Global Warming

[Rohirrim]

This discussion started on another thread. I thought it deserved its own thread. As I said on that thread, National Geographic has dedicted its most recent issue to publish the most recent data that science has available. It's not good news.

For 400,000 years the world has gone through cycles of ice ages and warming periods which scientists have correlated to the shifting of the earth's orbit. The orbit moves from an elliptical orbit (flatter) to a spherical orbit in somewhat regular cycles. The ice ages correspond to the earth moving farther from the sun during the spherical orbit, to warmer periods when the earth is in a more elliptical orbit.

Using ice cores drilled in Greenland, scientists have been able to show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have run in completely synchronous levels with these freezing and warming cycles - until now.

As of right now, the earth is in one of its warming periods (elliptical orbit). But for the first time, carbon dioxide levels are not synchronous with this warming trend - they are much higher. The cores show that over a 400,000 year period, the highest level that carbon dioxide levels reached was 275 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere. Since the advent of the industrial age, carbon dioxide levels have steadily climbed and are now at 378 ppm - the highest reading in 400,000 years and well above previous levels of synchronicity with any warming trend.

The conclusions are obvious: Mankind is warming the earth.

The possible effects are detailed in the magazine and look to be catastrophic. Keep in mind that scientists can only hypothesize the effects, given that they've never seen such high CO2 levels and can only theorize what the effects might be. In other words, there is no physical model in previous history to illustrate what might happen, unless we go back to the age of dinosaurs, when there was one contintent, the world was covered mostly by sea, and the temperature of the entire globe was that of a rain forest.

What is happening right now is that the ice caps are melting, glaciers are disappearing all over the earth, and the great ice shelfs of Antarctica are receding more rapidly than at any time since they have existed. One antarctic scientist noted that one ice shelf is so large, that if it were to dislodge and fall into the sea, the global sea level would rise 20 feet: Goodbye Manhattan, Florida, all non-volcanic islands (the Caribbean), most of the river deltas of the world (including New Orleans), the Netherlands, Bangladesh, etc. etc.

Conversely, the warming trend is killing forests all over the world - which will further increase CO2 levels. The National Geo has a picture of a million acre Sitka Spruce forest in Alaska that is dead. The heat and drought stressed it out and the beetles came in and finished it off. Now, it awaits a lightning strike. Amphibians (frogs and toads) are disappearing in record numbers all over the globe. Scientists believe they may be the canaries in the coal mine. Caribou populations have dropped by 50,000 in the north. Penquin species are approaching extinction. Polar bear populations are dropping radically. Monarch butterflys are headed for extinction.

Here's the basic expectation: Super cell storms (hurricanes with winds of 250 mph) will become the norm (if one of those crossed Florida - it wouldn't leave a stick in the ground). F5 tornados will become the norm. Some areas of the earth will be turned into deserts, while other regions are turned into tropical swamps. Rising sea levels will destroy coastlines around the world. The sea will warm up, become less salty, and many currents (such as the Gulfstream - which keeps Ireland, GB and Northern Europe temperate) may simply stop. Those areas will freeze. As the salinity of the oceans drop, its capacity to absorb CO2 becomes less. Given what we know about the effects of one small portion of the Pacific changing its temperature (El Nino), imagine what a warmer ocean worldwide will do? Many forests across the world will be turned into firestorms beyond the comprehension of any human being. The effects on agriculture will be catastrophic. If you believe in the idea of a biblical apocalypse - we just might be looking at its machinery warming up.

A closing thought: The White House is currently inhabited by oil men who do not believe in the concept of global warming, refuse to accept any scientific evidence that points to global warming, and refuse to take part in any discussions of the possible effects of global warming. In other words, they are taking no action.

[Mile High Shack]

we're all gonna diiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[kappys]

Which all leads back to my brilliant plan to place a giant mirror in space, facing the sun at all times along the equator. By my amateur calculations it should drop the average temperature 2-3 degrees F.

But yes we are all going to die. Didn't anyone see that sketchy movie?

[Rohirrim]

we're all gonna diiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

I appreciate your insightful take on the problem, but no, it probably won't be us who are dying over this - it will be our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. So, go ahead and get that new Hummer and PARTY ON!

[Mile High Shack]

I don't have a hummer......nor will my wife give me one..j/k

I just don't agree with it

[Bronco_Beerslug]

we're all gonna diiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
This was Bush's response, I think.
It's too bad young people (and some older ones) don't understand the importance of destroying the ground they walk on, the water they drink and the air they breathe.

[BroncoInferno]

we're all gonna diiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Funny, but that's the same message Bush gives regarding terrorism, when the truth is that you and I sitting at our computers are more likely to be killed by a bolt of lightening than by a terrorist attack, even after 9/11.

Any reputable scientist will tell you that global warming is a very real danger that will have disastrous consequences in future generations. Maybe that won't effect you or me, and if that's all you're concerned with, fine. But the evidence is there, and it's clear.

[W*GS]

The conclusions are obvious: Mankind is warming the earth.

Yes, there is anthropogenic climate change. Globally, the earth is getting warmer. That does not mean that every place on earth will get warmer.

The possible effects are detailed in the magazine and look to be catastrophic.

I haven't seen the article, but to call the effects "catastrophic" is an overstatement. This is not just MHO, I know of what I speak. Very well.

What is happening right now is that the ice caps are melting,

Which "ice caps"? Greenland, yes. Antarctica, no.

glaciers are disappearing all over the earth,

Not quite.

and the great ice shelfs of Antarctica are receding more rapidly than at any time since they have existed.

Since we haven't observed them for their entire existence, we don't know this for sure.

One antarctic scientist noted that one ice shelf is so large, that if it were to dislodge and fall into the sea, the global sea level would rise 20 feet:

I believe you misstate what was actually said - an ice shelf is already floating on the ocean surface, so it cannot "fall into the sea", nor will it raise sea levels. Put an ice cube into a glass and let it melt. Does the water level rise? No. Now, if you're taking about the Antarctic ice *sheets*, that's different. Those are on the Antarctic continent, and yes, if they melt, sea level *will* rise. There is no indication at the time that such an event is imminent or particularly likely.

Here's the basic expectation: Super cell storms (hurricanes with winds of 250 mph) will become the norm (if one of those crossed Florida - it wouldn't leave a stick in the ground).

This is highly speculative.

Supercells and hurricanes aren't quite the same. "Supercell" is the common name for an MCC - mesoscale convective complex, a large organized group of thunderstorms in which as the older storms die, new ones are created. They can last for many hours, overnight sometimes, and often spawn tornadoes, along with heavy rain, high winds, and dangerous lightning. A hurricane isn't the same thing.

F5 tornados will become the norm.

Also highly speculative. There is no clear evidence or theory I know of that definitively says that more tornadoes will reach F5 strength under most warming scenarios.

Some areas of the earth will be turned into deserts, while other regions are turned into tropical swamps.

Yes, some areas will see drying, other areas will become wetter. Whether or not that means "deserts" and "swamps" is not clear.

Rising sea levels will destroy coastlines around the world. The sea will warm up, become less salty, and many currents (such as the Gulfstream - which keeps Ireland, GB and Northern Europe temperate) may simply stop.

This is very highly speculative. The mechanisms by which the thermohaline circulation becomes significantly altered are not well understood, and various climate models suggest a decrease of the North Atlantic meridional overturning, but to suggest the GS will "stop" is way overstated. Some models show a southward shift in the GS, but whether or not this is due to the influence of global warming or the inaccuracy of the ocean models themselves is hard to say.

Many forests across the world will be turned into firestorms beyond the comprehension of any human being.

Well, this is just rhetorical excess.

The effects on agriculture will be catastrophic.

Perhaps, but this assumes abrupt climate change, and the evidence of that is poor.

If you believe in the idea of a biblical apocalypse - we just might be looking at its machinery warming up.

If you've accurately relayed the information the National Geo has, I'm disappointed. Not terribly surprised, but if you're correct in your summation, then the NG has greatly oversimplified and overdramatized the possible effects of anthropogenic climate change. There are a great many issues we understood poorly, or not at all, and there is a great deal of uncertainty. To state the scenario you've given with confidence is incorrect.

There is evidence that climate extremes may increase (e.g., more frequent and more severe heat waves) but to imply that we know for certain that an "apocalypse" is coming is just plain wrong.

A closing thought: The White House is currently inhabited by oil men who do not believe in the concept of global warming, refuse to accept any scientific evidence that points to global warming, and refuse to take part in any discussions of the possible effects of global warming. In other words, they are taking no action.

Not quite true - the Bush administration is more skeptical of ACC than the Greens, Al Gore, and others would like but that doesn't mean they're as evil as you suggest. "The Day After Tomorrow", despite Al Gore's endorsement, is viewed with much amusement by myself and my colleagues. And no, the Kyoto Treaty would not have saved us.

Trust me, this is one topic with which I have considerable expertise and knowledge.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Trust me, this is one topic with which I have considerable expertise and knowledge.
Credentials?

[watermock]

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:EoLRxBjy04MJ:usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/focus/images/fires.jpg I might be a good environmental idea if the bastiges in Iraq stop blowing up their own pipelines. Hell, it darkened the sunsets in 1991. Mr. Liberal better wake up. His Honda isn't what is making the pollution, it's these oil fires.

But lets listen to Michael Moore when Saddam set off hundreds of oil fires. It was an Idyllic situation. Gassing, mass graves, hundreds of blown up oil fires, chemicals dumped into rivers....

The average lawnmower makes multiples of pollution than from a new car. Specifically if the car burns low sulpher and double cat converters, the pollution is allmost immeasurable.

Wait till people find out these "hybrid" cars start and stop the engine, need special oil, they need super computers, they con't perform to expectations and will need new batteries.

Of course, the Automakers don't mind, if the car wears out in 5 years, they will be happy to sell you another one.

[W*GS]

Credentials?

18 years of employment in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Climate Change Research Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado.

I do indeed know the topic. I work with some of the most eminent and internationally respected scientific researchers on global warming.

[Spider]

18 years of employment in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Climate Change Research Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado.

I do indeed know the topic. I work with some of the most eminent and internationally respected scientific researchers on global warming.
Reading through your anwer to Ro , you seem to know what you are talking about here , Did you hear of the Glacier in Wyoming melting and releasing a hidden Lake ? I will tell you why I am asking later

[watermock]

18 years of employment in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Climate Change Research Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado.

I do indeed know the topic. I work with some of the most eminent and internationally respected scientific researchers on global warming.

I'm calling his boss and telling him that he's goofing off.

Oh, he is the boss and it's saturday. Never mind. :hitself:

[watermock]

This year was exceptionally cold in Iowa, summer didn't hit till about 2 weeks ago believe it or not. Crops great, just about 3 degrees below normal. It's amazing how balanced and fragile the whole thing is, so it needs to be looked at, especially with other countries giving a rat's ass about pollution with an exploding population and industrialization.

Well, I'm going to watch LSU kick butt. Enough of this.

[W*GS]

Reading through your anwer to Ro , you seem to know what you are talking about here

That is an extremely safe assumption.

Did you hear of the Glacier in Wyoming melting and releasing a hidden Lake ? I will tell you why I am asking later

No, I hadn't heard of that - but there are very few genuine glaciers as far south as Wyoming. A more-or-less permanent small chunk of ice doesn't count as a glacier, IMHO.

I just did a Google search and found Wyoming glacier melts and unleashes mountain flood (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/11/10/state1540EST7985.DTL) but that's all I've read of it.

[W*GS]

I'm calling his boss and telling him that he's goofing off.

I'm on my time now, actually. In Geneva. Switzerland.

[Spider]

No, I hadn't heard of that - but there are very few genuine glaciers as far south as Wyoming. A more-or-less permanent small chunk of ice doesn't count as a glacier, IMHO.
ok , well the experts called it a glacier but that isnt realy the point here , Here is why I am asking , Where this Chunk of permafrost aka wyoming Glacier was is about 150-200 miles south of the yellowstone Caldra , now the ground temp around yellowstone is so hot , parts of yellowstone is closed off , increased gyser activity , several small earthquakes , I am wondering of the caldra has a large part in the global warming ?

[Spider]

I'm on my time now, actually. In Geneva. Switzerland.
Switzerland ? why am i even talking to you . I need an American scientist that is here .Sorry for bothering you , go back to your liberal bashing , i will look else where for answers

[watermock]

I'm on my time now, actually. In Geneva. Switzerland.

Pick me up a few Kugerrands, just in case of a food crisis, I can eat gold.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

18 years of employment in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Climate Change Research Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado.

I do indeed know the topic. I work with some of the most eminent and internationally respected scientific researchers on global warming.
Are you one of the scientists that does research on global warming there?

[W*GS]

Are you one of the scientists that does research on global warming there?

No, I'm not a scientist - nor do I play one on TV. However, I work extremely closely with scientists and play a large role in the coding and use of the latest climate models, and have co-authored a number of professional journal articles about climate change.

[W*GS]

Switzerland ? why am i even talking to you . I need an American scientist that is here .Sorry for bothering you , go back to your liberal bashing , i will look else where for answers

I am an American, actually finishing up a meeting at the WMO HQ here.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

No, I'm not a scientist - nor do I play one on TV. However, I work extremely closely with scientists and play a large role in the coding and use of the latest climate models, and have co-authored a number of professional journal articles about climate change.
So, who in your opinion, are the most respected scientists today on global warming?

[Spider]

I am an American, actually finishing up a meeting at the WMO HQ here.
Thats fine I didnt mean that like it sounded , what I need was a Scientist or someone that knows what going on here in America , I wasnt trying to insult you , I need someone who has a some knowledge of the data , and the activity surrounding the the events linked to the Caldra , I read somewhere that the caldra is 40,000 years over due for exploding , I also know that 40,000 years is a blip on the time line for earth ...... I am just trying to get all opinions I can on this ...... I wasnt trying to be an ass here

[Spider]

And when that caldra goes off , life west of the Mississippi will suck for about a 100 years ;D

[W*GS]

ok , well the experts called it a glacier but that isnt realy the point here , Here is why I am asking , Where this Chunk of permafrost aka wyoming Glacier was is about 150-200 miles south of the yellowstone Caldra , now the ground temp around yellowstone is so hot , parts of yellowstone is closed off , increased gyser activity , several small earthquakes , I am wondering of the caldra has a large part in the global warming ?

No, it does not. The activity in the caldera of which Yellowstone is a part doesn't have anything to do with global warming.

Now, if it erupts massively, upwards, that could cause a measurable drop in the globally averaged surface temperature (as was seen after Krakatau, El Chichon, and Pinatubo) but I doubt that's what you're getting at.

[Spider]

for those that dont understand how big this thing is
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Imgs/Gif/Yellowstone/Maps/map_yellowstone_caldera.gif

[Spider]

No, it does not. The activity in the caldera of which Yellowstone is a part doesn't have anything to do with global warming.

Now, if it erupts massively, upwards, that could cause a measurable drop in the globally averaged surface temperature (as was seen after Krakatau, El Chichon, and Pinatubo) but I doubt that's what you're getting at.
ok ..... i thought the gysers going off was part of the global warming problem ..... Never mind I am just a redneck ;D

[W*GS]

So, who in your opinion, are the most respected scientists today on global warming?

There are many - and I'd rather not say here.

[watermock]

No, I'm not a scientist - but I did stay at a Holiday Express Last Night.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=1898&dateline=1087328143

[Spider]

No, I'm not a scientist - but I did stay at a Holiday Express Last Night.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=1898&dateline=1087328143
LOL

[Bronco_Beerslug]

There are many - and I'd rather not say here.
Are any among this group?

