The Latest “We’re All Gonna Die!!!” IPCC Report
November 18th, 2007 at 12:31am Mark Noonan
You’ll first note that the “tags” on this entry include both “global warming” and “climate change”. The reason for this is because the global warming business is in the process of re-branding itself as the “climate change” industry - this because “climate change” is entirely non-specific and can be used to say that anything happening is the dire result of insenstive, greedy, racist, corrupt, sexist, imperialistic and homophobic (and necessarily American) action in the world. In other words, you can jam a lot more leftwing BS into “climate change” than you can into “global warming” - especially as there hasn’t been any increase in global mean temperatures for nearly a decade now.
Anyways, there is the new IPCC report out which re-hashes all the usual nonsense about global warming - this news story has a rundown of the “key findings”…among these findings, I found this one very interesting:
Global warming is “unequivocal.” Temperatures have risen 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. Eleven of the last 12 years are among the warmest since 1850. Sea levels have gone up by an average seven-hundredths of an inch per year since 1961.
So, we’re in a tizzy over, what? The prosepct of another 1.3 degrees over the next century? Or is it that we’re worried that by 2107 sea levels will have risen 7 inches?
To add a bit of kick to the report, they claim that between 20 and 70% of all species on earth will become extinct if we don’t act now to reverse this - as if they (a) know how many species there are on earth, (b) really know how much the temperature will increase, (c) know how even 1% of the world’s species will react to higher temperatures. The only thing we can be certain about is that environmentalist whackos won’t become extinct.
UPDATE: Scrappleface completely disposes of the climate change alarmism.
Entry Filed under: Environment
71 Comments Add your own
1. LewWaters | November 18th, 2007 at 2:12 am
Seems I recall hearing it mentioned on the news today that this report says Global Warming is an “imminent threat.”
Where have we heard those alarming words before?
Does that mean that like John Edwards call of “imminent threat” in regards Iraq, once it is found out that Global Warming is a natural occurrence, will they retroactively blame Bush again?
2. mitche | November 18th, 2007 at 3:13 am
There were people just like you who denied that smoking causes lung cancer and everytime an article came out that reinforced that link, the hysteria became more intense on behalf of those who refused to accept the conclusions.
Global warming, global climate change, they both describe what is happening. Even if human activity contributes a smaller amount to this change than what the experts state, why continue with policies that make matters worse? Why does being right about qualified experts being wrong matter to you skeptics so much?
Maybe if you stamp your feet or pull out your hair that will put an end to melting ice caps and arguements over how many spiecies there are here on planet earth.
BTW, it is a sure bet that the report meant known spiecies.
3. Don | November 18th, 2007 at 3:41 am
Hey mitche;
Remenber when all the “experts” in the world said Galileo was wong?
I have just three words for you Y2K
4. LewWaters | November 18th, 2007 at 3:46 am
Mitche, what do you do with the mulitiude of scientists who dispute the idea of man-made global warming?
Since when is science determined by consensus?
Then again, most of you Global Warming fanatics also tell us evolution is truth. Many feel evolution was caused by *gasp* climate change.
If evolution is accepted truth and climate change did bring it about, perhaps you all are interfering with the natural order of things! Ever think about that?
You all really should think about everything you preach and not just the crisis du jour of the moment.
5. winnowhead | November 18th, 2007 at 5:55 am
and they also claim that a) we like smoking hash, and b) my pastor said burneth the fuel of the earth, and c) bless thee who live in the heat of it all.
God bless the abc.
6. french student | November 18th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Mark :
Once again, you have looked through a cristal ball, and determined that the guys with the most expertise and access to the most data on a subject are wrong, while you have no expertise whatsoever on the subject and certainly spent less time than they did on the data. Got the brand of that cristal ball?
Don :
Y2K would have been a crisis if major effort had not been put into preventing it. In the spirit of scientific inquiries, My mother’s company (Defense R&D company) decided not to patch a few of its noncritical machines. Sure enough, the unprepared machines went useless on the day the date resetted.
Y2K was foreseen, and a lot of man-hours went into preventing it beforehand. It is the textbook example of a crisis averted by foresight and preventive measures.
Lew :
Again, the IPCC is a scientific review team. That means they read all the litterature on global warming research, including that of the scientific sceptics. If said sceptics had any evidence that there is no global warming, or that it is not man-made, and so on, the IPCC report conclusions would have reflected that.
Having a PhD and saying “I am not convinced” and then expecting people to agree wth you while you produce no evidence, and do not refute the evidence of others disagreeing with you, that would be trying to do science as a consensus. This is not what the IPCC does. The IPCC compiles the research on the climate change subject and summarizes it and dumbs it down so that people without PhDs can understand it.
As for the climate change-evolution link, well, nobody ever said all life would disappear forever. However, nothing garantees that we humans will find it pleasant, suffer no casualties or even survive as a species. The problem about the current phenomena is its speed. the last time a climatic change was so abrupt with such an amplitude as is projected was probably the cretacean/tertiary crisis - the dinos’ demise. Which makes sense, since today’s oil is essentially the carbon that was trapped underground during that crisis. (the huge forests that were killed by the sunlight loss, then buried by the dust falling)
The thing about evolution is that it takes many generations to produce significant change. If the conditions change in a number of generations that is too small, the species is more likely to fail to adapt to the new conditions. Human generations are roughly 20 years long. Fruit fly generations are on the order of a week, a month. The climate changes are on the decades or century timescale. Guess who has the adaptative advantage?
7. RYan | November 18th, 2007 at 7:35 am
YOu do know that the earth has been MUCH warmer than even the warmest predictions of the IPCC _within human history_ right? And that as late as the 1850’s, we were in really LOW temperatures - or, as one might say, coming out of the trough of a cold period? Of course, history doesn’t matter at all when promoting pet theories, and its cute seeing either truncated graphs to leave out the medieval warm period or, even better, things such as the ‘Hockey stick graph’ which conveniently leave out all of the sets of data that wouldn’t fit the curve they want. Even worse, the graphs they use don’t even use comparable TYPES of data on the chart - they compare apples and oranges to get there. Measurements that don’t have a high degree of correlation or even the same degree of specificity - often they are talking about changes in the past that are almost smaller than the degree of accuracy their measurements can acquire. And then you have the recent revelation of the ‘errors’ in the climate records that put many of the warmest years BEFORE 1950 instead of much more recently. Also add in that historical records do indeed show a relationship between co2 and warming - FIRST it warms and then AFTERWARDS the co2 levels rise.
Sorry, my confidence in the “Establishment’ on this issue is precisely zero. The agenda is: Secure more global warming research funding and B: Find ways to use it as a hammer to institute socialism. I do find it curious that almost all of the proposed solutions seem to fulfill ‘Socialist’ ideas, to, for example, attack the US emissions and try to exempt India and CHina - who are the largest and fastest growing Co2 producers.
8. RYan | November 18th, 2007 at 7:36 am
(Oops. I don’t know why the double post happened)
9. 1H8L1B5 | November 18th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Why does being right about qualified experts being wrong matter to you skeptics so much?
It matters, bitche, because these qualified experts, for the most part, are part of an anti-capitalism, pro-socialism cult.
Once again, you have looked through a cristal ball,…
Once again, we have a “student” who can’t spell.
