Marc Morano.
LMFAO
Re: cosmo and the leftwing nittia that is realclimate and IPCC, who had to bring in all kinds of politiacl personell to make 2500 and at that rate “on the order of ~20% have had some dealing with climate”
It is to laugh.
Holly crap. Spell check is your FRIEND !!!!
One more time. CO Microsoft…
You can’t expect dondublin to say it himself — he has to rely on people like Marc Morano.
LMFAO
Re: cosmo and the leftwing nutia that is realclimate and IPCC, who had to bring in all kinds of political personnel to make 2500 and at that rate “on the order of ~20% have had some dealing with climate”
It is to laugh.
And lets not forget Hansen, his flawed models that predicted cooling in the 70’s, fudged numbers, corrupt data sets, flawed data collection centers… The list goes on and on.
What is it with you solie?
You are singularly devoted to this issue.
Are you or have you recently been “born again”?
Cause that’s a common theme among many of the deniers of science. I guess they are afraid humanity will make their “God” look smaller somehow.
What is it with you solie?
You are singularly devoted to this issue.
__________________________________________________
LMFAO,
Brain dead junior, I’d like to introduce you to cosmo…
So over your expansive lifetime, how do you explain the last 7 cooling years?
Here is a gimme, a one year span set a global record of the fastest climate change. Clue one, it wasn’t warming….
I DID ask you a question.
BlueJay,
soldevvb can’t help what he is — he even believes that the U.S. (lower 48) = global.
And cosmo believes a political group of which “somewhere on the order of ~20% have had some dealing with climate.”
Hey cosmo, how come 1934 doesn’t show up on your pretty rainbow graph?
Why would you post a graph that does not show the linier trend of the last 7 years?
Does that cooling scare you so bad you refuse to look at it?
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time. For all four sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
soldevvb,
Your “20%” was re the entire IPCC.
Again. . . what is the percentage for WG1?
Why are you unable to understand that a year that ranked below 50th should not be graphed with the top 50?
Why are you unable to understand that Earth’s climate fluctuates, and that a 7-year “linier” trend is meaningless?
Why do you incorrectly believe that short-term cooling “scares” me “so bad”, when I’ve provided the reasons (La Nina, solar minimum, etc) for that cooling. And I’ve explained that short-term cooling (or warming) does not refute the AGW science.
Why do you incorrectly believe that cooling in January 2008 was “large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years”?
cosmos weeps:
And I’ve explained that short-term cooling (or warming) does not refute the AGW science.
That’s right, natural phenomenon, like El Nino and La Ninja are making fools of the Warmers and the IPCC.
Regular posted May 21, 2009 at 10:42 am
That’s right, natural phenomenon, like El Nino and La Ninja are making fools of the Warmers and the IPCC.
——————–
Regular flunked his Industrial Hygiene class that analysed “noisy” data.
cosmos cries about noisy” data such as El Nino and La Ninja, that trumps any weak Warmer false interpretations by the flawed computer climate models.
Regular, the regular troller, wants more soup. . .
“Noisy data” reminds me of George WMD Bush whining about “fuzzy math.”
And yet Shrub turned a budget surplus into an additional trillion dollar debt, 4,000 dead Americans, 50,000 permanently-wounded vets, and the collapse of the American economy.
Look:
If anyone knows anything about carbon, the mere concept of spewing tons of it into the atmosphere should be disquieting. It’s not like it’s eventually going to rain diamonds.
Deny that it happens.
Deny that it matters.
Deny that there’s anything we can do to reduce spewing carbon into the atmosphere.
Like crazed chihuahuas nipping at an ankle, the CONs’ distort and distract from the real issues in a mad support for what? Dragging a boat and a camper and a horse trailer behind an oversized truck that’s mostly used to scoot down to the Seven-11 for beer and a pack of smokes?
The coal deal called Sunflower on its promises. If they can come up with magic algae to counteract the carbon spewing from the new Holcomb plant, groovy. I’ll nominate them for the Nobel Prize!
If they can’t, I’ll suspect they’ve been lying.
Prove me wrong, Sunflower.
Prove me wrong, CONs.
Yo MonkeyHock,
Did you hear about the new Coal-Fired plant they are building in Western Kansas approved by the Democratic Governor?