----------------
"(The) Arctic climate is warming rapidly now and much larger changes are projected," according to the conclusions of the international study, compiled by 600 experts and due for release at a conference in Iceland in November.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040903/sc_nm/environment_arctic_dc_2

[TheDave]

Hmmm... Looks Like Bull$hit... Smells like Bull$hit... Tastes like Bull$hit... Sure glad i didn't step in it...

Just my opinion!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Hmmm... Looks Like Bull$hit... Smells like Bull$hit... Tastes like Bull$hit... Sure glad i didn't step in it...

Just my opinion!
Dave, can you describe what bull$hit tastes like :wiggle:

[TheDave]

Dave, can you describe what bull$hit tastes like :wiggle:


Hard to describe but from what i can tell, it originated in Geneva :poke:

[Spider]

Hard to describe but from what i can tell, it originated in Geneva :poke:
LOL ........

[watermock]

Dave, as amusing as you are, your not very funny.

You have absolutely no clue about the thermodynamics of Yellowstone or CO2 concentrations or as such.

I was told not to make fun of the weak minded, (as it was kindly put, we had another name). I don't buy anyones bullcrap here but a few people. Some nut is still trying to convince us he bought a Greyhound Bus for tailgating. Like I'm falling for that one.

Not!

[Spider]

I just did a Google search and found Wyoming glacier melts and unleashes mountain flood (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/11/10/state1540EST7985.DTL) but that's all I've read of it.
Hmm thats lot more information , then what they said right after the event ...

[Spider]

Williams said he saw a 60-foot high ice wall on one shore of the drained lake. Icebergs that had been afloat were stranded on slopes that had been the lake bottom. He estimated 90 percent of the lake drained.
Pretty tall ice wall .....

[TheDave]

Dave, as amusing as you are, your not very funny.

You have absolutely no clue about the thermodynamics of Yellowstone or CO2 concentrations or as such.

I was told not to make fun of the weak minded, (as it was kindly put, we had another name). I don't buy anyones bullcrap here but a few people. Some nut is still trying to convince us he bought a Greyhound Bus for tailgating. Like I'm falling for that one.

Not!

Good afternoon mock... it's been a couple of weeks since i've been able to get over here... Nice to see your still drinking... By the way what happened to the Bus?

[Spider]

Well Wags , here is what I am driving at , Normaly in Wyoming during the winter we get about a month ( normaly around dec ) of -40-70 cold spell , and the rest of winter 0 -20 degree range , well the last 5 years we have had pretty moderate winters above zero , but during the last 5 years Yellowstone caldera has been more active , i was just wondering if the gases emittting from the gysers are having a role in global warming .........

[Rohirrim]

(There's also a massive caldera in California called Mammoth that's not too stable, given that it sits on the edge of the San Andreas fault.)

Despite W*GS dispute about what the eventual results of global warming will be (have tobacco companies accepted the idea that smoking causes cancer yet?), he cannot deny one thing, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there has been in 400,000 years. How do we know this? And how do we know that the Antarctic ice sheets are retreating? Ice cores.

My point is this: If your doctor tells you you're setting yourself up for a heart attack because of your bad habits, but he can't tell you exactly when you can expect to drop dead, does that mean his conclusion is faulty, or unreasonably speculative? Same with the earth. There are enough indicators to tell us now that, collectively, we're a short-of-breath fat guy standing in line at McDonalds.

I agree that Kyoto was an ill-conceived idea - but it was a start. The importance of Kyoto was that it got countries to come to the table and start discussing the possibilities. The U.S. could have influenced, and led, the outcome of that discussion. Instead, Bush decided to dump it completely and not even show up just because it treated the U.S. unfairly. Had we stayed at the table, we could have reached an compromise that at least got the ball rolling worldwide and did not punish the U.S. economy. For the Bushies who have no idea what I'm talking about, it's a concept known as "diplomacy" where you engage yourself in the argument to reach your goals. Bush acted as if the U.S. had no leverage other than to just turn its back on the world. Of course, that's his general, foreign policy stance.

What I'd like to see is America start moving in the direction of renewable, non-polluting energy with the same intensity that JFK led us to pursue putting a man on the moon. The side benefit would be that this would disengage us from the Middle East and wars for oil. Kerry is talking about this. As far as I can tell, the subject isn't even on the GOP agenda.

The other side of the coin is who will lead, and get the benefits of, this new technology? BP (British Petroleum) has completely repositioned itself and is investing heavily in hydrogen cell (and other) technology research. They realize that their future will be as an alternative energy supplier, not just one more energy company scrabbling around for the last oil well. American companies are pursuing the "fight for the last drop" philosophy which will only lead to more war, IMO. Once again, the Bush administration has their head in the sand. Easier to send out the American energy corporation message that global warming doesn't exist (the "tobacco company gambit"), than it is to actually lead us into the future. This year, Germany will bring on-line a collection of non-polluting energy sources that will produce hundreds of kilowatts of energy.

Meanwhile, here at home, Bush had Cheney secretly re-write (with the help of Enron, Exxon-Mobil, and others) the Clean Air Act to allow more pollution to be released into the atmosphere. The automotive giants convinced him to relax the CAFE limits so they could sell more SUVs. Dinosaur thinking to benefit dinosaur industries.

[TheDave]

What I'd like to see is America start moving in the direction of renewable, non-polluting energy with the same intensity that JFK led us to pursue putting a man on the moon. The side benefit would be that this would disengage us from the Middle East and wars for oil. Kerry is talking about this. As far as I can tell, the subject isn't even on the GOP agenda.



I couldn't agree more! Not only would this create an enviormental benefit but could be an excellent source of jobs and new industries to aid a strugeling economy. One thing to consider... you think the middle east is a mess now imagine the day when oil no longer holds as much value in the world economy.

[Rohirrim]

(Posted on the website "On The Media")

The Disinformation Campaigns of Big Coal -- A Short History
Origins of Fossil Fuel Disinformation Campaigns

From the 1991 "Ice Campaign" run by the coal and utility industries to the Marshall Institute's bogus "Study" of 1998 (which was designed to resemble a National Academy of Sciences document) to the recent efforts of ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy to eviscerate efforts to address the climate crisis, in tandem with the Bush White House, the fossil fuel lobby and its ideological supporters have waged a relentless campaign of deception and disinformation to confuse people about the reality of warming-driven climate change.

In March, 2000, however, the campaign suffered a serious setback when the Global Climate Coalition, the main industry lobbying group, suffered major defections. More than a year after British Petroleum and Shell left the group, it was abandoned by Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, Texaco, The Southern Company, and General Motors. While many of these companies said they still opposed the Kyoto Protocol, their defections nevertheless represented an enormous victory for environmental and religious activists.

The GCC announced it will re-constitute itself as an umbrella group for trade associations rather than individual companies. Since it includes such groups as The American Petroleum Institute, the Automobile Manufacturers' Association and Western Fuels, it is still possible that many auto, coal and oil companies might still support its efforts to prevent the U.S. from taking any meaningful steps to address the climate crisis.

The group has spent more than $63 million to combat any progress toward addressing the climate crisis -- including a $13 million ad campaign in 1997 to support a Senate resolution against ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

The reason is obvious.

The stabilization of the global climate requires a 70 percent cut in our fossil fuel emissions. That magnitude of reduction threatens the survival, in its present form, of the fossil fuel industry -- one of the largest commercial enterprises in history.

Since 1991, the fossil fuel lobby has attacked mainstream climate science, primarily through its use of a tiny handful of "greenhouse skeptics." It has also misrepresented the economics. Most recently, it has attacked the diplomatic foundations of the international climate convention.

The Western Fuels Association -- a $400 million coal cooperative -- is one of the leaders in this campaign of disinformation. Western Fuels has been quite candid about its attack on mainstream science. In one annual report, it declared: "...[T]here has been a close to universal impulse in the [fossil fuel] trade association community in Washington to concede the scientific premise of global warming...while arguing over policy prescriptions that would be the least disruptive to our economy...We have disagreed, and do disagree, with this strategy." As a result, Western Fuels has waged an unceasing war against mainstream science for the last eight years.

The Global Climate Coalition -- a lobbying group that represents fossil fuel, automotive and heavy industry interests -- has also been very active in spreading misleading information about the climate crisis.

A third institution that has contributed significantly public confusion on the climate issue is the George C. Marshall Institute, an extreme, politically conservative institute which maintains that the climate crisis is basically a liberal plot to subvert the U.S. economy.

Taken together, the various campaigns of disinformation have been extraordinarily successful in maintaining a relentless drumbeat of doubt in the public mind about the reality of global climate change.

Most recently, the main purveyors of disinformation on the climate have been funded by ExxonMobil, which funds a number of skeptics and an array of policy institutes which continue either to deny the reality of climate change or to minimize its importance.

By keeping the discussion focused on whether or not there is a problem, the fossil fuel lobby has effectively prevented discussion in the U.S. about what to do about it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Just a note: ExxonMobil was one of the big players in the Cheney-directed energy bill for the U.S. They have also benefited more from the Iraq war than Halliburton has, by approx. ten billion dollars)

[W*GS]

Are any among this group?

None of which I'm aware.

[W*GS]

Hard to describe but from what i can tell, it originated in Geneva

Beg pardon? What exactly have I written that you feel is correctly described as bovine excrement?

[Spider]

Beg pardon? What exactly have I written that you feel is correctly described as bovine excrement?
are you a chief fan ?

[W*GS]

Well Wags , here is what I am driving at , Normaly in Wyoming during the winter we get about a month ( normaly around dec ) of -40-70 cold spell , and the rest of winter 0 -20 degree range , well the last 5 years we have had pretty moderate winters above zero

It's very difficult to ascribe a particular weather event or apparent departure from a norm to climate change, particularly for a specific place. It's possible that the less-cold winters of the last few years in Wyoming (if they truly are, one would have to do some analysis to determine that) are related to climate change, but it would be very difficult to prove. Likewise, this summer in Colorado has been considerably cooler and wetter than the long-term average, but I'd be extremely hesitant to state that climate change was the cause.

Looking at long-term globally averaged surface temperatures, however, does show a significant depature over the last decade or so. That's the signal from anthropogenic climate change, to a quite high degree of confidence. It is possible that this depature is within past climate variability, but that is unlikely.

but during the last 5 years Yellowstone caldera has been more active , i was just wondering if the gases emittting from the gysers are having a role in global warming .........

If they are, it's a tinier-than-miniscule role. Yellowstone's caldera is big, but in the global picture, it's very small.

[W*GS]

are you a chief fan ?

No - nor am I a fan of any team, really. I pay no attention to the NFL generally.

[Spider]

It's very difficult to ascribe a particular weather event or apparent departure from a norm to climate change, particularly for a specific place. It's possible that the less-cold winters of the last few years in Wyoming (if they truly are, one would have to do some analysis to determine that) are related to climate change, but it would be very difficult to prove. Likewise, this summer in Colorado has been considerably cooler and wetter than the long-term average, but I'd be extremely hesitant to state that climate change was the cause.
thats fair , Wyoming realy isnt a ideal place to study the changes in temperature, for a couple of reasons , 1. They only take the temperature in populated areas , and that realy doesnt cover wyoming well and 2 nd , Wyoming Mountians , Valleys , realy vary ...... I am just going by my outside thermoter .......

Looking at long-term globally averaged surface temperatures, however, does show a significant depature over the last decade or so. That's the signal from anthropogenic climate change, to a quite high degree of confidence. It is possible that this depature is within past climate variability, but that is unlikely.



If they are, it's a tinier-than-miniscule role. Yellowstone's caldera is big, but in the global picture, it's very small.
Ok .....

[Spider]

No - nor am I a fan of any team, really. I pay no attention to the NFL generally.
You are a evil Person ....... Global warming is serious but no where near as serious as football ..........

[Mountainman]

I cannot believe that so many people are buying into this global warming propaganda. We as humans should not be the ones to blame for the earth's changing climate patterns. We should all be aware that the earth's climate goes through cycles. Some of them last 10s of 1000s of years.

Do you think there were any factories or internal combustion engines when the ice age ended 10,000 years ago? I seriously doubt it.

[W*GS]

Despite W*GS dispute about what the eventual results of global warming will be (have tobacco companies accepted the idea that smoking causes cancer yet?),

The science behind smoking causing cancer is far far stronger than that behind the premise that we are facing imminent demise (an "apocalypse" or "catastrophe") because of climate change. But the smear is duly noted. Pity you failed to address the major points of my critique of your somewhat hysterical post.

he cannot deny one thing, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there has been in 400,000 years. How do we know this? And how do we know that the Antarctic ice sheets are retreating? Ice cores.

400,000 years is not long in geologic terms; there is ample evidence that CO2 concentrations have been higher in the deeper past. Also, ice cores don't tell us anything about ice sheets, and like I said, if all the Antarctic ice sheets melt, sea level will not change one millimeter because of that. Do you understand why?

My point is this: If your doctor tells you you're setting yourself up for a heart attack because of your bad habits, but he can't tell you exactly when you can expect to drop dead, does that mean his conclusion is faulty, or unreasonably speculative? Same with the earth. There are enough indicators to tell us now that, collectively, we're a short-of-breath fat guy standing in line at McDonalds.

There are not enough indicators for which climate change is the known and proven cause. We simply don't understand the global system well enough to state such things with near-total confidence. Yes, there are things we're observing that are reasonably consistent with what computer models that attempt to simulate climate change predict, but there is enough error in the observations and the models that your statements and their air of finality and truth simply cannot be supported. The over-the-top effects of climate change you mentioned are extremely (and I mean *extremely*) unlikely.

I agree that Kyoto was an ill-conceived idea - but it was a start.

"Ill-conceived" does Kyoto more justice than it deserves.

The importance of Kyoto was that it got countries to come to the table and start discussing the possibilities.

Except those countries, like China and India (IIRC) that were exempted from the emissions targets.

The U.S. could have influenced, and led, the outcome of that discussion. Instead, Bush decided to dump it completely and not even show up just because it treated the U.S. unfairly.

The US Senate (you know, the body that deals with international treaties) opposed Kyoto by 95-0. Since Bush isn't a Senator, and when Kyoto came up for a vote, not all 95 were Republicans, solely blaming Bush for its failure in the US is mere partisan politicking. You say it was ill-conceived; I say it was fatally flawed and deserved to die.

What I'd like to see is America start moving in the direction of renewable, non-polluting energy with the same intensity that JFK led us to pursue putting a man on the moon. The side benefit would be that this would disengage us from the Middle East and wars for oil. Kerry is talking about this. As far as I can tell, the subject isn't even on the GOP agenda.

You haven't been paying much attention, then. Take it for what it's worth, and at 56K, I don't want to bother downloading it, but there is this from the official GWB re-election website. (http://www.georgewbush.com/Agenda/Chapter.aspx?ID=1#en)

The other side of the coin is who will lead, and get the benefits of, this new technology? BP (British Petroleum) has completely repositioned itself and is investing heavily in hydrogen cell (and other) technology research. They realize that their future will be as an alternative energy supplier, not just one more energy company scrabbling around for the last oil well. American companies are pursuing the "fight for the last drop" philosophy which will only lead to more war, IMO.

You're incorrect here too. Most major oil companies are investing heavily in non-fossil-fuel energy technologies, as they've realized that oil won't last forever, this planet needs more and more energy, and there's a huge potential for vast profits in sources of energy other than fossil fuels. Damn those greedy profit-motive-driven capitalists! Spending so much money on research and technology development! Despite what Michael Moore thinks (see his comments in "The Corporation"), the profit motive is a wonderful thing.

This year, Germany will bring on-line a collection of non-polluting energy sources that will produce hundreds of kilowatts of energy.