If said sceptics(sic) had any evidence that there is no global warming, or that it is not man-made, and so on, the IPCC report conclusions would have reflected that.
If global warming scientists had proof that climate change was man-made, they wouldn’t have to settle for consensus.
Learn to spell, phony student.
The IPCC compiles the research on the climate change subject and summarizes it and dumbs it down so that people without PhDs can understand it.
You’re living proof, phony student–you’ve bought the propaganda, and you have no formal education.
However, nothing garantees that we humans will find it pleasant, suffer no casualties or even survive as a species.
Well, this should make kooks such as yourself happy, phony student. There are many who think that, if the human race were wiped out, the world could survive. Are you one of those kooks?
I do find it curious that almost all of the proposed solutions seem to fulfill ‘Socialist’ ideas, to, for example, attack the US emissions and try to exempt India and CHina - who are the largest and fastest growing Co2 producers.
You’ve nailed it, RYan–today’s environmentalist is yesterday’s communist…
10. jgwilk | November 18th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Save the fetus but destroy it’s living environment! The battle cry of conservative in this country If modern conservatives cherished life as the claim, they would err on the side of caution on this issue. However, on this issue they once again display their twisted and backwards thinking.
11. Eric T | November 18th, 2007 at 9:16 am
jgwilk
I went to work at 3:30 am this morning. I work outside, it was so cold I had to put a snowmobile suit on, with stocking hat, heavy sweater, and a thick carhart over top.
Al Gore is just trying to get you excited about a new tax, If he came straight out and told you we are going to put $1.50 tax on gas you’d probably tell him to shove it.
We just gotta drill for more oil, unless you like giving tons of money to the Saudi’s, Chavez, and all our other buddies.
12. phnx | November 18th, 2007 at 9:35 am
jgw ILK you perfectly illustrate the lunacy and hypocricy of the left.
Please provide us with quotes or evidence that conservatives wish to DESTROY the living environment. There is no such evidence.
On the other hand, the left is very much in favor of KILLING human life. The evidence is obsession with abortion, and the lunacy of denial that humna life is being destroyed.
BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS LEFTIST.
13. Retired Spook | November 18th, 2007 at 9:39 am
If modern conservatives cherished life as the claim, they would err on the side of caution on this issue.
jgwilk, can you describe what erring on the side of caution would involve?
14. AAR | November 18th, 2007 at 9:48 am
AAR
15. neocon | November 18th, 2007 at 9:56 am
As our lefties will often discredit scientific opponents to “climate change” by pointing out a supposed financial bias. Let’s take a look at look at the Holier than thou IPCC:
The IPCC receives the bulk of it’s funding from the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) and the WMO (World Meteorological Organization)
The UNEP:
On 15 March 2006, the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, nominated Achim Steiner, former Director General of the IUCN to the position of Executive Director. One day later, the UN General Assembly followed Annan’s proposal and elected him [2]. However, the nomination raised questions regarding conflict of interest after it was revealed that Steiner had (previous to his nomination by Annan) served as a judge on a panel that awarded the $500,000 Dubai prize to Mr. Annan. The London-based Financial Times reported that the appointment “has prompted new questions about what standards should apply to senior U.N. officials to avoid conflicts of interest”. [1]
The WMO:
The WMO is being investigated by Swiss authorities over allegations of vote-buying in its election process. Swiss prosecuters are investigating whether delegates at the WMO received payments from former employee, Muhammad Hassan, to sway the outcome of the 2003 election. Hassan, a Sudanese national, served as chief of the fellowship program in WMO’s training department and is suspected of stealing $3.5 million from the WMO. [1]
No doubt these GOVERNMENT FUNDED organization are all above aboard and only concerned with the plight of the planet. Whatever money is generated their way because of their fear mongering is just inconsequential.
Secondly, here is the SOLE mission of the IPCC:
The stated aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to:
human-induced climate change,
the impacts of human-induced climate change,
options for adaptation and mitigation.
Do you think that they may have an interest in finding a link?
16. MagicalPat | November 18th, 2007 at 10:51 am
20 to 70% of all species will become extinct if it gets another few degrees warmer huh?
This begs the question: Since there is a consensus that it has been warmer in the past, how did all those species survive extinction during those warm periods?
17. Retired Spook | November 18th, 2007 at 11:16 am
20 to 70% of all species will become extinct if it gets another few degrees warmer huh? (emphasis added)
Pat,
20 to 70% is a huge range, particularly in the kind of time frame the Alarmists are talking about. That kind of wild prediction should raise the same red flag as the prediction of a global temp increase in the range of 2 to 11 degrees F. I don’t see how any thinking person could look at such predictions and not be a bit skeptical.
18. MagicalPat | November 18th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Spook:
I agree. What is amazing to me is that they think we will buy this outrageous figure. Even more amazing… is that some people do.
I hear this garbage repeated as if it’s already happened. When I ask them why these species still exist after previous warming periods, they have no answer.
19. Ricorun | November 18th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Ryan: YOu do know that the earth has been MUCH warmer than even the warmest predictions of the IPCC _within human history_ right?
Could you provide a source for that statement? As far as I know, this contention is not accurate. But I’d like to check it out.
AAR: ScienceDaily (Nov. 5, 2007) — The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Now that was an interesting and informative post. I’m going to have to check it out more thoroughly.
Spook: can you describe what erring on the side of caution would involve?
Very good question. And a very important one. As for your other question, about the range of predictions, I understand that a considerable amount of that variability has to do with uncertainty about how humans will respond. But there is also the issue of non-linear effects — like cloud formation.
Magic Pat: When I ask them why these species still exist after previous warming periods, they have no answer.
Which warming periods are you talking about? Can you be more specific?
20. jgwilk | November 18th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
phnx | November 18th, 2007 at 9:35 am
“Please provide us with quotes or evidence that conservatives wish to DESTROY the living environment. There is no such evidence”
yet more twisted neoclown “logic”…err we don’t want to destroy it, we merely don’t want to take any steps to PRESERVE it. Truly laughable.
21. Ban Moon: Climate &hellip | November 18th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
[…] at Blogs For Victo(r)y, Mark Noonan catches this tidbit Global warming is “unequivocal.” Temperatures have risen 1.3 […]
22. MagicalPat | November 18th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Ricorun:
Here is a recent link to a global temperature history chart: http://www.longrangeweather.com/Long-Range-Weather-Trends.htm
I’ll try to provide more links later, but football is about to begin. A few hours away from politics is always refreshing..
23. Mark Noonan | November 18th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
French,
Are they wrong? How the heck would I know? But when you get a range of 20-70%, that isn’t science - its a guess; and it is a laughable guess because there’s almost know chance you’ll be wrong…its like me saying there is a 20-70% chance the Chargers will win today…win or lose, I’m right.
But the larger thing is that you are simply not thinking about the claims…we don’t know how many species there are in the world; we don’t know how much temps will rise (as Spook pointed out, some guesses are of a 2-11 degree increase); we don’t know how rising temps actually effect species…with all these absurd assertions, you’re just going to latch on to the “species will die” bit and go with that.
God gave you intellect, French - use it.
24. Ricorun | November 18th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
MagicalPat, I spent the better part of 2 hours trying to find some statement from Harris and Mann where they got the data for their figure. I couldn’t find any despite having read a number of opinion pieces one or the other have written for popular periodicals that reference it. Have you?