(chortles)
In the USA, April was cooler-than-average, just under 1 degree below the 20th-century average. Precipitation was above normal, with the central and southern USA experiencing the wettest conditions.
Hmmm, one degree cooler…
I guess that nixes the concept of global warming, if the entire globe isn’t cooperating.
Besides, the U.S. is supposed to be a major co2 spewer and the temperatures are dropping!
Regular posted May 21, 2009 at 11:21 am
Did you hear about the new Coal-Fired plant they are building in Western Kansas approved by the Democratic Governor?
(chortles)
———————-
The new, very expensive coal-fired plant that will charge customers higher rates than nat gas-fired plants, when carbon taxes go above about $15? Yeah. . .
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/719
7 years and still cooling. Largest change in climate in recorded history. getting colder.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Temp_Blend.jpg
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/apr/global.html
‘Climate Experts Warn That Short-Term Snapshots Of Temperature Data Can Be Misleading: Focus Instead On The Bigger Picture‘
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090504141047.htm
Climate Experts
================
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
ANTI prefers to believe what experts(sic) like Tim Ball and Tom Harris say.
2008 temperature Data for the Globe:
Source: Global ?T °C
HadCRUT
- 0.595
GISS - 0.750
UAH - 0.588
RSS - 0.629
Average: - 0.6405°C
For all four metrics the global average ?T for January 2007 to January 2008 is: – 0.6405°C
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/05/pro-con-did-environmentalists-lose-on-coal-deal/comment-page-4/#comment-577500
‘Climate Experts Warn That Short-Term Snapshots Of Temperature Data Can Be Misleading: Focus Instead On The Bigger Picture‘
So what was it when you were reporting “HOTTEST MONTH ON RECORD!!!” ?
Where you and idiot then or now?
What determines a “Snapshot”? Go back a few hundred thousand years and you’ll see real climate change.
You are such a dolt. Can’t you see how you are being played? When confronted with the 7 years of cooling, you post a rainbow graph that shows no trend. It is actually quite pointless except to obfuscate the actual trend.
Now you post links not to look at the trend, but the bigger picture. Well look cosmo. 400,000 years worth. Why do you insist on the “Snapshot” of 30 years?
IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.html
Why you can’t trust hansen.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_AND_GLOBAL_TEMP_ISSUES.pdf
AGW is fo’ sukkas!
Algore is nothing more than a washed up politician and a tax pimp.
Where is your fuqin’ Smart car, Algore?
Does Waxman live in a straw house and drive a mule, I don’t fuggin’ think so!
Why should I?
“It is often said that there is a scientific “consensus” to the effect that climate change will be “catastrophic” and that, on this question, “the debate is over”. The present paper will demonstrate that the claim of unanimous scientific “consensus” was false, and known to be false, when it was first made; that the trend of opinion in the peer-reviewed journals and even in the UN’s reports on climate is moving rapidly away from alarmism; that, among climate scientists, the debate on the causes and extent of climate change is by no means over; and that the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature conclusively demonstrates that, to the extent that there is a “consensus”, that “consensus” does not endorse the notion of “catastrophic” climate change.”"
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html
http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://ecospook.org/foodideas/organic/caninescat.com
soldevvb posted May 21, 2009 at 2:42 pm
‘Climate Experts Warn That Short-Term Snapshots Of Temperature Data Can Be Misleading: Focus Instead On The Bigger Picture‘
So what was it when you were reporting “HOTTEST MONTH ON RECORD!!!” ?
——————
Same thing. . . a short-term trend. For example, the warming added by a record El Nino event in 1998 proved nothing about AGW.
soldevvb has trouble understanding anything — he even believes that rankings with numbers that are larger than 50 (51, 52, 53, . . .) should be included on a top 50 rankings graph.
Or maybe THIS is the Main Global Warming Topic?
Comments for this post will be closed on 15 June 2009.
OK, THIS can be THE Global Warming topic for 3 more weeks.
Will soldevvb figure out within 3 weeks why rankings with numbers that are larger than 50 (51, 52, 53, . . .) are not included on a top 50 rankings graph?
http://www.cosmosisnotascientist.org
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp
A partial list(315)of Inhofe’s scientists include 166 with PHDs. This list also includes 37 climatologists, 55 meteorologists, 30 physicists, 30 geologists, 25 atmospheric scientists, 20 engineers and other scientists. There are also 10 IPCC reviewers or associates.
163
Comment Count as of 5:40 CST 5/21/2009.
Pick-up the pace.
Whoever has the most GW posts by EOD 6/15/2009 wins the argument.
“Did you hear about the new Coal-Fired plant they are building in Western Kansas approved by the Democratic Governor?”
You’re for it now?
As I recall, you were on record against the plant.
Bipolar too, huh?
#
cosmos_originally
Posted May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm | Permalink
http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
_____________
cosMo uses the phony consensus of mostly politicians along with scientific societies that don’t ask their members, media outlets, energy industries (including oil Companies), grade school kids, communists, socialists and neo-eco-fanatics.
It’s a good example of a (political) science consensus.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted May 21, 2009 at 4:45 pm | Permalink
Will soldevvb figure out within 3 weeks why rankings with numbers that are larger than 50 (51, 52, 53, . . .) are not included on a top 50 rankings graph?
===========================
Perhaps cosmos should write to O’Bama about the 57 states.
JimJohnson posted May 21, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Whoever has the most GW posts by EOD 6/15/2009 wins the argument.
————-
The AGW scientists already won the argument, way back in the 1970’s.
The debate here is just for laughs.
It’s fun to watch people insist that Sen. Inhofe’s (R-Oil) list is credible, insist that the lower 48 United States = global, ask why rankings > 50 aren’t on the top 50 list, etc.
In the 70’s the AGW alarmists said the world is entering an ice age. So cosMo admits they they’ve been lying ever since and that this whole debate is for fun.
We know now that you are irrelevant.
donndublin,
Thank you for the laughs.
‘The Discovery of Global Warming.
Timeline (Milestones)‘
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
In the 70’s the AGW alarmists said the world is entering an ice age
And they used hansen’s model to “prove” it. It was wrong then. It is wrong now.
soldevvb,
Thank you for the laughs.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/to_rasool.php
#
cosmos_originally
Posted May 18, 2009 at 8:09 pm | Permalink
Google:
inhofe 400
inhofe 650
inhofe 700
_____________
The AGW find two out of 700 they claim have no credentials and want to dismiss the entire list.
Chris Allen a Southern Baptist creationist without a college degree who is a TV weatherman on Inhofe’s list is the only one without credetials. If being a Southern Baptist is cause for being a denier, then Algore must be one too.
Other one on the list is a professor emeritus at the University of Oklahoma, Edward Blick, a former professor of engineering and retired Air Force atmospheric scientist. He is criticized because he is a creationist too. Believing that man can control the climate takes a fundamentalist humanist religion.
We know now that only 20% of the IPCC scientists have credentials in Climate science, so the others must worship the same humanist god that cosMo bows down to.
Hansen and Mann have both been found to be frauds so by the same standard of measure, the whole 3-4 dozen of AGW alarmists must frauds as well.
correction:The AGW alarmists find two out of 700 they claim have no credentials and want to dismiss the entire list.
cosmos_originally
Posted May 21, 2009 at 7:01 pm | Permalink
The AGW scientists already won the argument, way back in the 1970’s.
The debate here is just for laughs.
It’s fun to watch people insist that Sen. Inhofe’s (R-Oil) list is credible…
________________
So, now we see that the consensus was reached before much of the research had even begun. Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a skeptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Here is a partial list of Senator Inhofe’s credible Climate Scientists, Paleoclimatologists, Atmospheric scientists & IPCC reviewers, that cosMo claims have no credibility.
CosMo, Algore the neo-eco-fanatics call these guys deniers. Who are the real deniers?
Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr., Climatologist, Arizona State University
Dr. Christopher L. Castro, Climate scientist, a Professor of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona
Dr. John Christy, Alabama State Climatologist, University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001
Dr. Petr Chylek, Physics and Atmospheric Science Adjunct Professor, Dalhousie University
Dr. Ian D. Clark, Paleoclimatologist and Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, Climate and Atmospheric Science Consultant, UN IPCC expert reviewer
Dr. Robert E. Davis, Climatologist, a Professor at University of Virginia, a former UN IPCC contributor and past president of the Association of American Geographers, and past-chair of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Biometeorology and Aerobiology
Luc Debontridder, Climate scientist, Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium
Dr. Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor and Climate Scientist, The University of Auckland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, Official Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Dr. David Douglass, Climate scientist, University of Rochester
Dr. Donald DuBois, Computer modeler with PhD in Philosophy of Science who has spent career modeling computer networks for NASA, GE Space Systems, the Air Force and the Navy
Robert Durrenberger, Climatologist and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton; fellow of American Physical Society; member of U.S. National Academy of Science
Stewart Franks, Hydro-climatologist and Associate Prof. of Environmental Engineering, University of Newcastle in Australia
Amy Frappier, Paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology and Geophysics, Boston College
Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Climate scientist and co-author, research scientist at Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryspheric and Polar Processing, University of Colorado
Brian Fuchs, Climatologist, National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Serge Galam, Physicist and director of research for Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment (CNRS) and the École Polytechnique, France
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, Geologist, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas; UN IPCC reviewer
Dr. Robert Giegengack, chair of Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania
Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman, Applied Physicist and Engineer, wrote an October 24, 2006 paper entitled “The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide.” In the abstract of the paper appearing in Rocket Scientist’s Journal
Indur M. Goklany, Ph.D, represented the United States at the International Panel on Climate Change and in the negotiations leading to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Jim Goodridge, Former State Climatologist, California; consultant for California Dept. of Water Resources
Dr. Vincent Gray, Expert Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Dr. Douglas Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, co-author The Role of the Sun in Climate Change. He has worked at NOAA and NCAR.
Dr. Ben Herman, past director of Institute of Atmospheric Physics and Head of the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences at University of Arizona
Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Retired Navy meteorologist with Ph.D in Physical chemistry
Dr. Robert Higgs, a Senior Fellow for the Independent Institute and who has been a visiting scholar at Oxford University, Stanford University, and a fellow for the the National Science Foundation
David Holland, Engineer and author of November 2007 study “Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process …”
Yury Izrael, the director of Global Climate and Ecology Institute, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and UN IPCC Vice President
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Physicist and Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the UN committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection
Dr. Dennis Jensen, Nuclear Physicist and former researcher for Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization (CSIRO) in Australia
Dr. Aynsley Kellow, IPCC contributing author and Professor, University of Tasmania
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Meteorologist, IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer and scientist with Natural Resources Stewardship Project
Dr. James P. Koermer, Atmospheric scientist and Professor of Meteorology and the director of the Meteorological Institute at Plymouth State University
Dr. Gerhard Kramm, Atmospheric scientist, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Dr. David R. Legates, Climatologist, the Delaware State Climatologist and the Director, Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, has authored or coauthored 45 peer-reviewed scientific studies
Dr. John Maunder, past president of Commission for Climatology
Dr. John McLean, climate data analyst
Dr. Dick Morgan, Climate scientist and former director of Canada’s Met/Oceano Policy and Plans, researcher at Exeter University and Bedford Institute of Oceanography
Dr. M.R. Morgan, Climate Consultant, First Minister of Wales
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, Emeritus Professor who headed the Dept. of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University
Dr. Jim O’Brien, State of Florida Climatologist and professor emeritus at Florida State University. Director of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies
Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist and professor of Earth Sciences, Carlton University in Ottawa, Canada
Dr. Jose Rial, Climatologist/seismologist, University of North Carolina
Dr. Fred Singer, Climatologist, The Competitive Enterprise Institute
Dr. Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center Astrophysicist and chief science advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute
Dr. Elwynn Taylor, State Climatologist, Iowa; Professor of Meterology, Iowa State University; former project scientist with NASA
Mr. George Taylor, State climatologist, State of Oregon
Dr. Elwynn Taylor, State Climatologist, Iowa; Professor of Meterology, Iowa State University; former project scientist with NASA
Mr. George Taylor, State climatologist, State of Oregon
Dr. Elwynn Taylor, State Climatologist, Iowa; Professor of Meterology, Iowa State University; former project scientist with NASA
Mr. George Taylor, State climatologist, State of Oregon
Dr. Charles Wax, State Climatologist, of Mississippi State University and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London and Director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modeling
Dr. David E. Wojick, UN IPCC expert reviewer and co-founder of Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie-Mellon University
Dr. Timothy Ball, Climatologist and Former Professor, University of Winnipeg
Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. D.Sc. D.Engr., UNEP Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for
Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental
St
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics
and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former Research Scientist Environment Canada; Editor “Climate
Research” (03-05); Editorial Board Member “Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007
#
cosmos_originally
Posted May 22, 2009 at 9:47 am | Permalink
soldevvb,
Thank you for the laughs.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/to_rasool.php
___________________
Tim Lambert is not a climate scientist. He has no credibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1971_paper_on_warming_and_cooling_factors
donndublin posted May 25, 2009 at 12:30 pm
CosMo, Algore the neo-eco-fanatics call these guys deniers. Who are the real deniers?
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, Climate and Atmospheric Science Consultant, UN IPCC expert reviewer
——————
http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-s-courtney
donndublin posted May 25, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Here is a partial list of Senator Inhofe’s [R-Oil] credible Climate Scientists, . . .
. . .
Dr. Elwynn Taylor, State Climatologist, Iowa; Professor of Meterology, Iowa State University; former project scientist with NASA
Mr. George Taylor, State climatologist, State of Oregon
Dr. Elwynn Taylor, State Climatologist, Iowa; Professor of Meterology, Iowa State University; former project scientist with NASA
Mr. George Taylor, State climatologist, State of Oregon
Dr. Elwynn Taylor, State Climatologist, Iowa; Professor of Meterology, Iowa State University; former project scientist with NASA
Mr. George Taylor, State climatologist, State of Oregon
. . .
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Meteorologist, IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer and scientist with Natural Resources Stewardship Project
. . .
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former Research Scientist Environment Canada; Editor “Climate
Research” (03-05); Editorial Board Member “Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007
I gather that cosmos doesn’t like Meteorologists.
Then it logically follows, that cosmos must hate the IPCC as it was primarily founded by the World Meteorological Organization
donndublin posted May 25, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Here is a partial list of Senator Inhofe’s [R-Oil] credible Climate Scientists, . . .
. . .
[1]Dr. Elwynn Taylor, State Climatologist, Iowa; Professor of Meterology, Iowa State University; former project scientist with NASA
[2]Mr. George Taylor, State climatologist, State of Oregon
[1]Dr. Elwynn Taylor, State Climatologist, Iowa; Professor of Meterology, Iowa State University; former project scientist with NASA
[2]Mr. George Taylor, State climatologist, State of Oregon
[1]Dr. Elwynn Taylor, State Climatologist, Iowa; Professor of Meterology, Iowa State University; former project scientist with NASA
[2]Mr. George Taylor, State climatologist, State of Oregon
. . .
[3]Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Meteorologist, IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer and scientist with Natural Resources Stewardship Project
. . .
[3]Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former Research Scientist Environment Canada; Editor “Climate
Research” (03-05); Editorial Board Member “Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007
#
Regular
Posted May 25, 2009 at 7:13 pm | Permalink
I gather that cosmos doesn’t like Meteorologists.
Then it logically follows, that cosmos must hate the IPCC as it was primarily founded by the World Meteorological Organization
All that Regular can “gather” is soup.
cosMo, desmosblog is a moveon/Soros hit squad that seeks to make millions on carbon trading. Can’t you come up with anything your leftist fringe neo-eco fanatics?
#
Regular
Posted May 25, 2009 at 9:27 pm | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted May 25, 2009 at 7:13 pm | Permalink
I gather that cosmos doesn’t like Meteorologists.
Then it logically follows, that cosmos must hate the IPCC as it was primarily founded by the World Meteorological Organization
_________________
Reg, the only thing cosMo cares about is that the IPCC policy makers are scocialists like he is.
I think cosMo is jealous that Inhofe has more climatologists than Gore (D-NAZI) has.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted May 25, 2009 at 11:13 pm | Permalink
All that Regular can “gather” is soup.
_______________
All cosMo can “gather” is pi$$. lol
cosMo, desmosblog is a moveon/Soros hit squad that seeks to make millions on carbon trading. Can’t you come up with anything (other than) your leftist fringe neo-eco fanatics?
donndublin,
Can’t you find any science, to support your AGW science denial?
#
cosmos_originally
Posted May 26, 2009 at 9:26 am | Permalink
donndublin,
Can’t you find any science, to support your AGW science denial?
_______________
cosMo, why do you keep denying the real science of Miskolczi and all the scientists that don’t bow down to your socialist agenda?