Hundreds of kilowatts is insignificant. If you hadn't noticed, the US gets some portion of energy from sources other than fossil fuels. Besides, "non-polluting" is a relative term; nuclear power plants don't produce greenhouse gasses, but they create nasty waste that we don't have a final plan for dealing with. Hydroelectric requires damming rivers, and that's got many problems - mainly that there are very few big rivers left than can be dammed, and the environmental impacts are severe. Even innocuous-looking wind-driven turbines are very aesthetically unpleasing and kill many birds, and the production of solar cells creates pollution. I cannot think of a single non-polluting energy source.

Meanwhile, here at home, Bush had Cheney secretly re-write (with the help of Enron, Exxon-Mobil, and others) the Clean Air Act to allow more pollution to be released into the atmosphere.

There's pollution and then there's pollution.

The automotive giants convinced him to relax the CAFE limits so they could sell more SUVs.

Strange thing is, the automotive industry is in pretty deep doo-doo, worldwide, and lots of people like SUVs. If no-one wanted to buy them, then they wouldn't be built. Why do you suppose SUVs are so popular? Is it because Americans are stupid, or that you know so much better than the rest of us what a "proper" automobile is? I'm tired of liberals pouring forth their arrogant elitism without end. If you're so effing smart, then why are you a liberal?

[TheDave]

Do you think there were any factories or internal combustion engines when the ice age ended 10,000 years ago? I seriously doubt it.

Boy you sure went out on a limb on that one... :thumbsup:

By the way welcome to the mane

[watermock]

Don't let us chase you off Wiggs.

I have not heard you say anything yet I didn't agree with.

[watermock]

Listen up.

He saw the movie. Your going to argue with a movie? Remember, Global Warming and the Ice Shelf breaks off, giant tidal wave....

I've been explaining why Manatee Moore won't call his movie a documentary for the past half year.

Open your PM W*ggs. It's much safer than email actually.

[W*GS]

I cannot believe that so many people are buying into this global warming propaganda.

It's not propaganda - at least the science isn't. Some of the things claimed about the effects of climate change are.

We as humans should not be the ones to blame for the earth's changing climate patterns. We should all be aware that the earth's climate goes through cycles. Some of them last 10s of 1000s of years.

The biggest problem we face isn't that we're causing climate change (and on that point, there is near-universal agreement by scientists) it's that our civilization has developed with a certain "expectation" of what the normal climate is, and if that's changed too rapidly and has some dramatic effects, the impact on us (in some places) could be severe. It's not like near-sea-level cities and countries can be easily moved. That's not to say that I agree with anything like the scenario of "The Day After Tomorrow" (despite it's endorsement by Al Gore) but there are potential effects that we need to be aware of and try to plan for accordingly.

[watermock]

Anyone knows that a 5 degree change would be catastrophic.

But we don't really know what the cycle is. We could be headed into an ice age or a reversal of poles with other cataclysmic events.

There is no question that Greenhouse Gasses are out of control.

The first thing people need to understand is we are like lice on an egg, and the egg has to be kept at a certain temperature.

Not a certain temperature. A bird can leave the nest and let the egg cool. No such luck for Earth.

The biggest and foremost and dramatic catastrophic event that can happen is a nuclear winter.

Ignore it, walk around it, say it's the cold war.

Bottom line is when the Militant Islamics get one, they are going to try to use it.

It kinda makes the global warming issue moot doesn't it.

But it's not intellectually prudent to discuss reality is it.

We will be god damn lucky to make it another 100 years yet alone worry about global warming.

[kappys]

I still see the ultimate solution as my giant space mirror. Well, perhaps a little too much science fiction...

In any case I think investing in clean, renewable energy technologies will be a boom industry for the UInited States. The simple reason is that the effects of greenhouse gases, carbon monoxide, benzene, etc. emmissions are felt far more heavily in densely populated countries like India and China. In India for example, all of the public transport and taxis in New Dehli are now required to run on natural gas to help reduce the smog problems. These countries are hungry for clean energy technologies since they have big smog problems, and would probably pay well for them.

As a sidenote though, I think nuclear power is the way to go. Although the waste is long lasting, it is also confined, small in quantity, and easily stored in a mountain in Nevada.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Gotta give Ro due props for attempting a discussion of global warming with bush anti-intellectuals and flat earth society members.

No one can say he isn't ambitious. ;)

[Rohirrim]

The science behind smoking causing cancer is far far stronger than that behind the premise that we are facing imminent demise (an "apocalypse" or "catastrophe") because of climate change. But the smear is duly noted. Pity you failed to address the major points of my critique of your somewhat hysterical post.

400,000 years is not long in geologic terms; there is ample evidence that CO2 concentrations have been higher in the deeper past. Also, ice cores don't tell us anything about ice sheets, and like I said, if all the Antarctic ice sheets melt, sea level will not change one millimeter because of that. Do you understand why?

Hysterical? Yeah, right.

Yes, CO2 concentrations may have been higher in the distant past when massive volcanos were spewing gas into the atmosphere, oceans covered most of the world, and what was left were swamps. In 4 billion years the Sun will become a red giant and swallow the Earth. So what?

My main premise assumes that human beings want a world in which they can comfortably live in their present numbers or, hopefully, less numbers. If all of the apocalyptic speculations do come to pass (through our own stupidity) we may survive as a species, but in what numbers and in what fashion?

I misspoke using the scientific term "ice sheets" or "ice shelf" (and yes, I do understand the simple physics of an ice cube in water). Here it is in unscientific terms: Antarctica, the continent, is covered with hundreds of meters of ice representing billions of gallons of water. The ice in the Arctic (we know beyond all speculation) is melting at an alarming rate. If the Antarctic ice begins to melt and move into the sea, or if some huge glacier on the contintent slides into the sea, sea level is going up. At what rate, and to what degree, is left to speculation.

BTW, the idea that the infusion of fresh water (caused by the melting of the Arctic ice cap) into the Gulf Stream could cause that current to effectively "shut off" is not a wild reach by any means since salinity plays a large part in operating the circuit of the current. Come on now. What does El Nino (the warming of one region of the Pacific) do to our weather? Are you going to argue that warmer water with a drop in salinity isn't going to affect our climate? Or is your position that since we can't prove it's going to be deleterious, we shouldn't do anything?



There are not enough indicators for which climate change is the known and proven cause. We simply don't understand the global system well enough to state such things with near-total confidence. Yes, there are things we're observing that are reasonably consistent with what computer models that attempt to simulate climate change predict, but there is enough error in the observations and the models that your statements and their air of finality and truth simply cannot be supported. The over-the-top effects of climate change you mentioned are extremely (and I mean *extremely*) unlikely.

The question is: Do we know enough now that we should begin to take concerted action as a species to protect the kind of world we would like to inhabit? I did not mean to imply finality in my predictions. If I did, I apologize. You must admit though, that speculating on the possibility of disasters that could be caused by global warming is just as valid as hypothesizing that the risks do not exist. We are conducting an experiment on the earth and its atmosphere. We really can't say what the "likely" or "unlikely" outcome will be.


"Ill-conceived" does Kyoto more justice than it deserves.
Except those countries, like China and India (IIRC) that were exempted from the emissions targets.
The US Senate (you know, the body that deals with international treaties) opposed Kyoto by 95-0. Since Bush isn't a Senator, and when Kyoto came up for a vote, not all 95 were Republicans, solely blaming Bush for its failure in the US is mere partisan politicking. You say it was ill-conceived; I say it was fatally flawed and deserved to die.

My point on Kyoto is that the U.S. simply disengaged from the argument. That was the wrong path to take, IMO, whether the U.S. voted for the treaty or not. We could have, in the least, brought forth a new protocol for argument and kept the dialogue open, instead of simply telling the world to fuq off.

You haven't been paying much attention, then. Take it for what it's worth, and at 56K, I don't want to bother downloading it, but there is this from the official GWB re-election website. (http://www.georgewbush.com/Agenda/Chapter.aspx?ID=1#en)

Been there, done that. Yeah, I know Bush thinks the free market can solve every problem on Earth - that's how simple he is. And he brings forward all sorts of ideas to suck in the moderates. He doesn't fund them, however. Read the fine print - as in the old adage "Follow the money" Ask the Floridians what they think of his Wetlands plan. Ask hunters and sportsmen what they think of his Healthy Forests plan. Like RFK, Jr. recently wrote in his book, "Crimes Against Nature", no president in history has a worse environmental record. Take it for what it's worth, I can't post the book.

You're incorrect here too. Most major oil companies are investing heavily in non-fossil-fuel energy technologies, as they've realized that oil won't last forever, this planet needs more and more energy, and there's a huge potential for vast profits in sources of energy other than fossil fuels. Damn those greedy profit-motive-driven capitalists! Spending so much money on research and technology development! Despite what Michael Moore thinks (see his comments in "The Corporation"), the profit motive is a wonderful thing.

Some are playing for real (like Shell and BP), some will embroil us in oil wars until the bitter end while they try to hedge their bets. Nothing wrong with capitalism in my book - unless you treat it like some kind of divinely inspired system of perfection - which is how Bush, and so many on the right seem to look at it. It's just a man-made economic philosophy. We invented it. Just like we invented money, and trade, and markets, etc. etc. It ain't divine. As long as the system serves mankind, I have no problem with it. When man begins to serve the system - that's where the problems arise.


Hundreds of kilowatts is insignificant. If you hadn't noticed, the US gets some portion of energy from sources other than fossil fuels. Besides, "non-polluting" is a relative term; nuclear power plants don't produce greenhouse gasses, but they create nasty waste that we don't have a final plan for dealing with. Hydroelectric requires damming rivers, and that's got many problems - mainly that there are very few big rivers left than can be dammed, and the environmental impacts are severe. Even innocuous-looking wind-driven turbines are very aesthetically unpleasing and kill many birds, and the production of solar cells creates pollution. I cannot think of a single non-polluting energy source.

Disingenuous at best. Hundreds of kilowatts is a start. We both know that skyscrapers kill a million more birds than wind turbines ever will. Compared to a Hummer, the pollution created by creating solar cells is zip. Obviously, my point has to do with reducing greenhouse gasses, not finding some utopian, totally non-polluting, perpetual motion generator. It will come in degrees, obviously.

What if tomorrow, we woke up and every house and business had solar cells on their roofs? How much non-polluting energy would we create combined with reducing the output from, say oil fuel generators? What I'm proposing is that the U.S. needs to get on its horse and start moving the world in the right direction, not tell the world to go fuq itself (the Bush foreign policy) while espousing Darwinian politics ("It's every man for himself").

There's pollution and then there's pollution.
Strange thing is, the automotive industry is in pretty deep doo-doo, worldwide, and lots of people like SUVs. If no-one wanted to buy them, then they wouldn't be built. Why do you suppose SUVs are so popular? Is it because Americans are stupid, or that you know so much better than the rest of us what a "proper" automobile is? I'm tired of liberals pouring forth their arrogant elitism without end. If you're so effing smart, then why are you a liberal?

The popularity of SUVs is a leadership problem. Reagan took all of Carter's alternative energy agenda and tossed it into the dumpster along with the solar panels that Carter had installed on the White House. After the oil embargo, Carter tried to move the country away from oil dependence on the Middle East. Reagan canned the whole program and ushered in the "greed is good" era. The tech bubble yuppies drove the game forward even harder - Time for a Hummer! The "Party On" era. Now, we need to wake up. Gas prices are telling us that. The return of the "Brown Cloud" to Denver is telling us that. The war in Iraq and Islamic terrorism is telling us that. The darker possibilities (speculation or not) about global warming are telling us that. Leadership can also move the country opposite of the course it is now on. But that course change won't come from Bush.

[Mile High Shack]

Cool Summer Gives Global Warmers the Freeze
Friday, September 10, 2004
By Steven Milloy
ARCHIVE
•Cool Summer Gives Global Warmers the Freeze
September 10, 2004•Government Questions Obesity Scare
September 02, 2004•Soda, Diabetes Linked by Scientific Misconduct?
August 27, 2004•Enviros Blame Bush for WTC Health Hazards
August 20, 2004•Study Linking Whiteners, Cancer Has Cavities
August 13, 2004•Scientist Who Warned Against DDT Ban Dies
August 06, 2004•Toxic Waste Site Secrets
July 31, 2004•Chesapeake Bay Needs Science, Not Slogans
July 23, 2004•Ron Reagan Wrong on Stem Cells
July 16, 2004•Injustice at the Justice Department
July 09, 2004•Science 'Integrity' Award a Laugh Again
July 02, 2004•Have a Coke and a Waistline
June 25, 2004•Coconuts in Wyoming?
June 17, 2004•Reagan's Regulatory Reform
June 10, 2004•Global Warmers Adopt New Tactic
June 04, 2004•Anti-Meat Activists Target School Lunches
May 28, 2004•Lawsuits, Alcohol Advertising and Money
May 21, 2004•Monsanto Caves to Activists on Biotech Wheat
May 14, 2004•Enviros Exploit Mother's Day With Mercury Scare
May 07, 2004•Polluted People?
April 30, 2004•This Earth Day, Progress Worth Celebrating
April 27, 2004•Renewable Energy, Enviros and New Job Creation
April 15, 2004•No Mad Cow at New Jersey Racetrack
April 09, 2004•Chlorine Crackdown Causes Lead Leaks
April 02, 2004•Global Warming: The Movie
March 26, 2004•Pharmaceutical Fantasy
March 19, 2004•Obesity Obsession
March 12, 2004•Antibacterial Reports Cause Public Health Scare
March 05, 2004•Enviros Commence Election-Year Attack
February 27, 2004•Antibiotic Link Is Cancer Baloney
February 20, 2004•Feds Press Salt Assault
February 12, 2004•Has Kerry Helped Vietnam Sue Over Agent Orange?
February 06, 2004•Atkins Attack
January 30, 2004•Study Blows Smoke on Lung Cancer Causes
January 25, 2004•Eco-Extremism, Not Science, Behind Fishy Salmon Scare
January 16, 2004•The Energy Bill's Bright Side
January 09, 2004•Still No Beef to Mad Cow Mania
January 01, 2004•Fishy Mercury Warning
December 25, 2003•Arsenic-laced Presidential Campaign?
December 18, 2003•Smithsonian Wrongs Wrights ... Again
December 12, 2003
It's been a disappointing summer for global warming alarmists.

Hollywood, Mother Nature and the media just haven't cooperated. Even with the unusual situation of two successive hurricanes pounding Florida and another bearing down imminently, global warming hysteria seems to be on ice for now.

The summer began with so much promise for the climate control crowd with the release of the global warming disaster movie, "The Day After Tomorrow." While the movie made plenty of money, global warming activists wanted much more than that. They hoped the movie would foment global warming hysteria in the same way that "The China Syndrome" and "Silkwood" contributed to public sentiment against nuclear power plants.

Instead, the movie was so over-the-top with implausible weather phenomena that no one — not even the usually global warming-sympathetic media — took it seriously. Then, unlike the movie, the real "day after tomorrow" turned out to be pretty nice.

Across the U.S., summer temperatures were cooler than normal. Aberdeen, S.D., experienced its coolest August in 115 years with an average temperature seven degrees below normal (63.4 vs. 70.5).


Michigan officials attribute a dip in visits to state parks and other outdoor attractions to cooler weather.

"The water temperature along the [Lake Michigan] beach usually is in the 60s from Memorial Day to Labor Day, reaching the low 70s during the hottest days of July and August. Except for a few days in early July and again in mid-August, the water temperature never reached 70 this year," a Michigan official told The Associate Press.

Portland, Maine's high temperature of 82 degrees in July was the coldest high temperature ever recorded for the month, and the average daily high was four degrees below normal at 74.6 degrees.