I did find another figure covering temperatures over the same period that IS very well referenced. And it doesn’t look anything like Harris and Mann’s. So until I find some way to document how H & M came up with their data (I’m sure they didn’t do the research themselves), I’m inclined to go with the documented version.
And how about you, Ryan? Can you source your statement? I’m guessing it’s the same one as Magical Pat. Is that true?
25. AAR | November 18th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Let’s see if the Algorian “climate model” can accurately predict previous Ice Ages, Global Warming, and mass extinctions — BEFORE we rely on it to foretell and determine our future!
Let’s run the “climate model” beginning prior to the start of the first known Ice Age and see if it accurately predicts each successive period of global warming, the correct world climate, and each succeeding Ice Age — to include the duration of each and the correct starting and ending dates!
Before we can rely on “climate models” and computer programs written by fallible humans, we must first verify that it can accurately predict the past events of Mother Nature!
We already know the climate experts and scientists have been wrong in almost all of their past predictions, but we are now told and expected to believe they finally got one right this time!!!
How many times must the American people be lied to, mislead, and made fools of by Liberals (Democrats) before we finally say “enough is enough”? ! ! !
Who’s wants to believe a group that hasn’t got it right yet? ! ! !
AAR
26. Ricorun | November 18th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
AAR: Let’s see if the Algorian “climate model” can accurately predict previous Ice Ages, Global Warming, and mass extinctions — BEFORE we rely on it to foretell and determine our future!
Let’s run the “climate model” beginning prior to the start of the first known Ice Age and see if it accurately predicts each successive period of global warming, the correct world climate, and each succeeding Ice Age — to include the duration of each and the correct starting and ending dates!
That’s a very good point. Unfortunately, not enough it known about enough of the relevant variables with enough specificity to make such a study practical. You’d have to make too many assumptions. However, a very good analog to what you proposed recently came available as a result of new Vostok ice cores pushing back the record of many known variables another 400,000 years or so at that site — from 400K years to about 800K years, effectively doubling the duration of the record. Although limited to the location from which they are extracted, ice cores provide very accurate information about temperature, GHG concentrations, and such with a high degree of temporal resolution. Information about GHG concentrations became available before temperature info, so the agency collecting and processing the data, the European Programme for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) presented a challenge to the climate modellers to present their predictions of what the temperature was likely to be in the preceding 400K years, for which they had no data. Obviously it was a formidable challenge, because the information they were provided with was incomplete. Thus, they had to rely on estimates about things like ocean current and jet stream variations, stuff like that. And to the extent that those things, rather than GHGs, were primarily responsible for the temperature fluctuations then their predictions would be very poor.
The preliminary results are provided here. I don’t know about you, but I have a hard time not being impressed.
27. Ricorun | November 18th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Umm… I explained the EPICA challenge backwards — they provided the temperature data and required the various climate modeling groups to predict the GHG concentrations. Sorry about that. At any rate, the rest of what I said still pertains — if climate change were principally related to some other variation which was not coupled with GHG concentrations, then the predicted results would not be very close to the actual results. But it turns out they were.
28. MagicalPat | November 18th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Ricorun:
I went to the link you provided. I was as disappointed in it as you were with mine. The Wiki site was put together by a self described climate hobbyist who was kind enough to provide this caveat at the end of his page:
Though all of this data is published, and the methodology is similar to previously published methodology, and resulting average is similar to previously published interpretations of the Holocene, even so, no peer reviewed scientific publication has ever combined precisely these data in precisely this way. Hence, any interpretation of that average must be regarded with skepticism.
As well as this one:
Because the average shown here involves only 8 records, it is entirely plausible that significant contributions to temperature variation are being overlooked because certain large regions (e.g. Asia) are not being sampled.
I can understand your hesitation to accept the Harris and Mann climate chart because you cannot find the source of their info. I have a hard time accepting the Robert Rohde climate charts because the author himself provides enough caveats on his Wiki page to rule his conclusions unscientific.
29. Retired Spook | November 18th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Nearly 8 hours ago I asked the following simple question:
jgwilk, can you describe what erring on the side of caution would involve?
Not only has jgwilk not answered the question, neither has anyone else. The lack of even the most basic answer to that question simply shreds the credibility of those who say “the sky is falling, we must do something”.
French Student at least had an answer in the previous GW thread: raise the tax on gasoline and invest the proceeds in research — not a very good answer, but at least an answer. Anyone else want to give it a shot, or would you rather just keep on ranting about how Conservatives in general and George Bush in particular want to destroy the planet?
30. TiredofLibBullShit | November 18th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
The Goracle recently wrote a book about FEAR and the ASSault on Reason.
Ironically, the man tried to point out that it was Bush using fear for the war in Iraq. But completely ignored his 8 years as VP and his movie “A Convenient Lie” using fear for his political purposes.
This “we are all gonna die” attitude and the “Do you want to take the chance….” question is valid when it comes to the Goracle and his minions, but when it comes to terrorism - it’s the politics of fear.
31. neocon | November 18th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
You know Spook, I snese your frustration. I too asserted that the IPCC is in the tank for man-made climate change. That is the sole purpose for their being, and it is in their best interest to determine that climate change is attributable to our society.
If they did not, their would be no need for the IPCC. This IPCC panel will keep the heat on (no pun intended) to keep up their grants and their job security.
What a joke!
32. Ricorun | November 18th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Magical Pat: As well as this one:
Because the average shown here involves only 8 records, it is entirely plausible that significant contributions to temperature variation are being overlooked because certain large regions (e.g. Asia) are not being sampled.
Yours is a very relevant observation. That is the basic problem with putting too much faith and emphasis on paleoclimate records — they suffer from a paucity of data. By the way, chapter 6 of the 2007 IPCC Working Group I Report provides a very good summary of what is known and not known about the paleoclimate, and what implications they have in attempting to forecast future changes. Have you read it?
I can understand your hesitation to accept the Harris and Mann climate chart because you cannot find the source of their info. I have a hard time accepting the Robert Rohde climate charts because the author himself provides enough caveats on his Wiki page to rule his conclusions unscientific.
But isn’t it nice when they actually tell you about the caveats right up front? I wouldn’t call it “unscientific” though, I’d call it inconclusive. Any limited set of data is. The real question is how well it all fits together, and under what conditions.
On the other hand, everything Harris and Mann say appears to be shrouded in secrecy for some reason. I assume they consider it proprietary. At any rate, it doesnt’ appear to be available to public scrutiny. So I assume you’re even more skeptical of their data. If you aren’t you should be.
33. Retired Spook | November 18th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Necon, it isn’t frustration so much as, well ……… yeah, I guess, on second thought, frustration pretty much nails it. There is just so much emerging technology coming down the pipe; technology that will provide the world with abundant, clean, economical energy — something the Left claims to want, but apparently doesn’t seem to want to discuss. I think it’s the same as with most Liberal causes, they’d rather have the issue with which to beat Conservatives over the head, than actually seek solutions to problems. And on those rare occasions when they do seek solutions, it almost always involve some kind of tax to penalize behavior they don’t like.
34. Retired Spook | November 18th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
So I assume you’re even more skeptical of their data. If you aren’t you should be.
I assume, then, that you must be highly skeptical of Mann’s (Michael) and James Hansen’s data as they are both notorious for not sharing data and methods.
35. AAR | November 18th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Ricorun,
RE: “That’s a very good point. Unfortunately, not enough it known about enough of the relevant variables with enough specificity to make such a study practical. You’d have to make too many assumptions.”
Not enough known about relevant variables… like trying to predict the future when we don’t even know for sure what created the Ice Ages and Global Warming in the past?
Like trying to predict the future global climate when we can’t predict the future events or the variables which might cause climate change which might (or might not) happen in just the right sequence (or not)?
If scientists can’t (or are afraid) to go back to the first Ice Age and attempt the climate from that time until today, perhaps they can go back just 20,000 years and see if they can correctly predict the known climate changes and end up with today’s known climate.
With the knowledge of history and the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, perhaps scientists can get it right this time! Just keep changing and rewriting the programs until their results agree with history as we know it, but be prepared to change the program again when scientists learn once again they don’t “know” all they think they do!
AAR
36. phnx | November 18th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
gjw ILK unable to provide a support to his/her/its allegations resorts to repeating a leftist talking point. How very revealing.
37. neocon | November 18th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I think it’s the same as with most Liberal causes, they’d rather have the issue with which to beat Conservatives over the head, than actually seek solutions to problems. And on those rare occasions when they do seek solutions, it almost always involve some kind of tax to penalize behavior they don’t like. - Spook
That could be the best description of liberalism I have ever read.
38. phnx | November 18th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
AAR
The leftists have changed the Global Warming mantra to the new religion of “Man Made Climate Change”. That way, no matter what happens…warm or cold…they are right and man is at fault…and must be taxed to offer sacred oblation and repentance for this sin.
39. AAR | November 18th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Ricorun,
Perhaps scientists can re-run their “climate model” and figure out how their predictions were so totally and completely wrong just 30 or so years ago! Again, knowing history, they should have no trouble re-writing their programs to correctly predict what we now know is fact!
From my post in the prior thread about global warming.
As I said before, it almost looks like the Algorians took the 1975 report about the imminent Ice Age and catastrophe, and changed the words to say Global Warming!!! I think they were also calling for the mass extinction that time too!
It’s a good thing that we didn’t all panic upon hearing the Liberal claim the end of the world is upon us, and immediately start dumping soot all over the Artic to melt the ice cap the way the Climatologists, Scientists, and Liberals wanted to do — to prevent the IMMINENT ICE AGE!
AAR
40. phnx | November 18th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Carbon Credits are the modern day version of Indulgences which can be purchased by sinners (the developed world) as forgivness for sin (the production of carbon).
41. Ricorun | November 18th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Spook: I assume, then, that you must be highly skeptical of Mann’s (Michael) and James Hansen’s data as they are both notorious for not sharing data and methods.
Well, I wouldn’t go that far. As far as I can tell, it’s largely Steve McIntyre that has referred to it as “notorious”. I agree it is a problem, but to suggest it is “notorious” implies it is highly uncommon. And as Mr. MyIntyre himself indicated here, it’s pretty typical. But that doesn’t make it right.
McIntyre suggests that the climate change community should practice procedures more akin to corporate auditing procedures. I agree, especially when it comes to GW. After all, the data and how they are analyzed potentially have massive implications for public policy. Moreover, it was publicly funded to a large extent. So it seems to me reasonable and appropriate to make the data publicly available.
Having said that, one could of course carry such a requirement to ridiculous extremes. Nonetheless, I strongly suspect a viable compromise could be attained without severely impacting the time or monetary resources of the primary data collectors, and even more probably without similarly affecting the folks that analyze them. It’s hard to argue against transparency as an ideal when pursuing public policy.
42. mitche | November 18th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
PHNX.
(Pheonox? The Greek name for a pair of mythical birds that commits suicide…as a loving pair because they were inherently evil…and then were resurected from their own ashes to live again? THAT Phnx?)
If you draw a religious line from that abstraction to global climate change, you should seek psychological counciling. Now.
How do you function in society with such craziness?
Philosophy is a walk on a slippery rock. Religion is a light in a fog.
Anyway, as Forest Gump said:
“…And that’s all I have to say about that.”
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pentagon%2Bglobal+warming%2Bthreat&btnG=Google+Search
43. Ricorun | November 18th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
AAR: Perhaps scientists can re-run their “climate model” and figure out how their predictions were so totally and completely wrong just 30 or so years ago! Again, knowing history, they should have no trouble re-writing their programs to correctly predict what we now know is fact!
Well, first of all, they have. Perhaps you weren’t paying attention to my previous comment, but they’ve actually gone one step better — they predicted with a surprising degree of accuracy (given the limited information provided) what the GHG concentrations were in the vicinity of the South Pole (before actually knowing what they were) for a period of almost 400,000 years.
Second, the notion that “global cooling” was some kind of generally accepted phenomenon back in the 70s is incorrect. Moreover, at the time there wasn’t much of a thing as a “climate scientist”. And there wasn’t much in the way of “climate models” either. I suppose that goes without saying since not only the basic knowledge was pretty limited, but so was the computing power available at the time. Both the knowledge and the computing power has increased dramatically since then. Are either of them perfect even now? No. But if you’re waiting for perfection before making any policy decision — on anything — you’ll never make a policy decision. Policy decisions are (or at least should be) about maximizing the positive while minimizing the negative: i.e., trying to err on the side of caution. But there’s two ways you can make mistakes in that regard: (1) doing nothing or only that which will postpone the inevitable, or (2) doing too much, thus crippling the economy for no good reason.
But let me ask something on a somewhat different topic… if you think it’s a pile of crap, who are you going to vote for? It would be hard to rationalize a vote for McCain, Giuliani, or Huckabee on that score, or even Hunter. Actually, Hunter’s position sounds the most like mine of anyone else I’ve heard (with the possible exception of Bill Richardson). Romney is hard to pin down (isn’t he always), as is Thompson. They tend to stress the need for energy independence because of national security concerns, but have so far been non-specific about how they propose to achieve it. That leaves Tancredo, who basically wants to postpone the inevitable by drilling in ANWR and the eastern Gulf of Mexico and building more nuclear power plants.
Really, what DO you think should be done, if anything? Spook has indicated that it’s the lefties that are reticent to discuss solutions rather than just the science. While that’s true, it’s also true of most conservatives as well.
This would be a good topic for my new virtual blog, Blogs Against Unintended Consequences… or An Unintended Truth, or Inconvenient Consequences, or… wait, I got it!! An Inconvenient Truth! No wait, that one’s already taken.
44. AAR | November 18th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
phnx,
You are absolutely correct!!!!!!
One thing we do know for certain is that climate is constantly changing — naturally!
As you say, hot, cold, wet, dry, floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornados or calm skies, more sunshine or less — Liberals now want to call it ALL “climate change”, tell the world that they predicted the climate would change (one direction or another), and then use that inevitable change to validate their claims that all changes were created by humans and predicted by Liberals!!!
Liberals, however, continue to dismiss and ignore the solution to their perceived problem and to America’s real problem — that we work aggressively to produce new, plentiful, cheap, renewable, and non-polluting fuels and energy — including nuclear, wind, solar, bio-fuels, hydrogen, etc. — not the Democrat’s plan to tax, restrict, tax, control, tax, and lower America’s standard of living!