An apparent heat wave in Monterey, Calif., this week "is actually fairly typical, it just seems to stand out because we've had a particularly cool summer so far," a National Weather Service spokesperson told the Monterey County Herald.

It's hard to get people worked up about "global warming" when it's too cool to get in the pool.

The final indignity of this summer forced upon the global warmers came this week with media reports on Hurricanes Charley, Frances and the coming Ivan. Though stronger, more frequent hurricanes are the sort of severe weather that activists want us to believe are attributable to global warming, meteorologists and the media just aren't cooperating.

The Miami Herald interviewed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration meteorologist Stanley Goldenberg and reported on Sept. 8: "Research Goldenberg conducted with NOAA scientist Chris Landsea, private expert William Gray and others found distinct patterns of low-activity hurricane periods and high-activity periods, each of which endured for decades. These patterns, unrelated to the current concern over global warming, are caused by regular cycles of oceanic and atmospheric phenomena, such as unusually warm water in hurricane breeding grounds."

The New York Times reported on Sept. 5: "Global warming is not a significant factor in this year's storminess, experts said. While some climate models predict that warming might eventually mean somewhat stronger hurricanes, that effect is expected to be very small compared to the natural hurricane cycle."

The Washington Post began a Sept. 3 article with, "Bad luck, not global warming, is the best explanation for the arrival of two severe hurricanes on the Florida peninsula in three weeks, several experts said yesterday."

These reports must be particularly bitter pills to swallow for the activists since the Times, Post and Herald don't typically pass up opportunities to promote the agenda of global warmers. As the summer fades into fall, so too will fade the season for global warming polemics.

Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of "Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams" (Cato Institute, 2001).

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LMFAO @ the psuedo-science Mile High Hack is pimping today.

Must be a slow news day at the Flat Earth Society.

[Rohirrim]

Shack, thanks for the smarmy little attack. Does the right have any other answer to any question other than a smirk or making fun of those they disagree with? "Gee, this summer sure is nice. I guess global warming is just BS."

What are the facts? I'm talking about real, scientific evidence here, not the historical record of thermometer readings for 100 years.

As I quoted before, based on ice cores taken from Greenland covering 400,000 years, CO2 levels are now over 100 parts per million more than they have been during that whole duration. Satellites are poised over Greenland taking constant pictures (and have been for a few decades) and guess what? The ice has melted to the tune of hundreds of thousands of square miles over just the last thirty years. The arctic ice cap is melting at an alarming rate, as is Antarctic ice. Species all over the world are diminishing in alarming numbers (especially amphibians). These are facts, not speculation.

The speculation comes when we start to talk about what we can expect if these changes continue at their present rates. We may not know exactly what's going to happen, but I guarantee you, something is going to happen.

That's the funny thing about facts, they don't care if you make jokes about them or strike a pose of smarmy superiority. What's really funny is that the world is supplying us with a warning, and many of us can do nothing better than make jokes about it.

[TheDave]

Cool Summer Gives Global Warmers the Freeze
Friday, September 10, 2004
By Steven Milloy
ARCHIVE
•Cool Summer Gives Global Warmers the Freeze
September 10, 2004•Government Questions Obesity Scare
September 02, 2004•Soda, Diabetes Linked by Scientific Misconduct?
August 27, 2004•Enviros Blame Bush for WTC Health Hazards
August 20, 2004•Study Linking Whiteners, Cancer Has Cavities
August 13, 2004•Scientist Who Warned Against DDT Ban Dies
August 06, 2004•Toxic Waste Site Secrets
July 31, 2004•Chesapeake Bay Needs Science, Not Slogans
July 23, 2004•Ron Reagan Wrong on Stem Cells
July 16, 2004•Injustice at the Justice Department
July 09, 2004•Science 'Integrity' Award a Laugh Again
July 02, 2004•Have a Coke and a Waistline
June 25, 2004•Coconuts in Wyoming?
June 17, 2004•Reagan's Regulatory Reform
June 10, 2004•Global Warmers Adopt New Tactic
June 04, 2004•Anti-Meat Activists Target School Lunches
May 28, 2004•Lawsuits, Alcohol Advertising and Money
May 21, 2004•Monsanto Caves to Activists on Biotech Wheat
May 14, 2004•Enviros Exploit Mother's Day With Mercury Scare
May 07, 2004•Polluted People?
April 30, 2004•This Earth Day, Progress Worth Celebrating
April 27, 2004•Renewable Energy, Enviros and New Job Creation
April 15, 2004•No Mad Cow at New Jersey Racetrack
April 09, 2004•Chlorine Crackdown Causes Lead Leaks
April 02, 2004•Global Warming: The Movie
March 26, 2004•Pharmaceutical Fantasy
March 19, 2004•Obesity Obsession
March 12, 2004•Antibacterial Reports Cause Public Health Scare
March 05, 2004•Enviros Commence Election-Year Attack
February 27, 2004•Antibiotic Link Is Cancer Baloney
February 20, 2004•Feds Press Salt Assault
February 12, 2004•Has Kerry Helped Vietnam Sue Over Agent Orange?
February 06, 2004•Atkins Attack
January 30, 2004•Study Blows Smoke on Lung Cancer Causes
January 25, 2004•Eco-Extremism, Not Science, Behind Fishy Salmon Scare
January 16, 2004•The Energy Bill's Bright Side
January 09, 2004•Still No Beef to Mad Cow Mania
January 01, 2004•Fishy Mercury Warning
December 25, 2003•Arsenic-laced Presidential Campaign?
December 18, 2003•Smithsonian Wrongs Wrights ... Again
December 12, 2003
It's been a disappointing summer for global warming alarmists.

Hollywood, Mother Nature and the media just haven't cooperated. Even with the unusual situation of two successive hurricanes pounding Florida and another bearing down imminently, global warming hysteria seems to be on ice for now.

The summer began with so much promise for the climate control crowd with the release of the global warming disaster movie, "The Day After Tomorrow." While the movie made plenty of money, global warming activists wanted much more than that. They hoped the movie would foment global warming hysteria in the same way that "The China Syndrome" and "Silkwood" contributed to public sentiment against nuclear power plants.

Instead, the movie was so over-the-top with implausible weather phenomena that no one — not even the usually global warming-sympathetic media — took it seriously. Then, unlike the movie, the real "day after tomorrow" turned out to be pretty nice.

Across the U.S., summer temperatures were cooler than normal. Aberdeen, S.D., experienced its coolest August in 115 years with an average temperature seven degrees below normal (63.4 vs. 70.5).


Michigan officials attribute a dip in visits to state parks and other outdoor attractions to cooler weather.

"The water temperature along the [Lake Michigan] beach usually is in the 60s from Memorial Day to Labor Day, reaching the low 70s during the hottest days of July and August. Except for a few days in early July and again in mid-August, the water temperature never reached 70 this year," a Michigan official told The Associate Press.

Portland, Maine's high temperature of 82 degrees in July was the coldest high temperature ever recorded for the month, and the average daily high was four degrees below normal at 74.6 degrees.

An apparent heat wave in Monterey, Calif., this week "is actually fairly typical, it just seems to stand out because we've had a particularly cool summer so far," a National Weather Service spokesperson told the Monterey County Herald.

It's hard to get people worked up about "global warming" when it's too cool to get in the pool.

The final indignity of this summer forced upon the global warmers came this week with media reports on Hurricanes Charley, Frances and the coming Ivan. Though stronger, more frequent hurricanes are the sort of severe weather that activists want us to believe are attributable to global warming, meteorologists and the media just aren't cooperating.

The Miami Herald interviewed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration meteorologist Stanley Goldenberg and reported on Sept. 8: "Research Goldenberg conducted with NOAA scientist Chris Landsea, private expert William Gray and others found distinct patterns of low-activity hurricane periods and high-activity periods, each of which endured for decades. These patterns, unrelated to the current concern over global warming, are caused by regular cycles of oceanic and atmospheric phenomena, such as unusually warm water in hurricane breeding grounds."

The New York Times reported on Sept. 5: "Global warming is not a significant factor in this year's storminess, experts said. While some climate models predict that warming might eventually mean somewhat stronger hurricanes, that effect is expected to be very small compared to the natural hurricane cycle."

The Washington Post began a Sept. 3 article with, "Bad luck, not global warming, is the best explanation for the arrival of two severe hurricanes on the Florida peninsula in three weeks, several experts said yesterday."

These reports must be particularly bitter pills to swallow for the activists since the Times, Post and Herald don't typically pass up opportunities to promote the agenda of global warmers. As the summer fades into fall, so too will fade the season for global warming polemics.

Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of "Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams" (Cato Institute, 2001).

All this comming from the guy that still needs more scientific proof to buy into that crazy theory of evolution... Sorry shack but when it comes to opinions on science you have a fairly spotty track record to say the least.

[RunByDesign]

LMFAO @ the psuedo-science Mile High Hack is pimping today.

Must be a slow news day at the Flat Earth Society.
Exactly.

[Mile High Shack]

All this comming from the guy that still needs more scientific proof to buy into that crazy theory of evolution... Sorry shack but when it comes to opinions on science you have a fairly spotty track record to say the least.

there IS no scientific proof for the theory of evolution..it's a faith based theory...there is no fact at all...like I've said, if you believe an explosion can create order, then you also have to believe an explosion in a print shop can create webster's dictionary. :)

sorry Dave, you have a fairly spotty track record to say the least when it comes to science.

[Mile High Shack]

Exactly.


nice retort....your mom help you write that?

btw LABF, I have you on ignore, so I could care less what you think of me....you and your smarmy West Coast elitism can take a flying leap.

[RunByDesign]

Apparently MHS, also known as numbnuts, has never heard of the fossil record.

BTW, ignore is for pussies.

[Mile High Shack]

Apparently MHS, also known as numbnuts, has never heard of the fossil record.

BTW, ignore is for pussies.


I guess I"m a pussy then, I don't like spam, that's why I have your buddy on ignore.

and there is no fossil record that has a leap in species :)

thank you

so I guess you ignore the fossil record

[RunByDesign]

The thing about fossils is: you have to unearth them. Which ultimately means: you have to find them.

I guess your next argument will be that there where no such thing as Dinosaurs.

[Rock Chalk]

Hey, watch the Penn and Teller episode of Bullsh!t concerning global warming. You might just learn something.

[Mile High Shack]

The thing about fossils is: you have to unearth them.

I guess your next argument will be that there where no such thing as Dinosaurs.


the thing is..this statement "you have to unearth them" makes no sense

so your saying....there is a fossil record that has a species to species jump???

LOL, ok, yeah, evolution isn't faith based is it

like I've said many times, I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist/athieist

[Mile High Shack]

Hey, watch the Penn and Teller episode of Bullsh!t concerning global warming. You might just learn something.


oh I think there is global warming, but it's probably a regular trend of warm and cold since the earth as been around.....

I don't think I'm worried.

[RunByDesign]

the thing is..this statement "you have to unearth them" makes no sense

so your saying....there is a fossil record that has a species to species jump???

LOL, ok, yeah, evolution isn't faith based is it

like I've said many times, I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist/athieist

Evolution is what it is. Evolving. More fossils are found. More pieces that complete the puzzle.

To what end your ignorance is taking you, I have no idea.

Species to species jump? Care to elaborate?

[Mile High Shack]

Evolution is what it is. Evolving. More fossils are found. More pieces that complete the puzzle.

To what end your ignorance is taking you, I have no idea.

Species to species jump? Care to elaborate?

well...show me a fossil that takes us from species to species...I mean if we all came from protozoa.....show me the fossil record that is a link in between say horses and what they "evolved" from

your right...evolution is what it is, faith and a THEORY, nothing more, nothing less.

Darwin himself recanted later on in his life and said he can not help but think there is an all powerful intelligent being that created the design.

Darwin wasn't even a scientist, his degree was in theology...and his right hand mind was a lawyer.

Darwin didn't understand DNA nor RNA.......he had no scientific clue about anything.

[RunByDesign]

oh I think there is global warming, but it's probably a regular trend of warm and cold since the earth as been around.....

I don't think I'm worried.

And this opinion was formulated from the opinions of who?....oh, yeah...scientists. Aren't they the ones who are reinforcing the hypothesis of Evolution and the connectivity of the fossil record in relation to the discussion at hand?

You are an idiotic hypocrite, that can't even see past your own set of pre-concieved notions. :hitself:

[Mile High Shack]

And this opinion was formulated from the opinions of who?....oh, yeah...scientists. Aren't they the ones who came up with the hypothesis of Evolution?

You are an idiotic hypocrite, that can't even see past your own set of pre-concieved notions. :hitself:

thanks for calling me an idiot...if I cared what you thought about me, or if in fact you knew my actual intelligence, I'd be worried.

See, in a debate, you lose all credibility when you have to resort to name calling :)

thanks, have a good un'

[RunByDesign]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. My bad.

[TheDave]

Darwin himself recanted later on in his life and said he can not help but think there is an all powerful intelligent being that created the design.

Darwin wasn't even a scientist, his degree was in theology...and his right hand mind was a lawyer.


Actually MHS that is not true, he never recanted... As for my grasp of science i'm hoping to begin my phd in Nutritional Biochemistry at CSU next year... Science i'm pretty comfortable with.

[Mile High Shack]

that's fine, but you want me to rip off the quote directly from him???

[Mile High Shack]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. My bad.

you didn't offend me, I already know your an elitist......you've already said you think your better than most people, so I'm not offended, I'm just telling you, I don't care if you call me an idiot, your opinion of me has no baring on my life.

[RunByDesign]

you didn't offend me, I already know your an elitist......you've already said you think your better than most people, so I'm not offended, I'm just telling you, I don't care if you call me an idiot, your opinion of me has no baring on my life.

Are we not here to affect each others interpretation? Each encounter has the distinct possibility to enlighten and learned the other and to change that particular view forever.

Interpretation, much like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder. For better or worse, the only major difference between people like you and I, is the way we think.

You call it elitist, I call it different. And for a person like me to be labeled elitist is quite the excercise in perpetuating an oxymoron. I support none of those ideals.

I care about humanity and the suffering that goes on.
I care to make a difference.
I care about tolerance.
I choose to love my brothers and sisters.
I am complex and not simple.
Because I am pretentious and sarcastic, does not make me evil.
Because I am complex and not simple does not mean I do not have morals.
Because I do not have religion does not mean I do not have a high moral standard of fairness and love for all those who are deserving of such.

Punish those severely who deserve it, love wholeheartedly, those who you revere.

I am searching for the truth. Join me, if you will.

[Moon§hiner]

At the risk of being called an idiot, I'd like to interject a little idea that I have never seen brought up in any of this global warming stuff and maybe some scientist or future brain surgeon can debunk it.

Back when I was in high school I think that it was a big deal that we were reaching a world population of 2 billion?...maybe it was 3....just looked at current and we are at 6.4 billion....I work in heating and air conditioning and based on each person giving off 240 btu of heat per hour it turns into pretty damn big load calculation to have to cool things off...then take into consideration the way citys are growing...asphalt from the roads absorbing heat and not releasing it (there are topics on cities creating their own artificial environments if you google). Where does this heat go in the big picture of things?...I assume it's absorbed into the atmosphere.

I guess my point is that my head isn't in the sand and saying that mankind hasn't created this change in the weather, but to put most of the blame on american society is reaching a bit far IMO.

[orinjkrush]

Yeah, Shiner, I have also wondered about the population explosion's affect on all of this. (Besides buying SUVs and refrigerators.) sometimes, i think we just have too many people for this here 3rd rock from the sun. Or maybe its just way too much plankton?

[W*GS]

Gotta give Ro due props for attempting a discussion of global warming with bush anti-intellectuals and flat earth society members.