Energy independence will take some time. In the mean time, we will continue to rely on petroleum in the immediate future — and it should be AMERICAN oil, gasoline, and natural gas. As we work to develop and produce those new, plentiful, cheap, renewable, and non-polluting energy sources, we must start drilling in ANWR, along our coasts, and other areas for the oil we need — AMERICAN OIL — NOW!
The problem for Liberals (Democrats) is that this “real solution” to a “real problem” doesn’t further and perpetuate the Liberal hysteria, and increased taxes, restrictions, limitations, controls, and furthering of their own liberal agenda!!!
It’s up to us to get this solution out to the American people and discredit the Democrats and the Liberal Left!!!!!!!
AAR
45. phnx | November 18th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Religion:
1.A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. (Algore)
2. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Bitchie, there couldn’t be a better descrition of you Enviro Zealots and your Spiritual Leader Algore.
46. AAR | November 18th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Ricorun,
I briefly scanned the linked article, but I did not read it in detail, nor have I checked for other “expert” analysis, opinions, and comments about the accuracy and applicability in forecasting future climate — especially, since we can’t predict the future and future events that might impact on that model.
I would be surprised, however, if they could accurately predict the beginning dates, ending dates, magnitude, and climate of various parts of the Earth for the different ice ages, cooling, and warming which happened over the past 20,000 years, up to and including today, and the most recent few hundred years.
Solutions? As I have said many times, I want to discuss solutions which “produce new, plentiful, cheap, renewable, and non-polluting fuels and energy — including nuclear, wind, solar, bio-fuels, hydrogen, etc. — not the Democrat’s plan to tax, restrict, tax, control, tax, and lower America’s standard of living!”
I want to start drilling in ANWR, off our coasts, in the Gulf, and wherever, and however else we can produce more of our own oil and energy — NOT to POSTPONE the inevitable, but to reduce our interim reliance on foreign oil; reduce the balance of payments; provide hundreds of thousands or even millions of American jobs; produce hundreds of billions of dollars in local, state, and federal tax revenue; support the American economy; provide a larger and more effective strategic reserve for national emergencies and reduce the increases and fluctuations of oil and gas prices from hurricanes, wars, and other real or imagined threats.
The very fact that we are sending trillions of dollars overseas to purchase foreign oil affects our balance of payments which contributes to the decline of the dollar, and — with oil priced in dollars — contributes to the increase in oil and gas prices, which causes more dollars to go overseas, which further reduces the value of the dollar, which increases oil and gas prices……
I will support “reasonable” (to be defined) programs to produce the cheap and affordable energy we need to maintain our standard of living, including our larger vehicles, higher miles driven, etc. I do not support the Democrats agenda to tax, restrict, control, legislate, mandate, etc.
Why can’t or won’t Democrats support that solution?
Because it does not suit their agenda!!!
AAR
47. AAR | November 18th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Ricorun,
I’ve been thinking about the reversal from global cooling and the imminent Ice Age predicted in the early 70’s to the global warming and imminent end of life as we know it predicted today.
Have you given any thought that some, perhaps a great deal, of the rise in temperatures, and the reversal from global cooling and an ice age, to global warming may have been caused by the Liberal environmentalists and enviro-nuts?
Before you dismiss it totally, think about some of the changes that have occurred between then and now!
AAR
48. Casper | November 18th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
“Have you given any thought that some, perhaps a great deal, of the rise in temperatures, and the reversal from global cooling and an ice age, to global warming may have been caused by the Liberal environmentalists and enviro-nuts?”
Are you suggesting that mankind has an effect on the global environment?
49. AAR | November 18th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Casper,
I’ve never said mankind can’t have some effect; after all, we can and may eventually create Nuclear Winter! It’s the degree and magnitude I and others question — and more than anything — the solutions!!!
If as Liberals believe, mankind is having that great of an effect, I have to wonder how much of that warming was due to their actions… and I’m not talking about their individual and personal contributions. I’m talking about the effect of their actions on others — laws, restrictions, etc.!
Just thinking for now…
AAR
50. Retired Spook | November 18th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Well, I wouldn’t go that far. As far as I can tell, it’s largely Steve McIntyre that has referred to it as “notorious”.
Man, Rico, you never let me get away with anything. I was more jerkin’ your chain than I was being serious. “Notorious” was probably a little hyperbolic, although as McIntyre notes, it is a problem, a problem that got Hansen in somewhat of a jam a couple months ago. Any credibility he ever had, IMO, is pretty well shot.
McIntyre strikes again.
Are you suggesting that mankind has an effect on the global environment?
No, Casper, I think he suggesting that Libs are full of HOT AIR!! Just my opinion, though — I could be wrong.
51. Casper | November 18th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
“No, Casper, I think he suggesting that Libs are full of HOT AIR!! Just my opinion, though — I could be wrong.”
I would say that is probably true of all politicians.
52. Retired Spook | November 18th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Change “all” to “most”, Casper, and I’d probably agree with you. We have one Congressman from the Indiana district just to the south of mine, Mike Pence, that is a pretty straight arrow guy.
53. AAR | November 18th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Let me spell it out.
From my Jan 2007 comment…
Pollution Is The Solution… to Global Warming!
Perhaps we need MORE POLLUTION to counter the “alleged” greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide, or at least that’s what some scientists are now proposing:
“…prominent scientists, including a Nobel Prize winner, have come up with a controversial proposal during the UN conference on climate change. They raise the idea of creating a ’shade’ of pollution to cool the earth. It’s like creating an umbrella of black smoke to prevent the sun’s heat from reaching the earth. It has to be reintroduced regularly, as the pollutants fall back into the Earth through rain and other means. It is a temporary relief while experts are looking for more permanent ways of dealing with the problem.”
“While carbon dioxide keeps heat from escaping Earth, substances such as sulfur dioxide, a common air pollutant, reflect solar radiation, helping cool the planet.”
“1969 - 1971: Backyard burning was banned in selected areas of California. Air Quality Standards were set by the new ARB for total suspended particulates, photochemical oxidants, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide. National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) was signed. USEPA was created to protect all aspects of the environment. Federal New Source Performance Standards for opacity were published. Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 were enacted. They served as the principal source of statutory authority for controlling air pollution.”
…
AAR Theory of Global Warming: The Earth has been in a solar warming cycle. Pollution, including suspended soot particles and sulfur dioxide, blocks solar radiation and increases global cooling. Environmentalists pushed through regulations to clear the air. Clear air allows more solar radiation to reach the Earth and increases the global warming. With each passing year, the air got cleaner, allowing even more solar radiation to reach the Earth, increasing the global warming — melting the Arctic and killing the polar bears! Countries like China which burn more “dirty” coal are in effect helping cool the Earth. Efforts by environmentalists to clear China’s air will worsen and further increase global warming. Conclusion: Liberal environmentalists, lead by Californians, have caused the reversal from global cooling to global warming — and their ongoing efforts will further accelerate global warming!!!
AAR
54. Ricorun | November 19th, 2007 at 10:52 am
AAR: Have you given any thought that some, perhaps a great deal, of the rise in temperatures, and the reversal from global cooling and an ice age, to global warming may have been caused by the Liberal environmentalists and enviro-nuts?
What is this — if you’re not successful at one argument, try the opposite? Actually, I do remember your “pollution shade” suggestion way back when. But I figured you dropped it since because more recently you’ve been more arguing that anthropogenic influences has little to no effect at all.
Anyway, I agree with you that cleaning up sulfates, particulate matter, CFCs and such back in the 70s did have an effect. But concern over a so-called “global cooling scare” wasn’t a primary consideration. It was far more about concerns regarding health (lead poisoning, pulmonary cancer, skin cancer, etc.) and the effect of acid rain on crop yields. At the time, those effects were far more obvious than the global cooling effects those substances had. In other words, there was a much stronger scientific concensus on the health and crop effects at the time than there was on the climate effects. There just wasn’t enough data yet available on the latter. I don’t know if you ever visited the LA basin (or Denver, or a variety of other places) back in the late 70s or early 80s, but it was pretty awful. It’s much better now. If you want to blame that on the envirocrazies, go ahead. I’d rather thank them. Then again, it didn’t take much to be an envirocrazy at the time. All you had to do was go outside and have your eyes start tearing, or play tennis for a half hour before starting to gasp for breath.
But if you’re truly advocating dirtying up the air again, it seems to me you have to address those concerns all over again. Good luck with that. On another level, I strongly suspect you’re right: “Countries like China which burn more “dirty” coal are in effect helping cool the Earth.” That’s a real concern. It is so in particular because it’s not just the “environmentalists” that are concerned about it, it’s becoming true of a goodly portion of the Chinese population, as well as that of India. They’re getting a little tired of choking to death. So I strongly suspect that the Chinese and Indian governments will soon be more motivated to deal with that problem and probably less so about the GHG problem.
I suppose one could consider that reason to throw up one’s hands and assume the problem is so intractable that no matter what we do here it will have no effect globally. Then again, as you pointed out, what we did here through the 70s and 80s and beyond with respect to cleaning up sulfates and particulates did have an effect. I also suspect that the Chinese and Indian governments are beginning to understand that GHGs are a problem — one that will affect them. But unless there are reasonable alternatives to coal in particular, they are likely to be more willing to deal with the problem in other ways than getting aggressive about reducing their GHG emissions. However, if reasonable alternatives ARE available, why wouldn’t they take advantage of them?
It is, in other words, yet another reason to incentivize the development of clean alternative fuels and/or cheap, efficient methods of carbon sequestration. There could be huge amounts of money in it for whoever gets there first.
55. Ricorun | November 19th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Spook: Any credibility he [Hansen] ever had, IMO, is pretty well shot. McIntyre strikes again.
I disagree. I applaud what McIntyre is doing. And I agree with him that the primary data contributing to climate research should be more open and accessible to more people. But I don’t think Hansen’s credibility is shot. For one thing, you can’t really blame him specifically for the problems they had when they switched software.
Likewise, I find it hard to believe that Mann, et al had nefarious intent when they overstated their “hockey stick” data. They just got it wrong. One could argue that they didn’t check it as thoroughly as they might have because the results they were getting coincided with what they thought. That’s a problem, but it’s understandable. And that’s why science generally insists on reproducibility. But that’s another problem in the case of climate science: the data are so complex, so expensive to generate and analyze, and the players so intermixed that truly independent reproduciblility is nearly impossible. But that doesn’t mean there’s some sort of conspiracy afoot. It does, however, argue for more transparency.
56. Retired Spook | November 19th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Rico,
You’ve GOT to learn how to turn bold off.
My comment of Hansen’s credibility being shot wasn’t predicated solely on his refusal to share data and methods re: the Y2K problem. He’s also received nearly a $million from the Heinz Foundation and a Goerge Soros-backed organization. My biggest problem with Hansen, though, is that he’s such a whiner. He constantly complains that the Bush Administration is trying to silence him, but if you do a little research, you discover that there is probably not a single individual on the alarmist side that has made more public appearances and public statements than James Hansen. When he first came on the GW scene in the late 80’s he had a fairly high degree of credibility. In the last few years, IMO, he’s just gone off the deep end.
57. AAR | November 19th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Ricorun,
It looks like this topic will be moving off the front page of B4V before I can really respond to your comments, but it will give me something for next time — as I’m sure there will be one! That’s one thing I don’t like as well about the “new” format, there aren’t as many topics displayed on the front page of B4V as there were with B4B, and those topics move off the B4V front page and into obscurity much more quickly than they did under B4B.
Forgotten? I haven’t forgotten a potential solution to saving the world from burning up if the Algorians happen to be correct, or worse yet, if they are wrong once again and underestimate the affect of the sun on our future climate!
I don’t have the time right now to double check, but I think most of that smog and lower level pollution was due to various oxides of nitrogen and lower level ozone. Most of the cooling would be from particulate matter (soot, carbon, etc.) and sulfates, the latter producing acid rain with an adverse affect on aquatic systems and forests when excessive.
Perhaps we should have been a little more concerned about cooking the environment then rather than rushing headlong into a cleaning that would be as catastrophic as the Algorians claim! Perhaps we should have more gradually reduced the particulate emissions, as we phased out fissile fuels, and converted to cleaner alternate forms of energy. Why didn’t the environmentalist and their “climate models” catch that little problem before they set the stage to cook the world in their efforts for instantly cleaner air and drive to extinction all of those plants and animals they now claim will perish?!!!
Perhaps rather than tightening the emissions even more as the environmentalists want, we should relax them and aim for a more gradual and longer term phase out, as we phase in alternate forms of energy, and phase down the production of carbon dioxide. Has that all been figured into the Algorian climate models? And what is the plan when the natural global cooling does set the stage for the next Ice Age?
I haven’t changed my position. It remains: “to produce new, plentiful, cheap, renewable, and non-polluting fuels and energy — including nuclear, wind, solar, bio-fuels, hydrogen, etc. — and stop the Democrat’s plan to tax, restrict, tax, control, tax, and lower America’s standard of living!”
I haven’t read or heard anyone else relate the Clean Air Act and reduction of pollution with the increasing temperatures of Global Warming… which some have said caused (worsened) those California fires (stoked by brush which courts have blocked cutting and removal at the demand of more environmentalist), have you?
Should we thank the environmentalists for the cleaner air in which we will all cook and burn thanks in part to their efforts (facetiously speaking)?!!!
AAR
58. Almiranta | November 19th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
As usual, Spook and AAR and Rico and neocon have contributed fact and reason to the argument, while phnx has pointed out the same observation I have often made—that Man-Made Global Warming is a belief system far more than a scientific fact.
I am taking a little time out of what has just turned into an even busier day than I had anticipated, so I don’t have the time to do research. But I have some questions.
Rico, you asked for proof that we have had hotter climates in our past. I don’t know if climate changes are balanced out over the earth, so when one area gets colder another gets hotter and vice versa, but as I sit here at 9500 feet above sea level, looking out at the snow-capped peaks, I also know that at one time this same area was either under an ocean or sea or forested with what we would now call tropical plants. A couple of hundred miles west of me is an area of amazing discoveries of dinosaur fossils, remains of animals which flourished in a much hotter and more humid climate than now exists in that area.
Don’t fossils “prove” different temperatures? Indirectly, perhaps, but still by showing plant life that could only flourish in certain conditions don’t we show that those conditions existed?