Ro's original post seriously misstated the science made excessive rhetorical leaps, including an attempt to blame Bush for more-or-less the whole thing. In other words, your standard MO, LABF.

Care to debate me on anthropogenic climate change?

Or are you just chicken?

BTW, the Senate resolution that put US consideration of the Kyoto Protocol into the rubbish bin was approved 95-0. What was Kerry's vote? Guess.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ro's original post seriously misstated the science...

And then you woke up (and gave Ken Starr his morning reach-around.)

[W*GS]

And then you woke up (and gave Ken Starr his morning reach-around.)

Can't debate me, so you 'bate.

Poor wee LABF. He's just too chicken to attempt a real debate on ACC. Why? Could it be because he doesn't know a damned thing about it and is too afraid to learn? Probably.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Can't debate me, so you 'bate.

Everytime I hand you your ass in any given debate you refuse to man up and take your crow.

Why debate a putz who won't admit it when he's been defeated?

BTW, Ro already put you in a pair of pink pumps and a cute little cocktail dress and sold you for a carton of Lucky Strikes in the global warming debate.

[W*GS]

Everytime I hand you your ass in any given debate you refuse to man up and take your crow.

What debate from you on Ro's take on this issue? I haven't seen you write one single thing that counters what I wrote to Ro at the beginning of the thread. You can't win if you don't dance, LABF, and on this topic, you haven't even gotten on the floor.

Why debate a putz who won't admit it when he's been defeated?

You cannot claim victory in any way, since you haven't said one thing about my comments.[/QUOTE]

BTW, Ro already put you in a pair of pink pumps and a cute little cocktail dress and sold you for a carton of Lucky Strikes in the global warming debate.

Do tell. I pointed out where he seriously misstated the science, and it's clear his knowledge of the subject comes from the NG article, and not much else. I perused the article in question, and there's not a whole lot in it that would support Ro's contention of imminent catastrophe.

It's quite obvious, LABF, that you have read neither the NG article, nor my response to Ro's views of it, nor have you read any of the relevant literature on the subject of global warming. On top of that, you claim victory without actually responding to any comment I've made.

You're just stupid, LABF.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I haven't seen you write one single thing that counters what I wrote to Ro at the beginning of the thread.

You're missing the point, genius.

Ro already thoroughly thrashed your embarrassing flat earth society drivel at the beginning of this thread.

[watermock]

Oh Jesus.

Someone is being kind enough to teach you something. You should be gratefull.

Care to debate me on anthropogenic climate change?

I wouldn't really mind, but I would have to get out of this pig stye.

Here we has an expert, (he seems to be) about this issue and you prance around like some two week old pit bull.

I am not particuliarly interested, I have allready given my treatie on the issue.

If this man is who he says he says he is, I don't have right to push him off like you seem to. You have been allready established as an idiot.

As far as global warming, I will give you an educated opinion, not something cooked up for Al Gore within 6 weeks.

You might want to listen to mock here.

The level of Carbon Dioxides have been rising, along with other things that are lowering the oxygen content.

The real problem is that we are deforesting and using fossil fuels at a crazy rate.

Compounded with the population explosion in China and the east we will soon reach 10 billion in 10 years.

This is Malthus incarnate.

This is so much a bigger problem than global warming short term it's amazing to me noone sees it.

The earth is like an egg. It's fragile, but it has a shell.

I'm tired.

But the major problem is providing for the exploding populations.

Second is providing power.

We have moved from Whale Oil to Kerosene to Oil and Natural Gas.

I have seen rather bad things. It's just like anything that can be avoided. I just hope what I have seen is different than Oppenheimer.

[Rohirrim]

Do tell. I pointed out where he seriously misstated the science, and it's clear his knowledge of the subject comes from the NG article, and not much else. I perused the article in question, and there's not a whole lot in it that would support Ro's contention of imminent catastrophe.

It's quite obvious, LABF, that you have read neither the NG article, nor my response to Ro's views of it, nor have you read any of the relevant literature on the subject of global warming. On top of that, you claim victory without actually responding to any comment I've made.

You're just stupid, LABF.

You had so mischaracterized my original post that I had to go back and re-read it to make sure. Is this the state that debate has reached in the U.S.?

I call it the Rovian technique; Continuously mischaracterize another's position until people can't even remember what it was. Did you know that in reality, Bush has flip-flopped more on issues of national interest than Kerry has? But he's perceived as "decisive" by the majority of Americans. Repetition works. Especially the way Rove works it. Every Repug who speaks to the press always makes sure to include at least one, "Kerry flip-flops" or "Kerry is indecisive" statement. Watch various news programs and you'll see it clearly. Yesterday, they caught Giuliani on his way to his car and he stopped for about two seconds to issue a "Kerry is indecisive" statement. Lo and behold, look at the polls and what do the majority of Americans think about Kerry? He's indecisive. It's the same technique used to sell toilet paper.

The sad part is that the American people are so grossly uneducated when it comes to politics that they really don't know what the facts are one way or the other. Less than a third of Americans even read a newspaper or ever buy a news magazine. More Americans buy The National Enquirer regularly than buy a newspaper - or they watch Fox News, which isn't much different.

Anyway, here's what I actually said:
The possible effects are detailed in the magazine and look to be catastrophic. Keep in mind that scientists can only hypothesize the effects, given that they've never seen such high CO2 levels and can only theorize what the effects might be. In other words, there is no physical model in previous history to illustrate what might happen, unless we go back to the age of dinosaurs, when there was one contintent, the world was covered mostly by sea, and the temperature of the entire globe was that of a rain forest.

"The possible effects..." being the key phrase here, and not, "...Ro's contention of imminent catastrophe." Perhaps you could argue why you don't believe that the "...possible effects..." should be considered or debated - unless you consider them impossible? And then, why do consider those possibilities impossible?

Let's just take one: The Gulf Stream. Why do you believe that the melting of Arctic ice could not lower the salinity and temperature of the Stream, thereby stopping the subduction of that huge current to the bottom of the Atlantic and thereby, effectively shutting off the Stream? And if the Gulf Stream were to shut off, why wouldn't that be a disaster of epic proportions given that it's warmth is what makes the British Isles inhabitable (for one thing)?

[enjolras]

Strange thing is, the automotive industry is in pretty deep doo-doo, worldwide, and lots of people like SUVs. If no-one wanted to buy them, then they wouldn't be built. Why do you suppose SUVs are so popular? Is it because Americans are stupid, or that you know so much better than the rest of us what a "proper" automobile is?

I do beleive that SUV's are popular because Americans have a rather large responsibility problem. (NOTE: This same problem likely exists around the world, but I don't live anywhere else so I'm going solely on personal experience). There are so many fundamental problems with SUV's (and their ilk) that simply owning one shows a remarkable disrepect for humanity. From their gas guzzling nature, to high bumpers, to rollver propensity, to much higher roadway momentum.

Yet your average SUV owner is blissfully unaware of these problems (save the gas thing). I've had arguments with people on this subject. They argue that their multi-ton SUV is no more dangerous to others than driving a honda civic. Yet a rudimentary understanding of physics would teach them that momentum kills. Since momentum is a function of mass, a more massive vehicle at speed is more dangerous than a lighter vehicle at equal speed. Driving a large vehicle is basically flipping the bird to your fellow man. (Frusturatingly I've had to argue with selfish a-holes who beleive that their safety truly IS more important than anyone elses)

Thankfully, gas prices are doing a lot to bring about the demise of the SUV... just as the gas crisis of the 70's killed the American muscle car. Hopefully, one day, we'll finally put the "bigger and tougher" mentality behind us culturally, because when it comes to cars it is good for no one.

I'm tired of liberals pouring forth their arrogant elitism without end. If you're so effing smart, then why are you a liberal?

While I'm not a liberal (more of a libertarian), i'm frankly tired of this constant attack on liberalism. To equate liberalism with stupidity shows a remarkable inability to comprehend anything beyond yourself. Liberalism is about being a good person, providing equally for all in society. I find that admirable.. while the solutions are often impractical, striving towards making society better for ALL is not stupid, it's noble. I disagree rather strongly with the liberals on HOW to raise the standards of living for people in America, but I don't argue with the intent. It seems to me neo-conservatism has become a bastion of greed, selfishness, and division. A culture that celebrates broodishness, repression, and domination. Which is to bad, because I have (in the past) found much to like in the conservative philosophy.

What's truly funny is that the conservatives consistently attack the liberals as being 'anti-American', portraying them as thinking all Americans are ignroant. Yet you consistently label those who subscribe to liberalism, a philosophy supported in one way or another by about 50% of Americans, as stupid. Sounds like elitism, and extreme hypocrisy to me.

[W*GS]

You had so mischaracterized my original post that I had to go back and re-read it to make sure. Is this the state that debate has reached in the U.S.?

I didn't mischaracterize anything.

You were the one tossing about words like "catastrophe", which is nowhere near an accurate summary of the actual science of ACC. If NG characterized the science such that you felt "catastrophe" was appropriate, well, then the magazine is dead wrong on the science. Look, I've done work in this area for nearly two decades now - I know what the heck I'm talking about, and overwrought rhetorical excess is a bigger problem to facing up to the challenges ACC could bring than the fossil fuel industry "experts" who deny the whole thing. In short, if you want to see humanity be able to accomodate the changes ACC might bring us, then stop with the end-of-life-as-we-know it garbage.

"The possible effects..." being the key phrase here, and not, "...Ro's contention of imminent catastrophe."

What would you call these statements:Here's the basic expectation: Super cell storms (hurricanes with winds of 250 mph) will become the norm (if one of those crossed Florida - it wouldn't leave a stick in the ground). F5 tornados will become the norm. Some areas of the earth will be turned into deserts, while other regions are turned into tropical swamps. Rising sea levels will destroy coastlines around the world. The sea will warm up, become less salty, and many currents (such as the Gulfstream - which keeps Ireland, GB and Northern Europe temperate) may simply stop. Those areas will freeze. As the salinity of the oceans drop, its capacity to absorb CO2 becomes less. Given what we know about the effects of one small portion of the Pacific changing its temperature (El Nino), imagine what a warmer ocean worldwide will do? Many forests across the world will be turned into firestorms beyond the comprehension of any human being. The effects on agriculture will be catastrophic. If you believe in the idea of a biblical apocalypse - we just might be looking at its machinery warming up.


The above is just plain hysterical silliness. The science (remember, I KNOW the science) just does not support it. Period.

Perhaps you could argue why you don't believe that the "...possible effects..." should be considered or debated - unless you consider them impossible? And then, why do consider those possibilities impossible?

Because there is no evidence from the climate models that anything remotely like your comments above is possible. I detailed all my objections in my original reply.

Let's just take one: The Gulf Stream. Why do you believe that the melting of Arctic ice could not lower the salinity and temperature of the Stream, thereby stopping the subduction of that huge current to the bottom of the Atlantic and thereby, effectively shutting off the Stream?

No climate model shows permanent loss of Arctic seaice, even under the most pessimistic (i.e., greatest warming) scenario projections. Additionally, no climate model shows the Gulf Stream "shutting down". Yes, there is a decrease in the North Atlantic meridional overturning (which is what you're talking about) but nothing remotely like it going to zero. The northward ocean transport declines as well, but there are indications from the models that the Gulf Stream itself could shift slightly (and I mean slightly) southward - not "shut down" or disappear. And, Europe and the Brits can rest easy about the chance of them going into an "ice age" - there is more than sufficient warming from the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses that the bigger problem is more and more severe heat waves, something like the one last year that killed ~15,000 or so. In sum, the scenario presented by "The Day After Tomorrow" (which pretty much is your hysteria made into a movie) is so far from likely as to be completely ridiculous.

Like I said, it does us no good to have people presenting over-the-top scary end-of-the-world nonsense that is completely unsupported by the science. Such things just give the naysayers and head-in-the-sand types more ammunition.

[Mile High Shack]

I didn't mischaracterize anything.

You were the one tossing about words like "catastrophe", which is nowhere near an accurate summary of the actual science of ACC. If NG characterized the science such that you felt "catastrophe" was appropriate, well, then the magazine is dead wrong on the science. Look, I've done work in this area for nearly two decades now - I know what the heck I'm talking about, and overwrought rhetorical excess is a bigger problem to facing up to the challenges ACC could bring than the fossil fuel industry "experts" who deny the whole thing. In short, if you want to see humanity be able to accomodate the changes ACC might bring us, then stop with the end-of-life-as-we-know it garbage.



What would you call these statements:Here's the basic expectation: Super cell storms (hurricanes with winds of 250 mph) will become the norm (if one of those crossed Florida - it wouldn't leave a stick in the ground). F5 tornados will become the norm. Some areas of the earth will be turned into deserts, while other regions are turned into tropical swamps. Rising sea levels will destroy coastlines around the world. The sea will warm up, become less salty, and many currents (such as the Gulfstream - which keeps Ireland, GB and Northern Europe temperate) may simply stop. Those areas will freeze. As the salinity of the oceans drop, its capacity to absorb CO2 becomes less. Given what we know about the effects of one small portion of the Pacific changing its temperature (El Nino), imagine what a warmer ocean worldwide will do? Many forests across the world will be turned into firestorms beyond the comprehension of any human being. The effects on agriculture will be catastrophic. If you believe in the idea of a biblical apocalypse - we just might be looking at its machinery warming up.


The above is just plain hysterical silliness. The science (remember, I KNOW the science) just does not support it. Period.



Because there is no evidence from the climate models that anything remotely like your comments above is possible. I detailed all my objections in my original reply.



No climate model shows permanent loss of Arctic seaice, even under the most pessimistic (i.e., greatest warming) scenario projections. Additionally, no climate model shows the Gulf Stream "shutting down". Yes, there is a decrease in the North Atlantic meridional overturning (which is what you're talking about) but nothing remotely like it going to zero. The northward ocean transport declines as well, but there are indications from the models that the Gulf Stream itself could shift slightly (and I mean slightly) southward - not "shut down" or disappear. And, Europe and the Brits can rest easy about the chance of them going into an "ice age" - there is more than sufficient warming from the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses that the bigger problem is more and more severe heat waves, something like the one last year that killed ~15,000 or so. In sum, the scenario presented by "The Day After Tomorrow" (which pretty much is your hysteria made into a movie) is so far from likely as to be completely ridiculous.

Like I said, it does us no good to have people presenting over-the-top scary end-of-the-world nonsense that is completely unsupported by the science. Such things just give the naysayers and head-in-the-sand types more ammunition.


Rho...
http://www.criterionpic.com/cpl/images/lcl_yougotservedposter.jpg

[W*GS]

Ro already thoroughly thrashed your embarrassing flat earth society drivel at the beginning of this thread.

The above is definitive proof that LABF is not part of reality.

A list of the errors would be far far longer than the comment.

[Rohirrim]

Rho...
http://www.criterionpic.com/cpl/images/lcl_yougotservedposter.jpg

Boy, what an easy sell you are. No wonder you're a Republican. The National Geographic says one thing and some guy on the internet says another, and you say, "Yeah, that poster is right." That's the Repub mantra, "Just give me a good line of BS, I don't need proof." BAAAAAAAA. :loopy:

Hell, I don't even need National Geo. I've seen firsthand what El Nino does to the climate. Anyone who claims that temperature changes in the oceans won't have a disastrous effect on human beings based on "computer models" is living in dreamland. El Nino is a real-life model that creates droughts in one place and flooding in another just by the warming of one small area of the Pacific.

CU just released a study of what I was talking about a few weeks ago. Because an ice shelf had melted off the coast of Antarctica, the glacier it was "plugging" up is now sliding toward the ocean at much higher rate of speed. So Wigs "climate model" says that sea levels can't go up 20 feet? That it's impossible? BS. Take the weight of the ice cap on Antarctica and drop it in the ocean. Simple physics. I don't know what "science" Wigs is using, but it doesn't come from my physics book.

The diminishing of species (especially amphibians) is quantifiable. What are the effects on the food chain? What about the changes to plankton - the foundation of the ocean's food chain - caused by changing sea temperatures? Polar bear numbers are dropping precipitously. They are the largest predator on land. At what point do their reduced numbers begin to impact on other life? Let's say there is a burst in the caribou population. What effect does that have on arctic vegetation? And on and on and on.
I doubt that there is a computer on earth that could sustain all the linkages that exist in the natural world. Hell, we don't even know what most of them are.

In fact, scientists just discovered a brand new one. They discovered that by reintroducing the wolves to Yellowstone, many species of trees that were in decline are now making a comeback. It seems the elk got used to just lazing around eating everything down to the nub. Now that the wolves are back, the elk are forced to keep moving and they don't depredate any one area for long.

[Mile High Shack]

what proof do you have, it's obvious wing feller here is more well versed than a lay-man such as I.

I tend to think these things come in cycles more so than global warming

[Rohirrim]

My point on the post above is that no computer climate model (that I've ever heard about) takes into account the effects of climate change on the natural world. They are about as reliable as earthquake prediction models. All over the world, there is rampant anecdotal evidence of the changes taking place.

Besides which, I'm saying the catastrophic possibilities are real, though not necessarily inevitable. I've never seen the movie Wigs is talking about. And my point is, we may never be scientifically convinced 100%, but we should start taking action (reducing CO2 - and other emissions) regardless.

[Mile High Shack]

My point on the post above is that no computer climate model (that I've ever heard about) takes into account the effects of climate change on the natural world. They are about as reliable as earthquake prediction models. All over the world, there is rampant anecdotal evidence of the changes taking place.

Besides which, I'm saying the catastrophic possibilities are real, though not necessarily inevitable. I've never seen the movie Wigs is talking about. And my point is, we may never be scientifically convinced 100%, but we should start taking action (reducing CO2 - and other emissions) regardless.

well I agree with you on that account...we need to take care of the world God gave us (I bet you love that line..hehe)....we don't need to pollute as much as we do.

[Rohirrim]

well I agree with you on that account...we need to take care of the world God gave us (I bet you love that line..hehe)....we don't need to pollute as much as we do.

I believe in a creator too. And I do believe that we should see ourselves as that creator's caretakers of His creation. I don't know if there is an afterlife, or how much that creator has invested in the afterlife, but I can see with my own eyes what He has invested in this world. And it is considerable. We need to do a much better job of it than we have been. Interestingly enough, I think one of the reasons we don't is also what you would call one of the "Seven Deadly Sins": Greed.

[Mile High Shack]

I believe in a creator too. And I do believe that we should see ourselves as that creator's caretakers of His creation. I don't know if there is an afterlife, or how much that creator has invested in the afterlife, but I can see with my own eyes what He has invested in this world. And it is considerable. We need to do a much better job of it than we have been. Interestingly enough, I think one of the reasons we don't is also what you would call one of the "Seven Deadly Sins": Greed.

get out of my head....I'm not suppose to agree with you on things non-Bronco

while I don't follow the mantra of "deadly sins" (no sin is greater than another...but anyway..that is a different thread)

He did put us in charge of the world and the things in it...to use wisely and your right....$$$$$ makes people do bad things.

[Rascal]

CU just released a study of what I was talking about a few weeks ago. Because an ice shelf had melted off the coast of Antarctica, the glacier it was "plugging" up is now sliding toward the ocean at much higher rate of speed. So Wigs "climate model" says that sea levels can't go up 20 feet? That it's impossible? BS. Take the weight of the ice cap on Antarctica and drop it in the ocean. Simple physics. I don't know what "science" Wigs is using, but it doesn't come from my physics book.

Being an engineer I would like to see your calculations on how a block of ice the size of Antartica (never mind the melting) could suddenly come off of Antartica into the ocean and cause the ocean level to rise 20 ft.

You don't have any because I'm guessing that it probably doesn't even exist.

But that isn't the point.

Yes pollution is a problem and yes it should be reduced if not eventually stopped but how you go about solving that is unknown and probably will never be known. But how you go about using the earth in the meantime is a volitile discussion as shown by this thread but a good discussion is usually a good thing.

Speaking of the environment..sort of..I think Saudi just agreed to up oil production 15%. This is getting ridiculous.

[Rohirrim]

Being an engineer I would like to see your calculations on how a block of ice the size of Antartica (never mind the melting) could suddenly come off of Antartica into the ocean and cause the ocean level to rise 20 ft.

That's the outside possibility and I didn't say it would be sudden - although it might be more sudden than we would like. You take the mass of the ice (approx.) and whether it slides off in chunks from glaciers, or melts over time, you're displacing the weight from a continent and placing it into the ocean. Given that the oceans are confined to basins - What do you think happens when their volume is increased?

[Rascal]

That's the outside possibility and I didn't say it would be sudden - although it might be more sudden than we would like. You take the mass of the ice (approx.) and whether it slides off in chunks from glaciers, or melts over time, you're displacing the weight from a continent and placing it into the ocean. Given that the oceans are confined to basins - What do you think happens when their volume is increased?

Yes I know that the sea levels are not fixed and that they can rise or fall, but to get a 20 ft increase in sea level because of a freaking huge chunk of ice is a bit ridiculous which is my point. And Antartica isn't just a solid piece of ice.

[watermock]

What I find amusing is just last month Saudi Arabia said it was pumping at full capacity.

Did a camel's hoof hit the sand and strike oil again? God sure has a sense of humor to put the biggest oil spigot on the planet underneath roaming goat herders.

[Rascal]

I was thinking the same thing Mock.

Hey did you get my PM? If so send me a PM and what you think about it.

Even if its you think I'm a clueless owner.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You had so mischaracterized my original post that I had to go back and re-read it to make sure. Is this the state that debate has reached in the U.S.?

I call it the Rovian technique; Continuously mischaracterize another's position until people can't even remember what it was.

That's W*GS in a nutshell.

W*GS is a nutjob from the old DPO who wasn't even taken seriously by his fellow right-wingers over there. To most wingers on the DPO, W*GS was a laughing stock.

When W*GS' perceptions and/or claims are proven wrong (e.g., Clinton and counterterrorism) he refuses to own up to the fact.

Hence, debating him is ultimately a waste of time (unless you just enjoy watching him squirm. ;) )

[W*GS]

I've seen firsthand what El Nino does to the climate. Anyone who claims that temperature changes in the oceans won't have a disastrous effect on human beings based on "computer models" is living in dreamland.

You do realize that "quote"computer models"unquote" are the only thing we have to attempt to understand future climate, don't you? You can't dismiss them offhand for this point, and then rely on them for truth for some other point. I'm not saying the models are perfect - far from it. But they do represent past climate quite well, and what they "predict" for the future in no way resembles the doomsday scenarios you have suggested.

El Nino is a real-life model that creates droughts in one place and flooding in another just by the warming of one small area of the Pacific.

El Nino is more than just "warming of the SSTs over a small area of the Pacific", and, it's not all bad. There are effects of an El Nino event that are actually quite positive.

CU just released a study of what I was talking about a few weeks ago. Because an ice shelf had melted off the coast of Antarctica, the glacier it was "plugging" up is now sliding toward the ocean at much higher rate of speed.

The Larsen ice shelf (which is what you're talking about) did break up in large part recently; however, it is located in any area of Antarctica that as best we can determine has large natural climate variability, and the breakup itself cannot be conclusively tied to ACC as its cause. There is no indication from models or observations that the large ice sheets that comprise the bulk of the Antarctic ice inventory are in imminent danger of speeding into the sea and melting, thus dramatically raising global sea levels. Yes, there have been no polar ice caps in the past, with higher sea levels than at present, but we have no proof that the Antarctic ice sheets themselves are going to melt away any time in the reasonably forseeable future.

So Wigs "climate model" says that sea levels can't go up 20 feet? That it's impossible? BS.

There are no scenarios that predict a 20 ft global sea level rise. That doesn't mean that much less than that would be bad (in some cases, very bad) for certain places, but the suggestion that big areas of coastline the world over are in grave danger of being flooded away by a vastly-risen sea level is just not supportable.

Take the weight of the ice cap on Antarctica and drop it in the ocean. Simple physics. I don't know what "science" Wigs is using, but it doesn't come from my physics book.

The weight of Antarctica isn't relevant - and compared to the weight of the oceans, it's below negligible. The question is not whether such a thing would be bad - it would - but the likelihood of its occurence. There is no science to support that such an event is probable, or even remotely likely, on timescales which we humans care about. Sure, eventually Antarctica will be ice-free, as it has been in the geologic past. But that's not your supposition, is it?

I doubt that there is a computer on earth that could sustain all the linkages that exist in the natural world. Hell, we don't even know what most of them are.

I agree with you 100% on this point. Does this mean that "global warming" will spell doom for many, or most, species on the planet akin to an asteroid impact? No.

[Tom H.]

Interesting thread!

Anyone hear of the large asteroid passing earth sometime tomorrow? Chance of it hitting Earth 0%. This probably doesn't need to be posted here but wth.


Toutatis (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/sep/HQ_04319_toutatis.html)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Interesting thread!

Anyone hear of the large asteroid passing earth sometime tomorrow? Chance of it hitting Earth 0%. This probably doesn't need to be posted here but wth.


Toutatis (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/sep/HQ_04319_toutatis.html)

I'll see your asteroid and raise you a volcano. ;)

Mount St. Helens about to Blow?

Contractions are every 30 seconds

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040928/ap_on_sc/st__helens_quakes_11

[W*GS]

Surprise CO2 rise may speed up global warming

By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor

11 October 2004

How 'feedback' can suppress the earth's ability to remove greenhouse gases

The rate at which global warming gases are accumulating in the atmosphere has taken a sharp leap upwards, leading to fears that the devastating effects of climate change may hit the world even sooner than has been predicted.

Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2 ), the principal greenhouse gas, have made a sudden jump that cannot be explained by any corresponding jump in terrestrial emissions of CO2 from power stations and motor vehicles - because there has been none.

Some scientists think instead that the abrupt speed-up may be evidence of the long-feared climate change "feedback" mechanism, by which global warming causes alterations to the earth's natural systems and then, in turn, causes the warming to increase even more rapidly than before.

Such a development would mean the worldwide droughts, agricultural failure, sea-level rise, increased weather turbulence and flooding all predicted as consequences of climate change would arrive on much shorter time-scales than present scenarios suggest, and the world would have much less time to co-ordinate its response.

Only last month, Tony Blair expressed anxiety that global warming's dire effects would arrive not just in his children's lifetime, but in his own, and would "radically alter human existence".

The feedback phenomenon has already been predicted in the supercomputer models of the global climate on which the current forecasts of warming are based. A key aspect is the weakening, caused by the warming itself, of the earth's ability to remove huge amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere by absorbing it annually in its forests and oceans, in the so-called carbon cycle. (The forests and oceans are referred to as carbon "sinks".)

Hitherto, however, that weakening has been put decades into the future.

The possibility that it may be occurring now is suggested in the long run of atmospheric CO2 measurements that have been made since 1958 at the observatory on the top of Mauna Loa, an 11,000ft volcano in Hawaii, by the American physicist Charles Keeling, from the University of California at San Diego.

When he began, Dr Keeling, who is still in charge of the project and who might be said to be the Grand Old Man of CO2 , found the amount of the gas present in the atmosphere to be 315 parts per million by volume (ppm); today, after the remorseless increase in emissions from power stations and motor vehicles over the past four and a half decades, the figure stands at 376ppm.

This growth is what most scientists believe is causing the earth's atmosphere to warm up, as the increasing CO2 retains more and more of the sun's heat in the atmosphere, like the panes of a greenhouse.

But the worry now is not merely the swelling volume of CO2 but the sudden leap in its increase rate. Across all 46 years of Dr Keeling's measurements, the average annual CO2 rise has been 1.3ppm, although in recent decades it has gone up to about 1.6ppm.

There have been several peaks, all associated with El Niño, the disruption of the atmosphere-ocean system in the tropical Pacific Ocean that causes changes to global weather patterns. In 1988, for example, the annual increase was 2.45ppm; in 1998, 2.74ppm; both were El Niño years.

Throughout the series those peaks have been followed by troughs, and there has been no annual increase in CO2 above 2ppm that has been sustained for more than a year. Until now.

From 2001 to 2002, the increase was 2.08ppm (from 371.02 to 373.10); and from 2002 to 2003 the increase was 2.54ppm (from 373.10 to 375.64). Neither of these were El Niño years, and there has been no sudden leap in emissions.

The greater-than-two rise is also visible in two separate sets of CO2 measurements made by America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, at Mauna Loa and other stations around the world.

At the weekend, Dr Keeling told The Independent the rise was real and worrying as it might indeed represent the beginnings of a feedback.

He said it might be associated with the Southern Oscillation, a pattern of high and low atmospheric pressure previously always associated with El Niños, or it might be something new.

"The rise in the annual rate of CO2 increase to above two parts per million for two consecutive years is a real phenomenon," Dr Keeling said.

"It is possible this is merely a reflection of the Southern Oscillation, like previous peaks in the rate, but it is possible it is the beginning of a natural process unprecedented in records.

"This could be a decoupling of the Southern Oscillation from El Niño events, which itself could be caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere; or it could be a weakening of the earth's carbon sinks. It is a cause for concern."

Leading British scientists and environmentalists agree. "If this is a rate change [in the CO2 rise], of course it will be very significant," said Dr Piers Forster of the meteorology department of the University of Reading. "It will be of enormous concern, because it will imply that all our global warming predictions for the next 100 years or so will have to be redone. If the higher rate of increase continues, things will get very much worse. It will makes our predicament even more catastrophic."

Tom Burke, a former government adviser on green issues who is now an academic and environmental adviser to business, said: "This series of CO2 measurements is the world's climate clock, and it looks as if it may be ticking faster,"

"That means we are running out of time to stabilise the climate. Governments and business will both have to invest dramatically more if we are to avoid the global warming catastrophe that Tony Blair has warned against."

© 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

[Rohirrim]

Surprising article coming from you Wigs.

[AgentOrange]

It is important that KERRY wins, and signs the Kyoto Protocol, just like the other 165 countries that DID. Choose wisely remember you live in a Global community, the world is watching!

[W*GS]

Surprising article coming from you Wigs.

Why?

[Rohirrim]

Why?

Such a development would mean the worldwide droughts, agricultural failure, sea-level rise, increased weather turbulence and flooding all predicted as consequences of climate change would arrive on much shorter time-scales than present scenarios suggest, and the world would have much less time to co-ordinate its response.


Thought you didn't believe in this stuff.

[W*GS]

Such a development would mean the worldwide droughts, agricultural failure, sea-level rise, increased weather turbulence and flooding all predicted as consequences of climate change would arrive on much shorter time-scales than present scenarios suggest, and the world would have much less time to co-ordinate its response.

Sigh.

There are no predictions of "worldwide droughts, agricultural failure, sea-level rise, increased weather turbulence and flooding".

[bendog]

what would be the effect of unchecked rise in C02 in your opinion, wags?

and do you think man in the sole, or primary reason, for the rise?

[Falconer]

Sigh.

There are no predictions of "worldwide droughts, agricultural failure, sea-level rise, increased weather turbulence and flooding".

Ok, now I'm a little confused. The predictions that Rohirrim used were directly out of the article you posted. I think that is why he was a little surprised that you would post that article. So the question is if you dispute those predictions, why post that article?

[W*GS]

Ok, now I'm a little confused. The predictions that Rohirrim used were directly out of the article you posted. I think that is why he was a little surprised that you would post that article. So the question is if you dispute those predictions, why post that article?

The science in the article in the increase in CO2 change. The predictions aren't based on any reputable science that I know of - certainly not on the climate models with which I'm familiar.

I suppose I should left out the hysteria stuff.

[W*GS]

what would be the effect of unchecked rise in C02 in your opinion, wags?

More or less what the climate models predict - read the latest available IPCC report. Imminent doom is not high in the list.

and do you think man in the sole, or primary reason, for the rise?

Very much the primary reason.

[Falconer]

The science in the article in the increase in CO2 change. The predictions aren't based on any reputable science that I know of - certainly not on the climate models with which I'm familiar.

I suppose I should left out the hysteria stuff.

Thank you for the clarification.

[bendog]

More or less what the climate models predict - read the latest available IPCC report. Imminent doom is not high in the list.



Very much the primary reason.\

yet the article you pasted says:
Such a development would mean the worldwide droughts, agricultural failure, sea-level rise, increased weather turbulence and flooding all predicted as consequences of climate change would arrive on much shorter time-scales than present scenarios suggest, and the world would have much less time to co-ordinate its response.
.....
That means we are running out of time to stabilise the climate. Governments and business will both have to invest dramatically more if we are to avoid the global warming catastrophe that Tony Blair has warned against."

[baja]

Ozone Hole Over Antarctica Reaches Record Size
In environmental news, the US space agency – NASA – says it’s recorded the largest hole in the ozone over Antarctica on record. Government scientists say the size of the hole now exceeds the size of North America. The development comes as the UN top’s environmental official has issued a new plea for increased efforts to curb global warming. The official, Executive Director of the UN Environment Program Achim Steiner, spoke Thursday in Beijing.

Achim Steiner: "If the global warming trends continue at the moment - and the model suggests they are, and in fact may be doing so more rapidly - they have significant impacts on where people can live, and where people can grow food, and where people will have to leave because they can no longer live there - coastal areas. We will have disease spreading, we will have implications in terms of global trade, perhaps, nations that don't play their part in terms of climate regime, how do they work with nations that are investing in setting their CO2 emissions. So, the potential for conflict to arise from the consequences of global warming are major trends that we now see."
Achim Steiner’s comments ahead of next month’s summit meeting of environmental ministers in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi.

[Rohirrim]

BTW, what ever happened to W*Gs?

[W*GS]

You rang?

[vindico]

Not quite true - the Bush administration is more skeptical of ACC than the Greens, Al Gore, and others would like but that doesn't mean they're as evil as you suggest. "The Day After Tomorrow", despite Al Gore's endorsement, is viewed with much amusement by myself and my colleagues. And no, the Kyoto Treaty would not have saved us.

Trust me, this is one topic with which I have considerable expertise and knowledge.

What does ACC stand for?

[vindico]

18 years of employment in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Climate Change Research Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado.

I do indeed know the topic. I work with some of the most eminent and internationally respected scientific researchers on global warming.

So, for 18 years you managed to work for the science, and then became an alarmist in the last 6 years?

[DBruleU]

So, for 18 years you managed to work for the science, and then became an alarmist in the last 6 years?

Once money became the issue he did.

[W*GS]

What does ACC stand for?

Anthropogenic climate change, silly.

[W*GS]

So, for 18 years you managed to work for the science, and then became an alarmist in the last 6 years?

Well, no.

My views are based on the facts and reason.

Upon what are yours based? Clearly, not those two.

[W*GS]

Once money became the issue he did.

You've got me confused with someone else.

If I'd wanted to become rich, I wouldn't have gone into science.

[W*GS]

BTW, "vindico", you must have done some pretty deep digging to come up with a 6+ year-old thread...

[DBruleU]

You've got me confused with someone else.

If I'd wanted to become rich, I wouldn't have gone into science.

Al Gore disagrees.

Your entire industry takes advantage of massive funding...and if Man Made GW goes away...so does the money.

[W*GS]

Al Gore disagrees.

What does Al Gore have to do with the science? Oh yeah, he's a pudgy punching bag for idiots who can't think. Thanks for playing.

Your entire industry takes advantage of massive funding...and if Man Made GW goes away...so does the money.

"Massive"? Compared to Big Carbon's revenues?

What gets more money? Certainty or uncertainty? If climate scientists worldwide were as morally bereft as you claim, they'd claim we know nothing about the climate, and need more money to begin to understand it.
Since that's not what they say, they're not in it for the money.

If I'd wanted, I could have gone into finance and made 10X more. That's where the money is, not science. The most senior scientists don't make enough to supply oil/gas/coal execs with strippers for a long weekend.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Al Gore disagrees.

Your entire industry takes advantage of massive funding...and if Man Made GW goes away...so does the money.

So does Wags' money too evidently.

[JJJ]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim
The conclusions are obvious: Mankind is warming the earth.

Yes, there is anthropogenic climate change. Globally, the earth is getting warmer. That does not mean that every place on earth will get warmer.


Quote:
The possible effects are detailed in the magazine and look to be catastrophic.

I haven't seen the article, but to call the effects "catastrophic" is an overstatement. This is not just MHO, I know of what I speak. Very well.


Quote:
What is happening right now is that the ice caps are melting,

Which "ice caps"? Greenland, yes. Antarctica, no.


Quote:
glaciers are disappearing all over the earth,

Not quite.


Quote:
and the great ice shelfs of Antarctica are receding more rapidly than at any time since they have existed.

Since we haven't observed them for their entire existence, we don't know this for sure.


Quote:
One antarctic scientist noted that one ice shelf is so large, that if it were to dislodge and fall into the sea, the global sea level would rise 20 feet:

I believe you misstate what was actually said - an ice shelf is already floating on the ocean surface, so it cannot "fall into the sea", nor will it raise sea levels. Put an ice cube into a glass and let it melt. Does the water level rise? No. Now, if you're taking about the Antarctic ice *sheets*, that's different. Those are on the Antarctic continent, and yes, if they melt, sea level *will* rise. There is no indication at the time that such an event is imminent or particularly likely.


Quote:
Here's the basic expectation: Super cell storms (hurricanes with winds of 250 mph) will become the norm (if one of those crossed Florida - it wouldn't leave a stick in the ground).

This is highly speculative.

Supercells and hurricanes aren't quite the same. "Supercell" is the common name for an MCC - mesoscale convective complex, a large organized group of thunderstorms in which as the older storms die, new ones are created. They can last for many hours, overnight sometimes, and often spawn tornadoes, along with heavy rain, high winds, and dangerous lightning. A hurricane isn't the same thing.


Quote:
F5 tornados will become the norm.

Also highly speculative. There is no clear evidence or theory I know of that definitively says that more tornadoes will reach F5 strength under most warming scenarios.


Quote:
Some areas of the earth will be turned into deserts, while other regions are turned into tropical swamps.

Yes, some areas will see drying, other areas will become wetter. Whether or not that means "deserts" and "swamps" is not clear.


Quote:
Rising sea levels will destroy coastlines around the world. The sea will warm up, become less salty, and many currents (such as the Gulfstream - which keeps Ireland, GB and Northern Europe temperate) may simply stop.

This is very highly speculative. The mechanisms by which the thermohaline circulation becomes significantly altered are not well understood, and various climate models suggest a decrease of the North Atlantic meridional overturning, but to suggest the GS will "stop" is way overstated. Some models show a southward shift in the GS, but whether or not this is due to the influence of global warming or the inaccuracy of the ocean models themselves is hard to say.


Quote:
Many forests across the world will be turned into firestorms beyond the comprehension of any human being.

Well, this is just rhetorical excess.


Quote:
The effects on agriculture will be catastrophic.

Perhaps, but this assumes abrupt climate change, and the evidence of that is poor.


Quote:
If you believe in the idea of a biblical apocalypse - we just might be looking at its machinery warming up.

If you've accurately relayed the information the National Geo has, I'm disappointed. Not terribly surprised, but if you're correct in your summation, then the NG has greatly oversimplified and overdramatized the possible effects of anthropogenic climate change. There are a great many issues we understood poorly, or not at all, and there is a great deal of uncertainty. To state the scenario you've given with confidence is incorrect.

There is evidence that climate extremes may increase (e.g., more frequent and more severe heat waves) but to imply that we know for certain that an "apocalypse" is coming is just plain wrong.


Quote:
A closing thought: The White House is currently inhabited by oil men who do not believe in the concept of global warming, refuse to accept any scientific evidence that points to global warming, and refuse to take part in any discussions of the possible effects of global warming. In other words, they are taking no action.

Not quite true - the Bush administration is more skeptical of ACC than the Greens, Al Gore, and others would like but that doesn't mean they're as evil as you suggest. "The Day After Tomorrow", despite Al Gore's endorsement, is viewed with much amusement by myself and my colleagues. And no, the Kyoto Treaty would not have saved us.

Trust me, this is one topic with which I have considerable expertise and knowledge.

Wiggles turns out to be a closet global warming pragmatist. Who would have thunk it?

This thread should win the Bump of the Year award.

Just hilarious stuff. The only part of his game that hasn't changed 180 degress is the "trust me I am a scientist schtick."

Finding out where your paycheck comes from has dramatic affects on your scientific objectiveness it seems.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

I guess JJJ would have us believe that...

• First is the assertion of a conspiracy to suppress the truth (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/04/conspiracy.php). This conspiracy invariably fails to address or explain the data or observation but only generates more unexplained questions.

But let us think about such conspiracies for a moment. Do they stand up to even a cursory evaluation? Is it really possible to make thousands of scientists, from over 100 countries, and every national academy of every country toe the same line, falsify data, and suppress this alleged dissent? I certainly didn't get the memo. At the heart of all denialism are these absurd conspiracy theories that require a superhuman level of control of individuals that simply defies reality.

[JJJ]

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

I guess JJJ would have us believe that...

• First is the assertion of a conspiracy to suppress the truth (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/04/conspiracy.php). This conspiracy invariably fails to address or explain the data or observation but only generates more unexplained questions.

But let us think about such conspiracies for a moment. Do they stand up to even a cursory evaluation? Is it really possible to make thousands of scientists, from over 100 countries, and every national academy of every country toe the same line, falsify data, and suppress this alleged dissent? I certainly didn't get the memo. At the heart of all denialism are these absurd conspiracy theories that require a superhuman level of control of individuals that simply defies reality.

I would pull out your favorite little word strawman here but why bother.

Is the world warming a bit? Probably.
Is it an issue? Maybe.
Are we overreacting like we always do? Definitely.

And I have worked with scientists long enough to know the lemming mentality of the nerd herd exists and they don't seriously question data coming from other professionals to the degree they should. They believe the poor data because they want to believe. It has nothing to do with conspiracy of the masses, though clearly there was a documented conpiracy of a few.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Are we overreacting like we always do? Definitely.



The sentence above tells me I was right on target.

If you believe "we are overreacting," then you believe that thousands of scientists from over 100 countries and every national academy of every country are somehow conspiring to hide or distort the truth.

That makes you nuttier than just about any conspiracy nut you can think of.

[JJJ]

The sentence above tells me I was right on target.

If you believe "we are overreacting," then you believe that thousands of scientists from over 100 countries and every national academy of every country are somehow conspiring to hide or distort the truth.

That makes you nuttier than just about any conspiracy nut you can think of.

Logic is clearly not your strong point LABF. People overacting does imply one way or the other whether what they are overreacting to is true or not.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Logic is clearly not your strong point LABF.

Oh, the irony. :laugh:


People overacting does imply one way or the other whether what they are overreacting to is true or not.

But your meaning is clear - when you say "we're overreacting," you imply that the conclusions of the scientists are invalid.

[W*GS]

So does Wags' money too evidently.

If I wanted to get rich, I wouldn't be in science. Trust me.

[W*GS]

Wiggles turns out to be a closet global warming pragmatist. Who would have thunk it?

I'll go over the original post and see what's changed. We've learned a few things since then.

I find it interesting that you and the other deniers are always projecting your greed onto others. The concept that someone could be working or doing something because they enjoy it, not because they make money at it, is foreign to you. Either get a different career, or quit basing your self-worth on $$$.

[DBruleU]

If I wanted to get rich, I wouldn't be in science. Trust me.

True.

You're doing this for our children, and our childrens children so they don't drown and melt from the hot sun.

[W*GS]

True.

You're doing this for our children, and our childrens children so they don't drown and melt from the hot sun.

Whereas you don't give a ****, 'cuz you'll be dead.

[DBruleU]

Whereas you don't give a ****, 'cuz you'll be dead.

Yup.

I've actually already written a note for my grandchildren one day to let them know that I just didn't care at all. And to look to W*gs and his kids for help.

[W*GS]

Yup.

I've actually already written a note for my grandchildren one day to let them know that I just didn't care at all. And to look to W*gs and his kids for help.

How nice of you.

[epicSocialism4tw]

If I wanted to get rich, I wouldn't be in science. Trust me.

You work with scientists, right? What do you do? Debug modeling systems?

There are ways to get rich in science. Work with petroleum products or develop drugs. If you're outstanding, you'll be a millionaire.

Ironically the petroleum market is exactly what the global warming movement wants to take over. Its only the most lucrative field of hard science in the world.

[W*GS]

You work with scientists, right? What do you do? Debug modeling systems?

And much more.

There are ways to get rich in science. Work with petroleum products or develop drugs. If you're outstanding, you'll be a millionaire.

I don't see "climate science" listed. Ergo...

Ironically the petroleum market is exactly what the global warming movement wants to take over. Its only the most lucrative field of hard science in the world.

Do I see a light going on?

Now, see if you can figure out that since Big Carbon is "the most lucrative", why we're seeing attacks on climate science and climate scientists. Or, why more and more climate scientists aren't abandoning their chosen field and seeking the "most lucrative" positions with Big Carbon.

Think about it.

Thanks for destroying your own argument, BTW.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Do I see a light going on?

Now, see if you can figure out that since Big Carbon is "the most lucrative", why we're seeing attacks on climate science and climate scientists. Or, why more and more climate scientists aren't abandoning their chosen field and seeking the "most lucrative" positions with Big Carbon.

Think about it.

Thanks for destroying your own argument, BTW.


Did you hear that?

That was my point whizzing by you.

My point was that these typical university profs getting by on grants and endowments see an opportunity to receive more funding and more accolades from the federal govt. if they can just wrangle it free from the private industry. What better way to do that than to enlist lobbyists and begin a massive fear mongering campaing for the greenageddon movement?

Whats a more ubiquitous form of carbon that we can sell? Carbon dioxide! We'll all be rich!

Literally selling air.

If the movement wasnt so obnoxious with their specious moral and ethical fenagling and istead focused on real climate science instead of political advocacy, maybe it would be respected more outside of its circles.

Nobody wants what you are selling.

Instead of lobbying the government to force people to buy air, maybe your people should begin finding partners who can create products that people will want to buy for a reasonable price.

That's how we change things in the USA. We do it with innovation and entrepreneurship. The day that our government begins forcing us to buy air is the day when our people should take up arms and revolt.

[Rohirrim]

Yeah, the "most lucrative" option is to leave the coal and the oil in the ground. Nice argument. :rofl:

[W*GS]

did you hear that?

That was my point whizzing by you.

My point was that these typical university profs getting by on grants and endowments see an opportunity to receive more funding and more accolades from the federal govt. If they can just wrangle it free from the private industry. What better way to do that than to enlist lobbyists and begin a massive fear mongering campaing for the greenageddon movement?

Whats a more ubiquitous form of carbon that we can sell? Carbon dioxide! We'll all be rich!

Literally selling air.

If the movement wasnt so obnoxious with their specious moral and ethical fenagling and istead focused on real climate science instead of political advocacy, maybe it would be respected more outside of its circles.

Nobody wants what you are selling.

Instead of lobbying the government to force people to buy air, maybe your people should begin finding partners who can create products that people will want to buy for a reasonable price.

That's how we change things in the usa. We do it with innovation and entrepreneurship. The day that our government begins forcing us to buy air is the day when our people should take up arms and revolt.

wtf...

[epicSocialism4tw]

wtf...

Atmospheric carbon, toolbag.

[W*GS]

Atmospheric carbon, toolbag.

You've watched "Total Recall" too many times.

Or else you're just an idiot. Or both.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Top 10 Crazy Things Conservatives Say: Global Warming Edition


It's been 20 months since Barack Obama was inaugurated, 19 months since the Recovery Act began investing billions in producing clean energy, 16 months since the House passed carbon cap legislation and 10 months since the EPA declared it was obligated, following a Supreme Court ruling, to regulate greenhouse gases because global warming is real.

How have conservatives reacted to the return of science to our public policy decisions? Have they gone as crazy as they have about the economy (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010093820/top-10-crazy-things-conservatives-say-about-economy), health care (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010093928/top-10-crazy-things-conservatives-say-health-care-edition) and Wall Street (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010104008/top-10-crazy-things-conservatives-say-wall-street-edition)?

At the risk of giving away the ending, yes.

Please read the fourth edition of "Top 10 Crazy Things Conservative Say" (http://www.ourfuture.org/node/49423) anyway.

10.

"…the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide." – House Minority Leader John Boehner (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/19/boehner-calls-global-warm_n_188688.html)

9.

“Terrorism kills — and Barbara Boxer's worried about the weather." – California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41192.html)

8.

"… whether it’s the Chinese seeding clouds, whether it’s some of the industrialized nations in the world trying to get together for cap-and-trade to try to reduce the CO2 emissions. You know, this might be the modern version of the rain dance" – Rep. Steve King (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/18/rep-steve-king-unloads-on-climate-change-scientists-frauds-practicing-modern-version-of-the-rain-dance/)

7.

"They used to talk about global warming -- y’all might remember a few years ago they were talking about an ice age was coming. It’s the same folks, the folks who want to change America, want to rule America. They want to change us to a New World Order. President George Herbert Walker Bush, remember, very openly said he wanted to have a New World Order" – Rep. Paul Broun (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/08/31/will_bunch_the_backlash/index.html?source=rss&aim=/news/feature)

6.

"[CO2] gets sucked down by trees and helps the trees grow" – Wisconsin Senate candidate Ron Johnson. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/100814454.html)

5.

"Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth." – Rep. Michelle Bachmann (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/24/bachmann-byproduct/)

4.

“Deniers? OK, OK, I’m one of those folks.” – Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41192.html)

3.

"Cap and Trade, which is based on an unscientific hysteria over the man-caused global warming hoax, steps over the constitutional boundaries of the federal government…" – Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle (http://www.therealsharronangle.com/), from her original campaign website, taken down after winning her primary.

2.

"Adaptation to shifts in temperature is not that difficult … During the Little Ice Age, both the Vikings and the British adapted to the cold by changing. I suppose that one possible adaptation response of Viking retrenchment and British expansion is that we’re conducting the hearing today in English instead of Norwegian" -- Congressman and BP apologist Joe Barton (http://washingtonindependent.com/35892/rep-joe-barton-global-warming-no-problem-well-adapt)

...And Number 1!

"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back" – Rep. Michelle Bachmann (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/23/bachmann-armed-and-dangerous/)
For more about how we can avert a climate crisis and create millions of new jobs producing clean energy and energy-efficiency, check out our Making Sense issue brief (http://www.ourfuture.org/makingsense/factsheet/2010/new-energy-future)

[Requiem]

Bachmann strikes again.

[W*GS]

"Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith"

Morons. Idiots:

“It’s a flat-out lie,” Mr. Dennison said in an interview after the debate, adding that he had based his view on the preaching of Rush Limbaugh and the teaching of Scripture. “I read my Bible,” Mr. Dennison said. “He made this earth for us to utilize.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us/politics/21climate.html?_r=1

[baja]

We deserve the government we get.


People have the power to direct their government, well they did before they were dumbed down that is.

Anyone hear the fiddles playing yet?

[Spider]

Did you hear that?

That was my point whizzing by you.

My point.

the only point you got , or ever had is right on top of your ****ing head you moron

[epicSocialism4tw]

"Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith"

Morons. Idiots:



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us/politics/21climate.html?_r=1

You have no idea what he's talking about.

You are the moron.

[Rohirrim]

Coral "die-off" worst ever:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/20/scientist-human-induced-global-warming-killing-corals/?hpt=Sbin

[W*GS]

You have no idea what he's talking about.

I know exactly what he's talking about.

[Rohirrim]

Latest report on the Arctic:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39779522/ns/us_news-environment/

[W*GS]

"God Replies to A Christian From 2012"

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/God-2012.HTM

[JJJ]

I'll go over the original post and see what's changed. We've learned a few things since then.

I find it interesting that you and the other deniers are always projecting your greed onto others. The concept that someone could be working or doing something because they enjoy it, not because they make money at it, is foreign to you. Either get a different career, or quit basing your self-worth on $$$.

Still waiting....

[W*GS]

Still waiting....

Good. Now hold your breath.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Still waiting....

Follow the yellow brick road! :wave:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RTSQo87-slY/S_01Z_PY0tI/AAAAAAAAAzE/C80LVxzYtv0/s1600/The+Wizard+of+Oz.jpg

[W*GS]

None of our deniers want to accept that Limbaugh and the Bible are all they need to know?

WTF is their problem?

[epicSocialism4tw]

None of our deniers want to accept that Limbaugh and the Bible are all they need to know?

WTF is their problem?

You are the biggest bigot on this board.

There's no need to dignify your bigotry with a response.

[W*GS]

You are the biggest bigot on this board.

There's no need to dignify your bigotry with a response.

You just did.

I am bigoted against idiots and morons. That's part of the reason I don't like you.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You just did.

I am bigoted against idiots and morons. That's part of the reason I don't like you.

Ah yes, so Jesus, CS Lewis, Aquinas, Augustine, Kirkegaard, Isaac Newton, etc. are all morons. Right. Since you're a far left wacko, you'd also be surprised to know that the founder of conservationism in the US was a Christian as well: John Muir.

You are a bigot. That much you have proven.

How can you ever expect your movement to succeed in this country when your only answer to people of differing viewpoints is that they are 'morons' for believing something far more substantiated than your global warming fear mongering?

Its seeming more and more typical of the fraudulent 'scientists' (weathermen) that you claim to work for. Their computational models are compromised daily by people like yourself who are far too untrustworthy to lend the process any creedence.

Nobody should trust anything that comes out of your work, whatever it is.

[baja]

You just did.

I am bigoted against idiots and morons. That's part of the reason I don't like you.

You must like me than?

[DBruleU]

Ah yes, so Jesus, CS Lewis, Aquinas, Augustine, Kirkegaard, Isaac Newton, etc. are all morons. Right. Since you're a far left wacko, you'd also be surprised to know that the founder of conservationism in the US was a Christian as well: John Muir.

You are a bigot. That much you have proven.

How can you ever expect your movement to succeed in this country when your only answer to people of differing viewpoints is that they are 'morons' for believing something far more substantiated than your global warming fear mongering?

Its seeming more and more typical of the fraudulent 'scientists' (weathermen) that you claim to work for. Their computational models are compromised daily by people like yourself who are far too untrustworthy to lend the process any creedence.

Nobody should trust anything that comes out of your work, whatever it is.

His avatars as of late demonstrate that all too well.

[epicSocialism4tw]

His avatars as of late demonstrate that all too well.

He's one of the most bigoted people in this forum.

[W*GS]

Ah yes, so Jesus, CS Lewis, Aquinas, Augustine, Kirkegaard, Isaac Newton, etc. are all morons. Right. Since you're a far left wacko, you'd also be surprised to know that the founder of conservationism in the US was a Christian as well: John Muir.

I didn't say all Christians were morons and bigots.

Why wouldn't you call this person:

“It’s a flat-out lie,” Mr. Dennison said in an interview after the debate, adding that he had based his view on the preaching of Rush Limbaugh and the teaching of Scripture. “I read my Bible,” Mr. Dennison said. “He made this earth for us to utilize.”

an idiot?

You are a bigot. That much you have proven.

I'm bigoted against people who think their bible is the only source of knowledge and wisdom. So sue me.

How can you ever expect your movement to succeed in this country when your only answer to people of differing viewpoints is that they are 'morons' for believing something far more substantiated than your global warming fear mongering?

What's "far more substantiated"? Let's see your evidence.

I suspect you and Mr. Dennison have far more in common than you think. That's why you get so upset to be called a moron.

Its seeming more and more typical of the fraudulent 'scientists' (weathermen) that you claim to work for. Their computational models are compromised daily by people like yourself who are far too untrustworthy to lend the process any creedence.

Puhleeze. Now you're just making **** up. None of the scientists I work for and with are frauds. And actually, I don't do model development these days - I used to, but not recently.

The amount of ignorance you happily put on display is staggering. No wonder the Koch brothers and Big Carbon find you so malleable. The antidote to your anti-intellectualism comes from reading, but I doubt you're capable of that. You're one of the hardcore deniers that no matter what's put in front of you, you'll hug your bible closer to your chest and remain a moron.

There's a special place in your hell for you.

Nobody should trust anything that comes out of your work, whatever it is.

You don't know enough to make that judgement.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You don't know enough to make that judgement.

I know quite a bit. I know that your industry is poorly organized.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/06/quote-of-the-week-13/

"From a software engineer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) commenting on Climate Audit:

As a software engineer, I know that climate model software doesn’t meet the best standards available. We’ve made quite a lot of progress, but we’ve still quite a ways to go.

There’s more. Steve McIntyre comments:
Re: software engineer (#56),
Software engineer, if this is what you think, then this should have been reported in IPCC AR4 so that politicians could advise themselves accordingly. I do not recall seeing any such comment in AR4 – nor for that matter in any review comments.

…and to the second part of the comment:
Steve McIntyre July 5th, 2009 at 7:49 pm Re: software engineer (#56),
If we can convince funding agencies to better-fund software development, and continued training, then we’ll be on our way. It’s a little harsh, IMHO, to assign blame to software engineers when they’re underpaid and overworked.

Boo-hoo. Hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars is being spent. PErhaps the money should be budgeted differently but IMO there’s an ample amount of overall funding to have adequate software engineers. Maybe there should be some consolidation in the climate model industry, as in the auto industry. If none of the models have adequate software engineering, then how about voluntarily shutting down one of the models and suggest that the resources be redeployed so that the better models are enhanced?"

[W*GS]

I know quite a bit. I know that your industry is poorly organized.

That remark was taken out of context, and exploited by Watts because I made him look the fool on another subject. That chapped him, so he went scouting to "get" me.

It was his attempt at revenge. Just shows that Watts isn't interested in the science at all - he plays the man, not the ball.

[epicSocialism4tw]

That remark was taken out of context, and exploited by Watts because I made him look the fool on another subject. That chapped him, so he went scouting to "get" me.

It was his attempt at revenge. Just shows that Watts isn't interested in the science at all - he plays the man, not the ball.

Do you even have a degree?

[W*GS]

Do you even have a degree?

Yes, I do. BS in physics.

Watts doesn't, BTW.

[Obushma]

Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical Society

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/15835660/professor-emiritus-hal-lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So I guess the question is WigWags, how much money you making?

[W*GS]

Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical Society

Snore. The man went emeritus and off his rocker.

See

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

and

http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/hal_lewis_incontrovertibly_emeritus

So I guess the question is WigWags, how much money you making?

Much less than you think. The most senior climate scientists don't make enough in a year to pay for the strippers the executive board of an oil or coal company seem to "need" for a long weekend meeting.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Snore. The man went emeritus and off his rocker.

See

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

and

http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/hal_lewis_incontrovertibly_emeritus



Much less than you think. The most senior climate scientists don't make enough in a year to pay for the strippers the executive board of an oil or coal company seem to "need" for a long weekend meeting.


Ah, so when they admit skepticism, its their slide into insanity.

Sure.

You do realize how ridiculous that sounds, right?

[W*GS]

Ah, so when they admit skepticism, its their slide into insanity.

In Lewis' case, he's old, and hasn't done anything relevant to climate science in decades. He also makes many allegations and accusations that are wholly false, as the APS noted.

You need to read "Merchants of Doubt" to see where Lewis is coming from.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Well, we all know where McSkillet is coming from...

http://www.bartcop.com/rep-jesus-unregulated.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Tea Party climate change deniers funded by BP and other major polluters

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/10/24/1287949025269/Tea-Party-Express-Begins--006.jpg

BP (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/bp) and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama's energy agenda, the Guardian has learned.

An analysis of campaign finance by Climate Action Network Europe (Cane) found nearly 80% of campaign donations from a number of major European firms were directed towards senators who blocked action on climate change (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change). These included incumbents who have been embraced by the Tea Party such as Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, and the notorious climate change denier James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma.

The report (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2010/10/24/climate.pdf), released tomorrow, used information on the Open Secrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/) database to track what it called a co-ordinated attempt by some of Europe's biggest polluters to influence the US midterms. It said: "The European companies are funding almost exclusively Senate candidates who have been outspoken in their opposition to comprehensive climate policy in the US and candidates who actively deny the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by people."

Obama and Democrats have accused corporate interests and anonymous donors of trying to hijack the midterms by funnelling money to the Chamber of Commerce and to conservative Tea Party groups. The Chamber of Commerce reportedly has raised $75m (£47m) for pro-business, mainly Republican candidates.

"Oil companies and the other special interests are spending millions on a campaign to gut clean-air standards and clean-energy standards, jeopardising the health and prosperity of this state," Obama told a rally in California on Friday night.

Much of the speculation has focused on Karl Rove, the mastermind of George Bush's victories, who has raised $15m for Republican candidates since September through a new organisation, American Crossroads. An NBC report warned that Rove was spearheading an effort to inject some $250m in television advertising for Republican candidates in the final days before the 2 November elections.

But Rove, appearing today on CBS television's Face the Nation, accused Democrats of deploying the same tactics in 2008. "The president of the US had no problem at all when the Democrats did this," he said. "It was not a threat to democracy when it helped him get elected."

The Cane report said the companies, including BP, BASF, Bayer and Solvay, which are some of Europe's biggest emitters, had collectively donated $240,200 to senators who blocked action on global warming – more even than the $217,000 the oil billionaires and Tea Party bankrollers, David and Charles Koch, have donated to Senate campaigns.

The biggest single donor was the German pharmaceutical company Bayer, which gave $108,100 to senators. BP made $25,000 in campaign donations, of which $18,000 went to senators who opposed action on climate change. Recipients of the European campaign donations included some of the biggest climate deniers in the Senate, such as Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has called global warming a hoax.

The foreign corporate interest in America's midterms is not restricted to Europe. A report by ThinkProgress (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/23/us-chamber-of-commerce-is-fueled-by-foreign-oil/), operated by the Centre for American Progress, tracked donations to the Chamber of Commerce from a number of Indian and Middle Eastern oil coal and electricity companies.

Foreign interest does not stop with the elections. The Guardian reported earlier this year that a Belgian-based chemical company, Solvay, was behind a front group (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/21/solvay-chemicals-obama-green-agenda) that is suing to strip the Obama administration of its powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.