Another complaint about the GW evangelicals—they steadfastly ignore the many, varied, and energetic efforts to find and implement alternative forms of energy.
Everyone has heard of ethanol, but no one here has seemed to care enough about the GW “crisis” to learn about what other activities are moving forward.
First off, are the same “environmentalists” who are so frantic about global warming ready to lift their objections to the mining of silica, thereby making solar collectors more cost-efficient and therefore more accessible?
Are you ready to take your psuedo-Lib “leaders” to task for trying to ban wind farms in areas THEY want to “protect”? Why do you tolerate and even revere NIMBYs like Kennedy who talk the talk but refust to walk the walk, refusing to allow a wind farm to be set up far offshore but in a favored yachting area? Why do you support those who blocked the erection of a wind farm because “envirnomentalists” claimed it was too close to a wilderness area.
Can’t put wind farms where people can see them, can’t put them out in the ocean, can’t put them in wilderness areas where, by definition, very few people ever go—just where WILL you hysterics allow the establishment of clean alternative energy sources like wind farms?
Why do you GW hysterics ignore the advances in other bio fuels? Done any reading lately on algae farms and their contributions to biodiesel and ethanol production? How about lobbying to allow the planting of genetically engineered hemp, which produces vast amounts of oil which can be used to make biodiesel as well as fabrics and rope?
Are you actually DOING anything, or just whining and throwing out accusations? We all know the answer to that question. You are not doing anything, will not do anything, because you are what you are due to your innate inability to DO anything or be FOR anyting.
Doers have to take responsibility for what they do. But the radical Left has taken their positions because they allow them to sit by and do nothing, yet feel morally and intellectually superior because they can attack everything DONE by anyone else.
Speed bumps is all they are. There will be no answers to any serious questions because posting an answer would mean taking a position, and if you are an ANTI you don’t take positions, you just sit back and wait till one comes by and run out to try to run a stick through its spokes, and thereby feel you have done something.
59. Ricorun | November 19th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Spook: You’ve GOT to learn how to turn bold off.
Tell me about it. I guess it’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Lol!
AAR: That’s one thing I don’t like as well about the “new” format, there aren’t as many topics displayed on the front page of B4V as there were with B4B, and those topics move off the B4V front page and into obscurity much more quickly than they did under B4B.
I agree. But as far as your other point is concerned…
Perhaps we should have more gradually reduced the particulate emissions, as we phased out fissile fuels, and converted to cleaner alternate forms of energy. Why didn’t the environmentalist and their “climate models” catch that little problem before they set the stage to cook the world in their efforts for instantly cleaner air and drive to extinction all of those plants and animals they now claim will perish?!!!
I would say it’s because no one had a good handle on the true magnitude and extent of the problem. But that’s not exactly a unique experience. Rather, it happens all the time. Aspirin was the miracle drug for inflamation, until it became obvious that in certain situations it could promote strokes and stuff. Antibiotics revolutionized the fight against infectious diseases, until it became apparent that bacteria could adapt. There are myriad similar examples, and not just in science. Civil rights legislation revolutionized the experience of black people in this country. At the time those laws were enacted they encountered a lot of resistance. But it’s hard to find anyone these days suggest that the effects were not positive. Now there’s an issue about affirmative action, which I think is legitimate because the ways the laws are enacted do tend to compartmentalize people. However, it’s nice to know that the situation has changed so much as to expose that limitation. One could argue that NCLB is also reaching the point where its own limitations are becoming exposed.
So what are you going to do — throw up your hands and say it’s all impossible because we can’t know everything at any given time? Or do you want to keep trying, keep tweaking how you react to things as you improve your information set? I’d prefer to do the latter.
Granted, some policies are crappy to begin with, even considering the conditions extant at the time. Others, however, become crappy only as the situation changes — often as a result of the improvements the policies themselves provoked. To me the law of unintended consequences is not some sort of static condition, but rather an on-going concern.
I haven’t read or heard anyone else relate the Clean Air Act and reduction of pollution with the increasing temperatures of Global Warming… have you?
Actually, I’ve mentioned it at least a couple of times here. And I’m sure I’ve mentioned it to Spook in private emails as well. But apart from me, of course it’s been mentioned. Check out this chart. Pay particular attention to the sulfate curve relative to the GHG curve. To convince yourself it’s not exactly a new concept, you might also want to read this. Also, Wikipedia has a rather good discussion about what was and what was not known at the time. Pay special attention to the Rasool and Schneider article that appeared in Science in July 1971.
Spook: He’s also received nearly a $million from the Heinz Foundation and a Goerge Soros-backed organization.
I defy you to prove that charge. Seriously, to the extent that you try — and to the extent that you keep an open mind in the process — I think you’ll end up feeling like you’ve been punked. I certainly did. Hansen himself calls it swiftboating. His response alone isn’t likely to convince you of that. And it shouldn’t. But go ahead and check it out.
60. SteaM | November 19th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
You guys are awesome!
I’ve never read so many people talking so much crap that is uninformed, confused, head-in-the-sand, anti-science, anti-reality, and pro-bill Oil companies and the politicians they buy off.
OK
• The IPCC is an intergovernmental panel with scientists that are appointed by all of the governments of the United Nations to study the climate change. They are the scientists. When we have questions about science who can we listen to if not scientists?
• Almost all sceptisim can be traced back to being funded by OIL and COAL companies and others who stand to profit from people’s consumption of fossil fuels.
• We cannot just drill for more oil in the united states. If it were easy and affordable to find and there was lots of it then the major US oil companies would be all over it. If there’s a small amount in a protected envoriment like Alaska then I agree that it should stay protected and not be the site of nasty oil drilling.
• Our climate has been controlled by a natural balanced cycle. As far as we know. We’ve have warming and cooling. We’ve had high amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmospere before and this is known because we can examine (”we” as in those big bad scary evil scientists) ice cores from the arctic that tell us the climate makeup going back a coupole hundred thousand years ago. This by itself shows that yes we have cooling and warming and yes we have had high amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmposhere but we have never in that amount of time had the amount we have now. This has been no doubt the fault of humans.
• It is NOT true that science is telling us that this climate change will cause only warming. It can cause many different climate effects. Drastic changes in weather with just a few days. Here in Missouri we can get 70 degrees like it is today in mid-november and have single digits with 16 inches of snow next week. This is not what has been normal. It’s not that this stuff wasn’t possible before but it’s that it happens much more frequent, is harder to predict, and everything is more intense. Droughts, floods, bigger tornadoes, and bigger hurricanes.
• Bigger tornados and bigger hurricanes DOES NOT mean MORE. Bigger means more fierce, more deaths, more damage. No credible climate change scientist is saying that it means more storms. Just that they will be increasingly bigger.
• If people keep saying that scientists used to say at one point that we were heading for an ice age I’m going to scream. Let that dog lie, let it go, they had old technology, it’s not the same as what we have now. Get over it. And hell, lets just say they were wrong. Whatever… point is it’s not related to this and does not discredit the scientists who are working now with 2007 technology and way better computers.
• AND YES we should care about this and do something. What should we do? Just stop burning fossil fuels. Does that seem hard? Yes. But it’s the only thing to do. You guys for the most part are confusing the issue, each other, your family, your friends, your children and their children. Buying right into the industries plan to create confusion.
61. Ricorun | November 19th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Almiranta: Rico, you asked for proof that we have had hotter climates in our past.
I wouldn’t put it quite so simply. I want to know the chronology too. To say “it was hotter in the past” doesn’t help much if you don’t say exactly when, and what is the source of your data. Without that it’s hard to speculate whether you’re likely to be wrong about the source, wrong about the data, or wrong about the time-frame. With caveat in mind, let us proceed…
I don’t know if climate changes are balanced out over the earth, so when one area gets colder another gets hotter and vice versa, but as I sit here at 9500 feet above sea level, looking out at the snow-capped peaks, I also know that at one time this same area was either under an ocean or sea or forested with what we would now call tropical plants. A couple of hundred miles west of me is an area of amazing discoveries of dinosaur fossils, remains of animals which flourished in a much hotter and more humid climate than now exists in that area.
Don’t fossils “prove” different temperatures? Indirectly, perhaps, but still by showing plant life that could only flourish in certain conditions don’t we show that those conditions existed?
In the broadest sense, yes. But then you have to ask yourself why. And the answer is rarely easy. There are seashell fossils at the peaks of the Himilayas. Does that mean the peaks of the Himilayas were once under water? Well yeah, in a sense. But that doesn’t mean the oceans were once so high that they submerged the peaks of the Himilayas. Rather, a more parsimonious explanation is to suggest that the peaks of the Himilayas were once much lower in altitude. The evidence is pretty clear that the Indian subcontinent is still actively crashing into the Asian land mass. What is now on top of the Himilayas was once sea shore property. And it wasn’t all that long ago, geologically speaking. Likewise, the Sierras here in California are relatively new. But the interaction between the North American and the Pacific plates are are more of a slip-strike encounter, where they are mostly sliding against each other, as opposed to an immovable object meets another immovable object kind of affair, as is largely the case for the Himilayas.
I don’t know where you are exactly Almiranta. Colorado? Anyway, there are likely to be a number of contributing factors over the last couple of hundred million years. First is the fact that there was, and still is, a rather sizeable magma plume below the area centered around Yellowstone park. Second is the fact that major portions of the western North American plate has been uplifted over the last 100 million years or so, causing the shallow sea that covered most of the plains states to drain. That had nothing to do with global temperatures per se, although the dynamics involved might. Third is the fact that global temperatures really were quite a bit warmer a hundred million years ago than they are now — or have been for at least a million years. The question is why? That’s really hard to say. But as the data improve it seems to me that it is becoming more and more obvious that the whole global system has stabilized for long periods of time with distributions of various atmospheric gas concentrations and concommitant global temperatures far different than they are today, punctuated by fairly rapid transitions between “equilibrium” states. That to me suggests a chaotic system. I guess it goes without saying it is, but I’m not much of an expert on chaotic systems. All I can say at this point is that if that’s the case, then it’s important to know what the phase space is, how stable it is, and what is likely to trigger a significant reorganization.
62. neocon | November 19th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
SteaM,
You’re awesome. You have boughten the AGW scam hook, line, and sinker.
How easy it is to control the masses when the masses are people like SteaM.
63. AAR | November 19th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Ricorun,
I only had time to quickly scan the links you provided, but I didn’t see where they specifically tied the Clean Air Act and related reductions to increased Global Warming. Perhaps I skipped over it.
I saw the graphs showing the decline in sulfate and aerosol, but they did not specifically talk about the Clean Air Act, and the discussions about particulate matter seemed directed more at aerosols and not soot, carbon, and other particles — or a combined chart. As some scientists have said, a little soot and carbon may be a good thing! And the effects are reversible — they settle out if not continually renewed.
The “Climate Change Attribution” chart showed the carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases) rising after the temperature rise, and not the reverse; although, I realize, that was only one small chart. Looking only at that chart, and considering that a temperature rise precedes a rise in carbon dioxide, we might expect carbon dioxide to level off for the next 30 years or so and then begin to rise again.
What are we going to do? Produce cheap, plentiful, renewable, non-polluting energy, and drill for more of our own oil which we will need in the interim — not raise taxes and impose the Liberal’s restrictions on our lifestyle! Perhaps we don’t need to be rushing quite so fast to remove every bit of pollution from the air right when we may need it to cool the planet! Perhaps we should slowly phase out, even increase some production, rather than shoot for the instant gratification environmentalists want! Most of the environmentalists are just as fanatical as PETA-philes — they care more for their own “pet” objective than for humans!
What are we going to do when the solar cycle changes, and we find out we are in a period of global cooling instead — headed for the next Ice Age — right as we are trying to cool the Earth ourselves?!!!
AAR
64. SteaM | November 20th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Neocon, the united states is out of oil. What should we do about it?
Oh, right, go over to the middle east and take over their oil fields. Muslims won’t mind at all, will they?
65. SteaM | November 20th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
From the NYT:
Scientists said today that they created what appear to be
embryonic stem cells without having to make or destroy an embryo.
This is great news! You know why? Because it’s SCIENCE working for the good of man. And it may overcome some of the religous fears of this type of research. I’m all for that if it means improvements in the science of medicine.
Now, will all of you climate change science skeptics feel the same way as these scientists?
66. Schoolgirl Spanking Schoo&hellip | January 16th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Schoolgirl Spanking Schoolgirls Schoolgirl Pussy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
67. Jack&hellip | February 4th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Jack
I don’t mean to be too in your face, but I’m not sure I agree with this. Anyhow, thanks for sharing and I think I’ll write a post on this on my blog soon.
68. Eric&hellip | February 9th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Eric
Cool post. 100% great content everytime. Thanks for sharing.
69. Accounting Financial Fina&hellip | March 4th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Accounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
70. Doloris&hellip | March 6th, 2008 at 4:10 am
Doloris
This is similar to comment spam but avoids some of the safeguards designed to stop the latter practice. This enables authors to keep
71. Gale | May 17th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Global Warming? I remember when it was the global cooling scare, then global warming and now it is climate change. I have also spent thirty years watching American industry and jobs leave this Nation. I have watched our freedom and rights disappearing and I have seen the media destroy an industry with flat out lies. The propaganda closed 5 plants in one state alone.
I find it interesting that both the democrats and republicans support this long running hoax.
In 1801 William Herschel correlated climate change with sunspot activity. A century later E.W. Maunder pointed out a period of very low sunspot activity between 1620 and 1720 known as the Maunder minimum or the little ice age.
Hypothesis #1: Politicians lie.
Hypothesis #2: Scientists are human.
Hypothesis #3: Some scientists will do what is needed to get funding or for other reasons. (Soviet scientist and acquired characteristics are inherited.)
Hypothesis #4 A scientist in 1801 had no reason to lie about climate change.
The evidence supports Herschel told the truth.
If you want the really long winded analysis try Jay Draiman said… at
http://corporatepresenter.blogspot.com/2007/12/climate-change-lies.html
If you want to know WHY (who benefits?)try the very well documented “KOOK???” site
The information in this site dovetails with the facts I actually witnessed independently. It explains all those facts that have been bothering me for years.
www.nwowatcher.com/ebooks/Global%20Tyranny%20Step%20By%20Step%20-%20By%20William%20F%20Jasper.pdf
Leave a Comment
Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed