According to a recent report:
“Rings in fossilized pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought – and the earth has been slowly COOLING for 2,000 years.”
These findings will not set well with the ruling elite here and abroad as they are currently trying to extract money from carbon emitting countries to redistribute to other less fortunate countries. That of course is assuming money would even make it to those less fortunate countries, considering that historically, that money only serves to line the pockets of elite UN members and Despots.
Let’s continue down the path toward greener, more sustainable energy, but let’s also end this charade of AGW. It’s a complete racket that is only enriching a handful of people, can you say Al Gore, and doing nothing to actually help us transition to another energy platform.
Blogs For Victory 
But, but, but – the weather is hot this year! Don’t you see? Gore was right! Now, the fact that Britain is having a miserably cold, wet summer is just weather…but hot temperatures in the United States that is global warming!
Actually, what it proves is that England was cooler 2000 years ago, not the entire world.
Highly unlikely that England would undergo, on its own, a major climate shift while the rest of the world didn’t.
Mark,
“Highly unlikely that England would undergo, on its own, a major climate shift while the rest of the world didn’t.”
Didn’t you just point out that Britain is going through a cold wet summer while we are roasting here in the states. If you study history you will find there are numerous examples of climate changing in one area and not the entire world.
While there are obvious variations in weather, to that just the British Isles would have a warm up over a several decade period (as opposed to just having a cold summer while north America has a hot one) while the rest of the planet cooled or stays the same strains credibility past the breaking point. The world climate does tend to go in unison…I just doubt very much that the tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere which is human-produced is the primary – or even a major – factor in whether or not the temperatures, globally, would rise. We might well be in a long-term warming period (though there is some evidence that we’re in a very long-term cooling period and the slight warmup in the last third of the 20th century is the anomaly) – the evidence is not sufficient to make a judgment (we’ve only had the ability to consistently measure global temperatures for a bit more than ten years…tellingly, these measurements detect no warming). I’m someone who follows the long-standing, Catholic traditions about the scientific method (it was, after all, largely invented by devout Catholics…some of whom were actual priests)…I make no definitive statement unless the scientific evidence is there.
Look up Younger Dryas for the likelihood of regional major climate shifts.
“I just doubt very much that the tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere which is human-produced is the primary – or even a major – factor in whether or not the temperatures, globally, would rise.”
Algores’s “hockey stick” graph shows that increases in CO2 occur 800 YEARS AFTER increases in temperature.
Uh, proggy drones, if CO2 cause “climate change” or “global warming” or whatever new catch-phrase is being used, shouldn’t that observation be the other way around?
creepy assclown, look up the “god-father of global warming, the man who started it all, Lovelock’s recent comments:
“IT’S NOW CLEAR THE DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS, INCLUDING HIS OWN WERE INCORRECT.”
Other observations by Lovelock:
(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.
(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion (like you have).
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines. (obAMATEUR’s “green energy” plan is a joke!!!! -which we knew all along).
(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that YOU CAN NEVER BE CERTAIN ABOUT ANYTHING. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel
Does “iterate towards the truth” include the hoaxes that emails have revealed from the “scientists”? Or “erroneous” climate models that have been revealed to include assumptions and fudge factors to give the results wanted? Or temperature stations that are purposefully set up in hot spots throughout the globe?
I have posted this several times but you proggy drones ignore it without comment.
Here is a question that you proggy drones have never been able to answer:
“What is the NORMAL temperature of this planet?” With that in mind: Are we above it and rising? Are we below it and rising?
Remember this little point, the EARTH is over 4 BILLION YEARS OLD. We have hard temperature data for only the last 100 years.
Britain is having a wet summer, so what else is new?
I would not shrug off the fact that the USA is baking, the corn is burning up and there goes the price of my corn flakes. I shake my head at the mule like stubborness of you lot at ignoring the obvious warming climate change which for the USA means the drying up of your valuable farm lands. Eventually you will see the light. Within 5 years you will have to eat crow and admit you were so wrong. I am patient guy, I can wait to rub your noses into it and say “I told you so”
Canuck – it was warmer 2,000 years ago than it is today. This proves conclusively that if we are warming (and there has been no detected increase in global temperatures over the past 10 years) now then it is highly unlikely that human-produced CO2 is the culprit.
At any rate, Gore said in 2006 that we only had ten years left – so, if by 2016 we don’t have utter catastrophe then I’ll be the one saying, “I told you so”. So there.
Does it just not matter that the article Cluster claims disproves AGW says “German researchers used data from tree rings – a key indicator of past climate – to claim the world has been on a ‘long-term cooling trend’ for two millennia until the global warming of the twentieth century.“?
The mind boggles.
“The mind boggles.”
For you….
But then again, you could be entertained for hours by a piece of paper that says “Turn over” on both sides, thinking at some point the words will change.
Again creepy assclown, what is the NORMAL temperature of this Earth? And Lovelock, the God-father of Global Warming has denounced his doom and gloom predictions.
Ok Mark, you are on, I am saving your reply in my file.
Canuck,
But you won’t be able to say “I told you so” if Gore was right as we’ll all be dead in 2016 – your “told you so date” is July 11th, 2017…
Yeah, parts of the US are baking. That happens sometimes.
And then it doesn’t.
kanuck*ay
1. T-Rex……….western USA
2. Glaciers…….western USA
3. Temperate…western USA
I can wait to rub your noses into it and say “I told you so”
yeah, Moron do tell us…..
Kansas wheat havrest averaged 40 some odd bushels per acre with 99% harvested this year. That 10+ bushel better than than the average over the last few harvests. Save money; eat frosted Mini-Wheats.
@Mark
“utter catastrophe “&” we’ll all be dead in 2016-”
Let’s settle for “catastrophe” and we don’t have to be dead. Save that for an big assed asteroid.
Damn it is hot out. It has never been this hot before. You denying wingnuts make me sick. We need to spend/redistribute hundreds of trillions of dollars to make sure it never gets this hot again.
Since you started this thread with an article from an English paper, I will include this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/10/extreme-weather-manmade-climate-change
For the “first time” they are saying that severe weather is caused by man-made climate change? ROFL…they’ve been attributing severe weather to climate change for 20 years.
I can remember when I was in school ( and I’m not going to say exactly how long ago since I am female) that they were predicting we were heading for another ice age. Can’t remember if they were blaming humans for that one. I was young I just remember how much it scared me.
I was young I just remember how much it scared me.
Sue,
Too cold is much scarier than too hot, and this planet has been cold for longer periods than it’s been hot. Too cold results in waaaaaaay more deaths than too hot. Too cold results in waaaaaay lower crop yields than too hot. Periods of global prosperity have corresponded with warm periods, not cold periods.
BTW, you and I must be about the same age. I can not only recall warnings of another ice age, but can actually recall the super-cold winters of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. The one day my car didn’t start was in January of my senior year in high school (1963) when the temperature was around -18.
Retired,
The 50’s were a little before my time. But I do remember some of those hard winters. The worst was listening to the reports and experts talking about the end of life as we know it, people starving to death,etc.. Pretty much the same stuff we are hearing today. Some things we just don’t have any control over. I guess that’s hard for some people to accept. All of this stuff comes in cycles. Right now the sun is shooting off solar flares when that calms down the temperatures will come down. We can’t control that. It just is what it is. Getting all freaked out and running around like chickens with out heads cut off isn’t going to change a thing.
“…The one day my car didn’t start was in January of my senior year in high school (1963) when the temperature was around -18.”
Not so scary to someone who’s been living in places where the nighttime temps drop to -40 nearly every night in January and at night for nearly three months a couple of years ago. 🙂
catspuke
BS for suckers….next?
As long as my state considers hydroelectric power as non-sustainable and non-green, I don’t want to even consider being on the path towards greener and more sustainable energy.
The people in charge of making environmental regulations are so irrationally bent, it would be the equivalent of putting psychopathic serial killers in charge of making military decisions, or vegans in charge of the school lunch program.
Which is worse: buying an Apple computer and putting cash into Al Gore’s pocket, buying a Windows computer and putting cash into Melinda Gate’s contraception fund, or adopting anti-capitalist Linux open source computers to post angry conservative flames on this blog?
I thought putting bobby mugabe in charge of world wide tourism is about the worse thing that could be done.
I stand corrected.
I think putting noted human rights abusers like saudi arabia and iran on the unhrc is much worse than using windows or osx.
Thats just me though. Tell me bozo, do you plan on making using those operating systems a crime? I only ask becuase I need to know if I should add it to my list.
Thanks.
Thats just me though. Tell me bozo, do you plan on making using those operating systems a crime?
GMB, kind of a scary thought ever letting the Bozos of this world get complete control of the levers of power, isn’t it? No telling what they’d make a crime.
Kind of an interesting note on this whole issue: a number of the record highs we’ve seen in our area this year have broken records that had held since early in the 20th century, so hot summers in the Great Lakes region aren’t exactly a recent phenomenon. A couple weeks ago we hit 106, breaking the old record for the date of 102 set back in the mid 30’s, and tying our all-time record high of 106 set back in the summer of 1988. Many of you will undoubtedly remember that that was the summer that NASA’s James Hansen testified before the Senate, publicly kicking off the global warming controversy that, up to then, had largely been confined to scientific circles. The Warmers were no less dishonest then than they are now.
Almost everything that supports the man-made warming/climate change view since Hansen’s testimony has either been rigged, obfuscated, or outright lied about. The true marvel is that they’ve managed to keep the ball in the air for 24 years and still have believers. It’s pretty obvious, though, that the vast majority of believers fall into one of two categories: those like Casper and Bozo who have just been suckered into latching onto something that sounds noble, and those who see the issue as a means to an end; ie. political and economic power. H.L. Mencken said it best: “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
One of my favorite quotes on this topic is from Blogs for Bush in one of our early global warming discussions:
As usual, Dave attacks but provides no information of his own.
Dave is an attacker but not a contributor.
One of the funniest captions I have ever seen, but an accurate portrayal of what appeals to Dave. Under a photo of Charles Koch:
“The billionaire Charles Koch, a key financier of the Heartland Institute, which works to undermine the established science on climate change..”
Even the caption is a lie, since NO ONE “…works to undermine the established science on climate change..” What a stupid and dishonest statement.
First, there IS no “established science on climate change” but only a clutter of opinions, and second, if it is really science it can’t be “undermined”.
This is like saying someone is trying to “undermine” gravity.
But this is the kind of toxic nonsense that the RRL and PLs like Dave feed on, and it was nice of him to finally link us to an example of what passes for information in his world.
“The billionaire Charles Koch, a key financier of the Heartland Institute, which works to undermine the established science on climate change..”
What’s really funny about this statement is that Heartland operates on a budget of around $4 million a year, which amounts to a rounding error compared to the amount of money raised and spent by Leftist climate alarmist and radical environmental organizations — just 2% of the combined annual budgets of just The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council to name a couple.
Too bad little davey, the Godfather of Global Warming Lovelock denies both the predictions and the “science”.
It is not surprising that a man who was once praised by the left is now ignored!
Good point, Spook…if the tiny sums being used by the “deniers” are that effective then we must presume that the “warmists” are just inept morons.
And, yes, they are.
We just have to except that with the modern communist/progressive movement that the sky is always going to be falling. We will just keep going from one crisis to another. One war on this or that to another. It will never change.
The central theme is always unfairness of some sort. Give us your money now darnit!!!
The central theme is always unfairness of some sort.
And more and more people are finally wising up to that tactic. It must really suck to be a Leftist and have an ever-increasing number of people realize that you’re a liar. And the fact that the Left has a virtual monopoly on our educational systems, particularly higher education, says a lot about the inherent nature of the human spirit — that the desire for freedom and prosperity trumps learned ideology.
Koch brothers…..Busssshhhhhh.
yet NO mention of Soros….sooooo typical
sooooo pathetic.
such Morons
I live in Colorado and until recently lived in the mountains of Colorado. Every day I drove past 9 miles of dead trees, reaching to the horizon on either side of the road, and sometimes took a back road to another town which led through 40 miles of desolation and destruction, through hundreds of thousands of acres of dead pine trees.
For three years I lived in the mountains of Wyoming, adjacent to National Forest Service land ravaged by pine bark beetles and much of it looking like a surreal landscape of mile after mile of skeletal dead trees. I granted the local Forest Service office an easement through my ranch so they could put up stands of dead trees for bid by loggers, but they had no takers as the trees had been dead for so long they had little value. They finally took the only bid they got, which was far lower than any bid would have been when the trees were still alive but dying, when thinning out the dying trees would have reduced the ability of the beetle to spread so easily and which would have made more light and water available to the remaining trees so they could have been stronger and better able to fight the predators.
I now live a few miles from the mountains but have spent the last few weeks in view of several smoke plumes from various mountain fires, and having so much smoke in my home, particularly at night, it has been hard to breathe. I have had a family living with me, four people and four dogs, who got burned out in the Colorado Springs fire, and other friends in the city lost everything. It is like a war zone. Their house survived, but the view from their daughter’s window is that of scorched brick pillars in front of a pile of rubble and ash, all that remains of the house of her best friend, and a gaping hole where the garage door used to be, with the skeletal remains of a car. These are not mountain cabins but in a lovely suburban neighborhood of curving streets and family homes, schools and churches. The fire swept out of the mountains and into the second largest city in Colorado.
In other words, this is very personal to me. I don’t read about these things: They are a part of my life. This is the potential tragedy that loomed over me when I lived next to thousands of acres of beetle kill, this is the real tragedy that has hit friends and killed people in my world.
And I am enraged and outraged at the claims of the ignorant who blame this all on the fantasy of GLOBAL WARMING when it should be more accurately laid at the feet of the pseudo-environmentalists who have fought so hard to overcome the original intent of the National Forest System, to prevent the forests from being used as they were intended to be used, to prevent even the most basic approaches to pragmatic forest management.
I am also outraged at politicians who evidently can’t be bothered to even find out the actual purpose of the National Forests, and who enact laws that circumvent those intentions.
• Organic Administration Act of 1897 – authorizes the President to modify or revoke any instrument creating a National Forest; states that no National Forest may be established except to improve and protect the forest within its boundaries, for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States. Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate rules and regulations to regulate the use and occupancy of the National Forests.
Note that the National Forests are under the control of the Secretary of AGRICULTURE . There is a reason for this. The Forests are for two main purposes: to protect watersheds and to provide “a continuous supply of timber for the use …….of citizens..”
To accomplish the stated goals of the National Forest System, roads are necessary. To protect both watersheds and timber sources, there have to be trees, which means managing the forests to mitigate fire danger and keep them as healthy as possible so they are noy destroyed by parasites like the pine bark beetle.
The actions of the United States government have been to not only disregard the original intent of the Organic Administration Act but to thwart it, with the end result of unhealthy forests, millions of acres of dead and dying trees, no roads to make management or firefighting possible, and the destruction of a valuable natural resource.
Our intent regarding the National Forests was not just stated in 1897 —it was restated to some degree in the The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 , which “…establishes the policy and purpose of the National Forests to provide for multiple-use and sustained yield of products and services.”
I suggest reading http://colorado.mediatrackers.org/2012/07/11/clinton-era-environmental-rules-increased-wildfire-risks-in-colorado/ which states, in part:
Environmental regulations restricting the construction of forest access roads have limited the ability of the Forest Service to clear combustible brush and trees, adding dangerous fuel to the wildfires that have ravaged Colorado this summer. The so-called “roadless rule,” which was first implemented in 2001 by President Clinton shortly before he left office, restricts and in many cases prohibits local and federal officials from building and maintaining roads that allow firefighters to clear out growth that could instantly become tinder for a new fire.
In addition to this, there has been vehement opposition to logging in the National Forests. Well, the only way to convert trees to timber, which is a stated use of the forests and a primary reason for setting aside a National Forest system, is to cut them down.
The entire purpose of the National Forest system has been distorted, subverted and ultimately revised into something not only unintended but in direct opposition not only to the purpose but to the benefit of American citizens.
And now that these efforts have resulted in the destruction of property and life and dumped millions of tons of pollution into the air and created situations which are already leading to mud slides and which will inevitably lead to stream pollution and fish kills, the same mentality that created the problem is trying to use it to further another of their destructive causes, which is the limiting of human activity due to the fantasy that it is causing man-made global warming.
A few years ago most of the conservatives denied that it was getting warmer, now most say it is but deny the cause. Conservatives are always behind the curve on science that is the way conservatism works.
Personally here, I am looking forward to the coming warm period if it ever happens. I have dibs on some prime acreage in Greenland that used to be farm-able.
For some reason the weather turned too cold to farm there.
Damn that global cooling anyway.
GMB
I have dibs on some prime acreage in Greenland that used to be farm-able. (warm actually……)
Me too,
now why are A/C equipment sales down all across the country?
Neo, maybe because we have barky in charge and a compliant GOP leadership that can’t seem to tell him NO!
Just my guess. I am probably wrong and I don’t want to stir up any trouble here.
Shabat Sholom. 🙂 In a couple of hours that is of course.
Stumpy,
You must have gotten that from another Conservative site. From the very first discussion here about global warming, I can’t recall any conservative denying that the planet had warmed about a degree since the end of the Little Ice Age. So which is it — are you a liar or just ignorant?
spook
are you a liar or just ignorant?
wellllllll it is bloodystumpy, so I conclude both with a bushel of stupid mixed in.
STILL RELEVANT…….
and THIS
Liar and ignorant; not mutually exclusive.
stumpy, 35 years ago, the same environmental alarmists were claiming we were headed for an ice age!!!
It was in Time magazine. By your own standards, how far behind the curve were they? How could they have so easily changed their minds? It seems the science is not that settled. And the Godfather of Global Warming has stated that as well. He has denounced the doom and gloom predictions as well as denouncing the science as “settled”.
The earth is always either heating up or cooling down; it has been for the entire 6,000 years it’s been around. /sarc
tiredoflibbs: stumpy, 35 years ago, the same environmental alarmists were claiming we were headed for an ice age!!!
It was in Time magazine.
OMG, Time magazine!!?? Wow! I guess that statement begs the question, do you regard everything in Time magazine as the ultimate truth?
“By your own standards, how far behind the curve were they? How could they have so easily changed their minds?”
That’s easy… with a few notable exceptions, those who were “behind the curve” changed their minds because of additional evidence. And that is the very definition of pragmatism — one is required to change one’s belief when new evidence makes one’s previous position untenable. And again I say that the pragmatist position stands in stark contrast to that of the ideological position, which requires one to reinterpret the facts in order to put them in line with one’s beliefs. After all, if orbital forcings WERE the only variable of interest (as the present study suggests), we really should be (albeit very slowly, over many millenia) entering into another ice age.
And I also appreciate The Counter’s snarky comment, “The earth is always either heating up or cooling down; it has been for the entire 6,000 years it’s been around.” I suspect he expected it to go under the radar, so he wouldn’t have to answer to those who actually think the world is only 6,000 or so years old. I don’t believe he believes that — or anything close. But if he does, he should now acknowledge it. And if he doesn’t he should now acknowledge the ramifications of that, too.
Rico, rico, we’re not talking about an adjustment of conclusion. We are talking about a complete 180 degree shift in thinking and conclusions. Plus TIME magazine just reported it, they were not the SOURCE (but a hiking magazine was the source of “melting glaciers” in one area as the email leak revealed) of the “evidence” of the coming ice ages. Sheesh.
First, it was doom and gloom that we were headed for an ice age. Nobody was listening. Then it was a warming catastrophe!!! People started to pay attention and it snow-balled from there.
“Evidence” as you put it has been revealed to be WRONG or EXAGGERATED. Computer models used by the IPCC were shown to be erroneous. LOOK IT UP. Weather stations or temperature reading stations were shown to be set up incorrectly near hot-spots (roofs of high rises, near artificial sources of heat, near objects that retained heat longer, etc. etc).
That “new thinking” people and governments paid attention (and were opening their pocketbooks). As I said, the science was not settled before – they were so sure with their doom and gloom scenarios of coming ice ages.
Now, the Godfather of Global Warming Lovelock has denounced the present day doom and gloom conclusions and denounced that the science is “settled” on the matter. They were wrong in the 70s and they are wrong now.
rico, while you are immersed in self-congratulatory preening over your rejection of ideology in favor of praaaaagmaaaatism, you persist in using the word indiscriminately.
Sure, ideology in science is a bad thing. In science, we have to go where the science takes us, and not be guided by predetermined beliefs.
But in politics, in determining how best to govern the nation, ideology is essential. Good government is steady, is consistent, is based on solid principles of how best to run a nation. If government is subject to whims of fancy, to the newest ideas to come down the pike, to the vagaries of personality and emotional reactions to scandals and events, then government is erratic.
And I suggest that the very definition of pragmatic lies in the objective evaluation of the two basic forms of government available to us, big central government or limited central government with power kept at more local levels, and examination of the success of each when applied over time.
Having no political compass and veering this way and that depending on who has the most compelling argument at the time, or the best personality, or the biggest scandal, is the opposite of pragmatism.
I’ve taken vacations like that—–no plan, just heading out and turning own whichever road looks the most interesting. But I would not build a house without a blueprint. ( Parents of a friend did, and it was fascinating to watch. “Dale, let’s put a room over there.” “Irene, we forgot to put a door in that wall.” They built it as the ideas came to them, and they had a lovely time, puttering around in their retirement years. But their house was a mess.)
Governing a nation without a blueprint is a guarantee of disaster. And what you fail to understand is that both sides DO have a blueprint. It’s just that one side presents it, asks you to examine it, and then asks you to follow it, while the other pretends that there isn’t one for its agendas and then leads you by the nose, laying out the bait of this attractive-sounding idea and that alluring promise, while reminding you not to even take a look at the other side because it is so evil and malignant that knowledge of it is dangerous.
And those who follow the breadcrumbs laid out for them seem to take pride in doing so, announcing that actually knowing what one wants to accomplish and having a plan to get it done is less intellectual than making decisions on the fly, based on what is fed to them at the moment.
I don’t think anyone denied the warm up – what has been denied is that man-made CO2 is the primary or major culprit in any of the detected warming. Remember, the thing about global warming is not the temperature but what causes it…if its caused by water vapor or sun spots or cosmic rays of the “wobbling” of Earth’s orbit then there’s nothing to be done about it…no need for regulations, no need for taxes, no need to force people to live differently. If, however, it is cause by human action, then you’ve got your excuse to arrogate all sorts of power and wealth to a tiny elite.
Why you on the left can’t see the scam in this I’ll never know…
No one is denying the warm up, well, except Cluster when she claims the earth has been cooling for 2000 years – period.
I know it’s tough to believe floods along the coast and droughts across the mainland could BOTH be climate change related – I mean, floods – lots of water – droughts – not enough water – which is it? Too much water? Too little water? More hot? More cold? You lefties are crazy.
The problem with lefties is that they see more than the cartoon version of significant events like this. There is rarely one cause for anything this big. AGW can be simplistically interpreted as meaning ONLY human events are the cause. But even if warming is sun spots or orbit wobble, I don’t see how you can ignore the “turbot” effect that carbon-energy-based civilization would have on an otherwise naturally changing environment. If the planet is warming due to natural causes, why would you exacerbate the problem? It took millions of years to sequester enough carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to the balance point so friendly to human civilization. It’s taking just decades to pour billions of tons back into the air.
How it’s possible for you on the right to think this would have virtually no effect I’ll never know…
Hmmmm. Where to start….
” But even if warming is sun spots or orbit wobble, I don’t see how you can ignore the “turbot” effect that carbon-energy-based civilization would have on an otherwise naturally changing environment. ”
This will do. Perhaps the freakzo can explain the “turbot effect” and how it differs from the halibut reaction. Inquiring minds really want to know.
“If the planet is warming due to natural causes, why would you exacerbate the problem?”
More to the point, HOW would you “exacerbate the problem”? Just what activity of mankind has been proven to “exacerbate the problem”? Proof, please.
” It took millions of years to sequester enough carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to the balance point so friendly to human civilization. It’s taking just decades to pour billions of tons back into the air.”
So what is the problem with this carbon dioxide worry? I didn’t realize that it was that we should keep it here where we NEED it. If that is the case, then generating carbon dioxide is a GOOD thing, to replace all those billions of tons that we are wasting.
As usual, you make no sense at all.
And by the way, while you are preening over your grasp that all weather is related, and that, as you put it, “…floods along the coast and droughts across the mainland could BOTH be climate change related..” you can back it off a little because yes, this is very obvious. This is one of those “DUH” comments at which you excel. No,no one is confused by the fact that weather is different in different places. What you and your fellow lemmings insist on doing is conflating weather and climate, interchanging the terms to meet your agendas. But you are not as clever as you think, if this observation is an example of your intellectual superiority.
Mark (7/12/2010): I don’t think anyone denied the warm up.
Mark (7/11/2012): there has been no detected increase in global temperatures over the past 10 years
Both of these comments occurred on this thread. The last one was followed by this: If, however, it is cause[d] by human action, then you’ve got your excuse to arrogate all sorts of power and wealth to a tiny elite.
Wow. Anything you want to say, Cluster? Amazona?
“So what is the problem with this carbon dioxide worry? I didn’t realize that it was that we should keep it here where we NEED it. If that is the case, then generating carbon dioxide is a GOOD thing, to replace all those billions of tons that we are wasting.”
Uh…what?
Nobody denied it had been getting warmer. What we denied is the validity of the “science” with which we were presented, in all its fakery and bogusness, which allegedly proved that the warming was caused by human activity.
As usual, the only way you people can make an argument is to lie.
Mitchiethedeluded is once again off the reservation and ranting away as usual.
I see he still ignores all evidence to the contrary with the same exclamation “you people are insane”.
But what can we expect from a weak0minded little foot-soldier.
Hey mitchie, no comments on the godfather of global warming LOVELOCK renouncing the leftist environmental propaganda???
Oh right, you need your marching orders first.
Yeah, tried! Pony up! Refute global warming; hot in July, ice melting in iced tea getting all, like, sweaty on the outside of the glass an leaving rings on mom’s coffee table, clouds in Ohio and no clouds in Indiana, people in malls in Phoenix wearing
morecotton T-Shirts,moreless earthquakes,moreless droughts,lessmore severe weather patterns,moreless dogs going to term and deliveringmoreless puppies that arebiggersmaller than usual.You’re a simpie poople-douger! And a q#&*%!ie!
Giant sunspot shoots out intense solar flare…
No BTU’s there eh?
speaking of long hot summers………
‘Don’t F**k With Us’: Occupy Group Encourages Violence Against Police at RNC in ‘Action Planning’ Videos
“Anything is possible…anything. Happy Action Planning!”
yeah a happy ending would be a bunch of ARMED Florida citizens clearing the trash off OUR streets.
“No BTU’s there eh?”
We need to rename those darn things ATUs
Pax Americana !!
America’s coming civil war — makers vs. takers
Fox News ^ | 7-12-12 | Arthur Herman
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
Those were Abe Lincoln’s words in his first inaugural in 1861, as America was running headlong into civil war. Now we’re a house divided again and another civil war is coming, with the 2012 election as its Gettysburg.
Call it America’s coming civil war between the Makers and the Takers.
On one side are those who create wealth, America’s private sector–the very ones targeted by President Obama’s tax hikes announced Monday.
On the other are the public employee unions; left-leaning intelligentsia who see the growth of government as index of progress; and the millions of Americans now dependent on government through a growing network of government transfer payments, from Medicaid and Social Security to college loans and corporate bailouts and handouts (think GM and Solyndra).
GMB
or AGU’s
LoL
Ooh Rah……
GMB
like most donks bmitch doesnt know a kitty from an obama
“Pony up and refute global temprature increases, polar cap ice melts,heat waves, prolonged droughts, and severe weather patterns. You’re locked into a position to defend the indefensible because you can’t admit that you are wrong.”
Uh, mitchie weren’t you paying attention to ALL of the posts with contrary evidence – for example the topic of the thread, for one?
“You’re locked into a position to defend the indefensible because you can’t admit that you are wrong.”
YOUR MOVEMENT’s GODFATHER OF GLOBAL WARMING LOVELOCK has renounced the DOOM AND GLOOM that you continually post. He also renounced the science as “settled” (as you blindly accept). He shares our views as I have posted over and over and you typically and predictably ignored, because it threatens to reveal you to be an utter fool for guzzling the kool-aid.
Plus! The scandal involving emails where they contrived “evidence” of melting glaciers, erroneous models that gave us your doom and gloom predictions, errors in gathering temperatures, etc. etc.
If those alone don’t make you ask questions nothing will!
“And get a less macho avatar. No one is impressed with your obsession with guns. Big man, aren’t ya? More like a p#!y to me.”
Awwwwww, somebody feels threatened? Macho? Are you scared of macho? I’ve never thought the avatar to be macho!!! More like brave, since it is a depiction of the classical GI of WWII. My solute to men and women who would laugh at those who took their effort at preserving freedom and squandered it on those who support this fraud of MAN-MADE “global warming”.
Why don’t you pony up and tell me what the normal temperature of the planet is…. since you think you have all the answers. Plus are we above it? Below it? You haven’t addressed a single challenge – and your sources are from leftist hacks – NASA included.
Try again, drone.
http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm
LOL
The Godfather of Global Warming Lowers the Boom on Climate Change Hysteria
Posted by Dan McGrath in Junk Science, Mythical Consensus, Real Science, Scaremongering
Green Drivel Exposed
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
Burt Rutan’s comprehensive report on Global Warming science fraud:
Version 4.3 dated January, 2011
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
mmmmm mmmmmm mmmmmm
http://pjmedia.com/blog/anthropogenic-global-warming-the-greatest-fraud-in-history/
rico………a sucker is born every minute.
US physics professor: ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/
Neo,
I don’t know if you caught Professor Lewis’ two references to Eisenhower’s warning about what we see happening in science today, particularly climate science, or if you understand the significance of the warning. Everybody who was alive back then remembers Eisenhower’s warning about the, “military-industrial complex,” Few if any recall — and it is rarely repeated — the second warning he made in that very same speech:
And the scandals of ClimateGate, ClimateGate II, and FakeGate really did lay bare the motives of a significant group of “scientific-technological elite. I don’t know how any rational, thinking person could still buy into the fraud at this point.
With all due respect Neo, I prefer not to respond to you directly. Nothing personal really, but it’s much the same as I prefer not respond to Jeremiah directly. That might sound provocative, but I suspect most people here don’t really think so. Rather, I suspect most of them (if they felt totally free to speak their minds) would prefer you to go away more than they would me. Then again, maybe not.
Either way, I would love to share a beer with you some time. There are, after all, many things worth talking about besides politics. And I suspect we have many things in common other than politics.
“Rather, I suspect most of them (if they felt totally free to speak their minds) would prefer you to go away more than they would me. ”
Oh, rico, you have already established your Unbelievably Wrong On So Many Levels cred—you really didn’t need to add this to your impressive CV.
And, really, “provocative”? Really? Oh, I see, you are doing more of that redefining thingie again, like using “covered” when you meant “evaded”. Got it. So now “provocative” is the new word for “annoying”?
it’s okay, Ricorun, i really don’t care if ya respond to me er not.
i hardly ever read what ur writin’. no offense … just statin’ the truth.
That’s fair. And FWIW, no offense taken. You’re a good lad, and your heart is in the right place.
That’s fair Jeremiah. And FWIW, no offense taken. You’re a good lad, and your heart is in the right place.
Rather, I suspect most of them (if they felt totally free to speak their minds) would prefer you to go away more than they would me. Then again, maybe not.
Freely speaking; DEFINITELY NOT.
Neocon that photo is hilarious! Are you a spoof? I mean come on Free Republic, I enjoyed it keep derping!
bloodypump
lets see free republic? or huffpo, dnc/cpusa, KO’s……..yeah I’ll take FR any day.
glad you liked the Pic pump
HOW could this be?
I mean AGW and all …AYEEEEEE!!
Attorney General Martha Coakley is seeking $4 million penalty from the Western Massachusetts Electric Company, saying the utility failed to adequately communicate with residents and municipal officials or secure proper staffing levels during***** the October 2011 snow storm*******
The $64,000 Question: How Much Has Debt Increased Per Taxpayer Under Obama?
cnsnews.com ^ | July 12, 2012 | Terence P. Jeffrey
(CNSNews.com) – The national debt has now increased by more than $64,000 per federal taxpayer since Barack Obama was inaugurated president.
At the close of business on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the U.S. Treasury, the total debt of the federal government was $10,626,877,048,913.08. By the close of business on July 10, 2012, that debt had climbed to $15,885,854,755,351.47—an increase of $5,258,977,706,438.39.
Bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha
Canuckguy July 11, 2012 at 10:00 pm #
Britain is having a wet summer, so what else is new?
I would not shrug off the fact that the USA is baking, the corn is burning up and there goes the price of my corn flakes. I shake my head at the mule like stubborness of you lot at ignoring the obvious warming climate change which for the USA means the drying up of your valuable farm lands</i?
————————————————————————————
Great news: "Largest ever cereal harvest predicted this year"
Wasn´t global warming supposed to lead to greatly diminished harvests and global food scarcity?
Well, tell this to Bill McKibben, Al Gore and the other scarmongers:
“Largest ever cereal harvest predicted this year”
The world is expected to harvest the largest ever crop of cereals in 2012-13 according to an estimate released by the UN affiliated Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) recently. It is estimated that this year’s world cereal production will be a record 2371 million tonnes, marking a 1 percent, or 27 million tonnes increase over 2011.
India is forecast to produce a bumper harvest of 234.4 million tonnes of cereals, up from last year’s 232.3 million tonnes. Wheat production is expected to grow marginally from 86.9 million tonnes last year to 88.3 million tonnes this year and rice from 103.4 million tonnes to 105 million tonnes.
Dumb Peruvians………didnt they get algores and the other loons message? THE WORLD is BURNING!!!!!!!!!!
Extreme winter weather in Peru: Government sending blankets to freezing people
So climate science is a conspiracy to make you change light bulbs, evolutionary science is a conspiracy to take down Christianity, Obama’s birth certificate is a conspiracy to reveal the dumbest people on earth, Fast and Furious is a conspiracy to take your guns. You guys have a lot of THEORIES about CONSPIRACIES.
No, you clueless moron.
“Climate science” is a conspiracy to dupe willing minions like you into accepting and promoting massive expansion of government into every aspect of our lives, behind the stalking horse of “saving the planet”.
Evolutionary science is a very interesting collection of theories, of which only those which show evolution within species and not among species (apes becoming men, all life coming from one single cell, etc) have much evidence, and it certainly has a place within the theory of intelligent design.
Obama’s birth certificate HAS revealed the dumbest people on Earth—those who never wonder why he fought so hard to reveal it and why it is so different from other birth certificates of 1961 in Honolulu.
Fast and Furious was a callous decision that the lives of hundreds or possibly thousands of Mexicans, and Americans along the border, was an acceptable price to pay for the emotional backlash the administration expected when it was known that the murdered were shot with guns bought in the United States. You really need to keep up.
Neocon, your last few posts are great proof of climate change are you a secret liberal?
“proof” ROTFLMAO…….yeah real scientific “proof” there bpump.
Im not a “closet” anything bwany. NOR are you.
For those who are not content with reading the Daily Mail’s account of what the authors of the featured article said, here’s the article in its entirety. Good luck trying to understand it in all its nuances. I certainly can’t.
But there are some things that I do understand. For one, I understand that the primary intent of the article is to establish their method of measuring maximum latewood density (MXD) in semi-fossilized tree ring records as superior to tree-ring width (TRW) records as a proxy for surface temperature on the few millenia scale (essentially two milleniums in this case). That’s basically it, for all intents and purposes. They may be right, but I certainly can’t evaluate their data on any level of sufficiency. If anyone else here can, please let us (and especially me) know.
But let’s assume they’re right. If so, their data strongly implies that albedo effects have a somewhat more important influence on surface temperatures than previously thought. If so, that is definitely NOT good news to the denier crowd, because there are many other studies indicating that many of the major things contributing to the albedo effect are decreasing, some at an alarming rate.
With regard to the present study, the other thing is that their sample consisted of 587 semi-fossilized trees upon which they claim they could make high precision measurements, all of which were obtained in and around the area of present-day Finland. I can’t evaluate their claim about the precision of the measurements, but the fact that their entire sample was obtained from a restricted geographic territory makes any claim about what was happening globally in the same time period very suspect, especially without corroborating evidence from other areas around the world. And that fact certainly bears upon several comments made by various individuals in the present thread.
HUH?
Greenland was ummm Green?
A few tree rings in living trees were used to validate anthropogenic global warming…this is at least more evidence than was used for that. I rely on this: no detected increase in global temperatures over the past ten years as carbon emissions have skyrocketed. If human-produced CO2 is the culprit, global mean temperatures should have risen.
Mark, please stop! You are killing me here. Haven’t you learned by now to stop confusing the proggies with the truth?
😛
I’m sure this has nothing to do with global warning.
“In the hottest areas last week, which were generally dry, crop conditions deteriorated quickly. In the 18 primary corn-growing states, 30 percent of the crop is now in poor or very poor condition, up from 22 percent the previous week. In addition, fully half of the nation’s pastures and ranges are in poor or very poor condition, up from 28 percent in mid-June. The hot, dry conditions have also allowed for a dramatic increase in wildfire activity since mid-June. During the past 3 weeks, the year-to-date acreage burned by wildfires increased from 1.1 million to 3.1 million as of this writing.”
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/monitor.html
casper, your posts here seem to indicate a belief in AGW. That is, in anthropogenic global warming. As you are a teacher, I will explain that this means HUMAN-CAUSED global warming.
Let me go through this again.
There is no argument that this is a hot summer in the West.
The question is, Why?
Why is it hot this summer?
Is it due to natural fluctuations in temperatures, which have happened since the earliest days on Earth and which will continue as long as the Earth exists?
Or is it now, for the first time, caused by something else? Is it that after eons of temperature fluctuations, THIS PARTICULAR fluctuation is not part of the normal cycle but is, somehow, for some reason, different?
And if you believe that this particular heat wave is, unlike the thousands or millions which have preceded it, caused by some actions of mankind. what are they?
What, specifically, has mankind DONE to create these changes? Remember, so far all we we have seen are theories, about carbon dioxide and so on. Please provide proven verifiable FACT of the impact of various human activities on global temperature change.
And if you can, then please tell us what can be DONE about it to reverse it.
You might want to include the links and comments in my post on volcanic activity and the ability of the planet to cleanse itself of things like thousands of tons of sulfuric acid thrown high into the atmosphere.
Mark: “A few tree rings in living trees were used to validate anthropogenic global warming…”
You can’t be serious. There’s a lot more than tree ring evidence involved.
this is at least more evidence than was used for that.
Actually, even if you limit the (non-instrumental, i.e., proxy) evidence of terrestrial surface temperature to trees (which you shouldn’t), there is a lot more TRW data, both present and past, and in a lot more places than the MXD data this study presents. Again, this study is limited to tree data in areas in and around present-day Finland. So you’re wrong about that, too.
Interestingly, one of the major points the authors of the paper try to make — and one they keep hammering throughout the paper (assuming you read it) — is that their results are a better proxy for terrestrial surface temperature than TRW data. Further, they are saying that their MXD data are more consistent with the expectations of what they call “state-of-the-art coupled general circulation model (CGCM) simulations” than are the TRW data. It will be interesting to see what the results of follow-up studies (which will no doubt encompass larger, more diverse areas), will reveal vis-a-vis CGCM simulations. But in plain English, what the authors are saying is that their data are more consistent with the expectations of CGCM simulations than the (so far) more pervasive TRW data. If so, that is very bad news for the denier camp because their data not only supports but adds MORE credence to the accuracy of CGCM simulations, not less. Perhaps the paramount absurdity (and why I suggested you actually READ the study) is this: if you are one who believes the CGCM modelers are involved in a huge conspiracy to doctor the evidence on global warming, then you should not champion this study as supportive of your claim, because it does just the opposite.
I rely on this: no detected increase in global temperatures over the past ten years as carbon emissions have skyrocketed. If human-produced CO2 is the culprit, global mean temperatures should have risen.
Starting about 2008, when the global recession really took hold, carbon emissions have not “skyrocketed”. So you’re wrong about that. The problem is, atmospheric carbon takes decades to sequester by natural means (which are the only means presently available). Not surprisingly, global mean temperatures HAVE risen over the past ten years. So you’re wrong about that, too.
But I don’t really want to talk about the science. One reason is that most folks get it so terribly wrong. Another is that “the science” in and of itself, is not the most compelling factor, and certainly not in the political realm. So I applaud what Cluster said in the original post: “Let’s continue down the path toward greener, more sustainable energy…” as well as his desire to more effectively “transition to another energy platform.” I say that even though it has recently come to light that I disgust him. I can live with that. 🙂 Anyway, there are “bridge technologies” already available that can help us down that path — technologies that are actually cheaper than even the current status quo, and could thus help us, as a society, contribute to what else has to be done to transition to “another energy platform”.
Finally (and apropos of nothing), a shout out to Casper: Long time no see. How ya doin’?
Not surprisingly, global mean temperatures HAVE risen over the past ten years. So you’re wrong about that, too.
Ricorun, you sound reasonably intelligent — a bit of a bloviator, but reasonably intelligent, nevertheless. I assume you wouldn’t make such a blanket statement unless you had some data to back it up.
BACK THIS UP…
What’s the proved reason for the changes?
What do you think can be done to reverse them?
Why do you think they are bad?
BACK THIS UP…
Bozo, I have no idea where your nifty little graph came from since you don’t cite a source, but it’s only scary looking because of the way the X/Y axes are plotted. It shows a 1.2 degree C rise in global mean temperature from 1880 to 2012 (a fly speck in geologic time), much of which is attributable to coming out of the Little Ice Age, and really isn’t in dispute by anyone on either side of this issue. If you look at (in geologic terms) a relatively short-term termperature reconstruction of the last 2,000 years, what we’re in looks like just another normal period of warming and cooling. On a long term temperature reconstruction of, say 500,000 years or longer, the present blip doesn’t even register.
Again, creepy assclown, Rico, Casper I’ll ask the question that no believer in “settled science” has answered:
WHAT IS THE “NORMAL” TEMPERATURE OF THE PLANET?
Are we warming towards it or away from it?
If the science is settled, then it should be an easy answer. The Godfather of Global Warming Lovelock says otherwise.
Bozo’s data came from NASA. It’s the top graph on this page.
Spook should have mentioned that the temperature reconstruction he cited is for terrestrial surface temperatures in high latitude (extratropical) regions of the Northern Hemisphere. It is not a global reconstruction.
NASA climate data is faulty.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/
Hansen of NASA is a known hack on climate change.
But as I have said, the errors in the “science” has proven that the “science” is not settled – as the Godfather of Global Warming Lovelock has stated as well.
Spook should have mentioned that the temperature reconstruction he cited is for terrestrial surface temperatures in high latitude (extratropical) regions of the Northern Hemisphere. It is not a global reconstruction.
Perhaps Ricorun could show us what a GLOBAL mean land-ocean temperature index looks like for the last 2,000 years.
“Bozo’s data came from NASA”
NASA, huh? Hmmmmmm (emphasis mine)
“Is NASA playing fast and loose with climate change science? That’s the contention of a group of 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts.
On March 28 the group sent a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr., blasting the agency for making unwarranted claims about the role of carbon dioxide in global warming, Business Insider reported.
“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies], that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data,” the group wrote. “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.”
The group features some marquee names, including Michael F. Collins, Walter Cunningham and five other Apollo astronauts, as well as two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston.”
This can be found at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/nasa-global-warming-letter-astronauts_n_1418017.html
Perhaps rico can also tell us, in 10,000 polysyllabic words or less, what the normal temperature of the planet IS. What is our goal here?
A pragmatist would not charge willy-nilly into an enterprise without a clearly defined goal, now, would he? So what is the goal of any effort to change/reverse/alter/modify the temperature fluctuations that, at this time, in this place, are suddenly different and more alarming than those which have preceded them?
What’s your target temperature? How do you arrive at it? Do you just pick a temperature from an era you think sounds comfy and plan to recreate it now, in this time and place?
And how?
Not surprisingly, global mean temperatures HAVE risen over the past ten years. So you’re wrong about that, too.
Ricorun, you sound reasonably intelligent — a bit of a bloviator, but reasonably intelligent, nevertheless. I assume you wouldn’t make such a blanket statement unless you had some data to back it up.
Rico a bloviator? Tell me it isn’t so. BTW, J.R., the reason Rico hasn’t responded to your challenge is that he can’t. (source – NASA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies)
Typical of your analytical expertise, Dave.
But now that you mention it, I can see why you would freak out in such a shrill and hysterical manner about George Deutsch. After all, the eminent fraud and poseur Dr. Hansen had similar views about him.
From wikipedia:
“Dr. James E. Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and several other career NASA scientists and public affairs officials had been interviewed by The New York Times in January 2006. In these interviews, they complained about “intensifying efforts by political appointees in NASA, including Mr. Deutsch, to control more closely” the content of their public statements. Deutsch, speaking to the New York Times, gave his opinion that Dr. Hansen had exaggerated the threat of global warming”
Of course, Mr. Deutsch was right. Oooh, that’s gotta sting.
Little notice in the MSM:
IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html
The InterAcademy Council (IAC) conducted an independent review of the processes and procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Based on this review, the IAC issued a report with recommended measures and actions to strengthen IPCC’s processes and procedures so as to be better able to respond to future challenges and ensure the ongoing quality of its reports.IAC findings:
The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22).
In plain English: the IPCC reports are NOT PEER-REVIEWED.
The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18).
Again in plain English: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.
The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking. “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might BE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED,” the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “TOO POLITICAL” (p. 25).
Really? Too political? We were told by everyone — environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities — that the IPCC reports were science, not politics. Now we are told that even the scientists involved in writing the reports — remember, they are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves — felt the summaries were “too political.”
Here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the “consensus of scientists”:
Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p. 25).
How can such a process possibly be said to capture or represent the “true consensus of scientists”?
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz20mLGz6ss
As the GOD_FATHER OF GLOBAL WARMING LOVELOCK HAS ACCURATELY STATED the DOOM AND GLOOM PREDICTIONS WERE “INNACURATE” and the SCIENCE was far from “SETTLED”. It is factual that a true PEER-REVIEW of IPCC’s process found that their process was flawed, politically motivated, forced consensus and its conclusions complete crap.
Davey, let me rephrase that shrill little snit of yours to make more sense:
It’s not surprising that I would point out that Deutsch was correct when he said that Hansen was using fake science to promote a political agenda, because that is exactly what Hansen was doing.
The rest of your hysterical rant was, as usual, just lies.
No one can “squelch science”. What an odd perception you have of “science”. No one can “squelch science”. That’s just dumb. What—“squelch gravity”? “Squelch physics”? Does this have anything to do with your belief that “science” depends on which theory gets the most votes?
Deutsch did point out that lies were being spread in the name of science, and that seems to be what has you so emotionally out of control. Evidently you really LIKED those lies, and have hissy fits when they are pointed out as, well, lies.
And there is no political ideology in the United States that opposes science. I can’t speak for other parts of the world. Conservative political ideology, that the United States Constitution is the best way to govern the United States, is pretty much confined to, you know, POLITICS.
Now, this political ideology appeals to people who have otherwise varying attitudes and opinions on many different things, from religion to a preference for peach-flavored iced tea, but these opinions are quite separate from political ideology—a concept which is evidently far too complex for people like you to grasp, who just randomly lump everything nasty you can invent about an Other into the vague category of “political ideology”.
I think one thing that confuses you (of soooooo many!) is that the pseudo-science of AGW was promoted by the Left, not as science for its own sake but as the foundation for a massive expansion of the size, scope and power of the federal government. This made it a political construct.
So intelligent and reasonable people of all political persuasions objected to the bogus nature of what was being presented as “science” and pointed out the many flaws, defects and outright lies in the arguments, while there was also a political element to one aspect of objection to the AGW scam, which was the effort to use it to expand the size, scope and power of the federal government.
I can see why got so bogged down in this, it requiring understanding of political agendas, the intellect to see through the pretense that the AGW arguments were not only bogus but embarrassingly transparently bogus, the understanding that real science has nothing to do with “consensus”, respect for truth, and the ability to step outside of your pathological pseudo-political bigotry—any one of which would be beyond your ability, much less the complexity of all.
Perhaps you should go back to one of your other temper tantrums and pound your heels on the floor in outrage over my alleged multiplicity of blog identities. As you have been called on your claim that I posted under a moderator name, maybe I can keep you entertained by using some of the noms de blog I have considered—Queen of the Mist People and Sparkle come to mind.
Whatever, Dave. Now that you have so firmly proved that your only goal here is to goad people into responding to you, all we need to do is see your name on a post to know it is just more waaaa waaaa look at me! Look At Me! LOOK AT ME!!! LOOK AT ME !!!!!!
Looks like you are stuck with playing with yourself, again.
rico, what do you mean when you snidely refer to “deniers”?
People who dispute wild leaps to foregone conclusions based upon political agendas?
Gee, it sounds like you are sneering at and dissing pragmatists.
Spook: BTW, J.R., the reason Rico hasn’t responded to your challenge is that he can’t. (source – NASA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies)
Actually, <a href="http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/43880"9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurred since 2000. Again, that’s according to NASA (the other agencies whose task it is to track the data agree, +/- 1 year). So there’s that.
Apparently Spook interpreted the phrase “over the past ten years” as meaning that in order for the phrase to be true, one should require ANNUAL temperatures to obey a strictly positive monotonic function wherein EACH YEAR of any given decade (as opposed to each decade relative to the former, or anything longer) is hotter than the last, with little to no exception. If that’s the case, then I stand corrected. But if that’s the case, then I’m surprised at Spook. He is the last of all people on this site from whom I would have expected a challenge on that point, because he of all people should know better. That’s not the way it works. Consequently, I don’t know what to say other than to ask, what are you thinking, Spook? Has ideology clouded your mind so much as to allow such absurdities as you state here?
Anyway, perhaps what I should have said is this: based on ANY agency’s instrumentation records (not just NASA), THE LAST TEN YEARS HAVE BEEN THE HOTTEST ON RECORD. And despite whatever faults any or all those agencies have, the instrumentation records are the best available. I also applaud Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts for forcing them to be better accountable. But that doesn’t mean I (or anyone else) should take McIntyre’s or Watt’s word (or any other’s word) as gospel.
I get a “server not found” error from your link. Hadley Center; US National Climatic Data Center; University of Alabama at Huntsville all say there has been no statistically significant increase in globally averaged land and sea absolute temperature since 1998. The NASA GISS chart I posted clearly shows no upward trend. In fact, there is compelling evidence that the trend has been down since 2005. Your statement that global mean temperatures have risen over the last 10 years is false. And I’m still waiting for your global mean temperature reconstruction for the last 2,000 years.
But spook, rico claims he HAS answered all our questions.
It’s just that the bus drivers ate his homework……
Apparently Spook interpreted the phrase “over the past ten years” as meaning that in order for the phrase to be true, one should require ANNUAL temperatures to obey a strictly positive monotonic function wherein EACH YEAR of any given decade (as opposed to each decade relative to the former, or anything longer) is hotter than the last, with little to no exception.
Uh, NO; As usual you’re trying to make the issue way more complicated than it is (surprise, surprise). I took it to mean that the average mean global land/sea temperature did not trend upward during the last ten years, exactly as Mark said, a fact that you disputed, but a fact that is born out by several prominent climate science organizations, including NASA GISS.
Spook: I get a “server not found” error from your link.
Yeah, I got the html syntax wrong. Try this.
I took it to mean that the average mean global land/sea temperature did not trend upward during the last ten years.
So in other words, you expected it to be a positive monotonic function with little to no exception. And again I say that you of all people here should know better than to expect that. Because you, of all people, should know that there are other forcings besides anthropogenic CO2 loading, both positive and negative, that contribute to the aggregate effect — for example, sun cycles, which have a period of about 11 years (BTW, sorry about the emergence of cycle 24; I recall that as of the middle of 2008 you were pretty convinced it would not appear). That effect alone can significantly affect the aggregate effect on that time scale. But the sun cycle is essentially just that: cyclical (although some cycles are more robust than others). Anthropogenic CO2 loading is not — unless something is done.
It’s also true that the earth’s orbit is entering into a more elliptical phase which, if there were no other variables involved should portend cooler temperatures for the next few tens of thousands of years — in other words, another ice age. But there ARE other variables involved. Lots of them. And you have to consider them all (and their relative magnitudes — e.g., according to the featured article on this thread the orbital variation presently accounts for -0.3 deg C PER MILLENIA — an effect which is easily swamped by, say, the sun cycle on a decadal scale, but aggregated over tens of thousands of years it becomes REALLY important) if you want to understand the aggregate effect. And that is really, really hard.
Been a pretty warm summer. I think I’ve seen more hundred degree days this summer than most in the past, and it ain’t over yet. Of course, it is summer. Summer will do that to ya!! The sun stays on this side of the planet longer during the day, than it does on the other side. That starts changing soon, though. The days will start getting shorter, and about middle of August, the sun won’t pack near the punch that it did in June and July.
Right now we need RAIN!! It’s a severe drought, and everything is shriveling up. The leaves on my sweet corn are curling, and the potato leaves are turning brown, and the pumpkin leaves are droopy and turning yellow. Even the leaves on the trees are turning color because of no rain. The grass is brown. Springs are drying up. Everything. It’s bad.
Jeremiah,
I’m praying for rain for you. As someone that grew up on a farm, I know how tough it is to watch crops die.
BTW, the days are already getting shorter.
Casper,
Thank you! I appreciate that! We could certainly use the prayers!!
We just went through a major storm…what they call a “super derecho” which knocked out power to hundreds of thousands, and crews from all over the country have been working to get the lines, transformers, and substations fixed out in the hundred degree heat, along with drought that is affecting so many peoples crops. And I’m worried that if we don’t get the water table up that it will result in wildfires this fall, destroying the homes of our wildlife.
It might sound like I’m one of those “tree huggers” … but I do have concern about the animals and fishes, it’s very enjoyable to watch them, catch them on a line, and on film…study their habits, like watch them take care of their young, their breeding, you know like bluebirds, cottontail rabbits, etc. Even fish, when they spawn…I still haven’t been able to catch the brook trout spawning…but I would like to devote some time to take some photo shots of them spawning. With the water so low, they may not get to spawn this year. I really find cold-water fisheries interesting!
You know, it’s just the principle of the thing….God provided all of these things to us for our enjoyment, and for food. But you know, when there’s no rain, it’s just like everything else, they suffer…they have to leave their normal habitat to search for water, and thus putting them in more danger, because of crossing highways in search of water.
I wonder how many people have stopped to think that maybe God is trying to get our attention?? After millions of feet of power cable down, hundreds of transformers blown, thousands of poles snapped, millions, possibly billions of dollars in property damage (officials are reporting that this storm was more costly than hurricane Katrina), not a single life was taken,,,and that’s just here in our state alone. Amazing huh?
What more would it take for people to change their ways in order that God would be pleased? You know, maybe next time we won’t be so lucky?
catspuke
how do those crops fare with a foot of snow on them?
do you “pray” for sun to melt the snow?
speaking of praying…is killer tiller still passing the collection basket in your “church”?
More revelations on NASA data and climate models:
NASA satellite data show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far MORE HEAT to be RELEASED into space than CURRENT COMPUTER MODELS have PREDICTED, according to a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.
Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to FORECAST climate change have been PROGRAMMED to “BELIEVE.”
The result is CLIMATE FORCASTS that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/new-nasa-data-challenges-global-warming-alarmism
(emphasis mine)
Again, faulty models and forcecasts are the reasons to be SKEPTICAL and PRAGMATIC when it comes to global warming….errr climate change or whatever new slogan they are calling it now.
tiredoflibs: Again, faulty models and forcecasts are the reasons to be SKEPTICAL and PRAGMATIC when it comes to global warming
I hadn’t seen this paper until now. When I read it today I thought it was great. I can’t really evaluate the methodology and data treatment (I have to rely on others for that), but as far as the basic conclusions and especially the implications for the future, I thought, how cool. The trouble is, when I looked for help in trying to evaluate the methodology and data treatment it became immediately apparent that Spencer and Braswell screwed up their statistics, and once corrected, their major conclusion doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Rather, the energy balance really is consistent with that expected by global circulation models. As a result, the editor of the journal in which the article was published (Remote Sensing) resigned, faulting himself for failing to ensure adequate peer review. You can find the whole sorry story here, with copious links to various reports and commentaries along the way.
My questions to you are these: (1) If you are truly “SKEPTICAL and PRAGMATIC” (emphasis yours), as opposed to a “denier”, then you should not mention this article again — and certainly not without significant caveats — unless, of course, you mention it in terms of supporting general circulation models.
[As a post script, allow me to define my terms: by a skeptical, pragmatic person I mean one who searches, to the best of their ability, to understand the evidence presented to them in as unbiased a way possible, changing their beliefs as new evidence, and logic, requires. By a “denier” (in this particular context anyway) I mean essentially the same as “ideologue” in the broader context: i.e., one who only considers evidence consistent with one’s beliefs and ignores, belittles, demonizes, or trivializes evidence for some other reason than upon the weight of the actual evidence. And BTW, I include in the “ideologue” camp “alarmists” as well — because they too only consider evidence consistent with their beliefs and ignore, belittle, demonize, or trivialize evidence for some other reason than upon the weight of the actual evidence.]
So let me see… on this single thread (though not in any particular order other than that in terms of which they occurred to me)…
(A) I pointed out that the featured Mail Online article in the topic itself cannot be properly construed as indicating “the earth has been slowly COOLING for 2,000 years” because all the data in the study were obtained from samples in and around present-day Finland. And Finland is not the earth. Additionally…
(B) I pointed out that what the featured Mail Online article failed to mention are two other important things: (1) that the authors of the study excepted the last century, which their data suggest has been warming in the area studied, not cooling, and; (2) their data are MORE CONSISTENT with general circulation models than previous tree ring data, not less.
(C) When Spook followed up with some data from the blog WHATSUPWITHTHAT.COM of two temperature reconstructions I pointed out that (1) they weren’t global reconstructions (he implied they were), and (2) they weren’t consistent with each other for the first millenia (which made their interpretation difficult). In fact, the latter reconstruction was touted by the author of the first reconstruction as “better”. No real reason was given except that it showed something the first author expected but didn’t find. Goodness. Anyway, if you look at the second reconstruction and compare it with Mann, et. al., (2008), it does agree pretty well. In fact, at least the shape of the second reconstruction agrees pretty well with the finding in the featured article. The problem there is, the magnitude of the changes differ by a magnitude of 100% or more. Considering all that, let me add another point which I hereby make…
(D) I hereby point out that if you want to be a serious skeptic (as opposed to just a denier or an alarmist), you have to appreciate variations in the data, both when they agree with your existing beliefs and when they don’t. You have to be consistent in whatever analytical capabilities you bring to the task. You can’t just cherry-pick — and you certainly can’t simply rely on secondary or tertiary reports: you have to get as close to the data as possible.
(E) I pointed out that Spook’s refutation of Mark’s claim that “world hasn’t gotten hotter over the last 10 years” was either profoundly misguided or intended as a lame “gotcha” comment. As I said before, Spook of all people should know that most of the various forcers and feedbacks contributing to climate operate on decadal, multi-decadal, centennial, multi-centennia, millenial, even multi-millenial scales, not annual ones. So one should not expect a positive trend in a decades’s worth of data. That’s just inane. And since the instrumental record goes back about 150 years it is not entirely trivial that 9 of the 10 hottest years in the instrumental record have occurred since the inception of the year 2000. Is it REALLY imporant? Of that I’m considerably less than convinced.
(F) I pointed out that the idea of a “normal temperature” is absurd as no one, on either side of the debate, no matter how extreme (okay, maybe THAT’S too extreme, lol!), believes there is. It wasn’t a dodge, it was the truth. And hopefully we can all put that cannard to rest.
(G) I responded to the article by Spencer and Braswell’s paper which tiredoflibbs presented (see above). In so doing I have responded to both him and Amazona (again) as to what I think are the proper definitions of “pragmatist” on the one hand and “ideologist” on the other.
(H) I hereby confess that with absolute certainty “the bus drivers” did not “eat ANY of my homework”. I accept full culpability for any and all accusations to that effect. I hope I have made sufficient amends, and I acknowledge to the moderators of this site the gracious opportunity to provide, without any censorship, all of my comments — comments which I think and hope were reasonable and thoughtful “contributions” to the discussion, even though I understand that I “disgust” some people here, and even though my views are not always consistent with the predominant ideology espoused.
1052 words to say there is no way to prove that mankind is affecting whatever temperature changes may or may not be occurring and there is no way to know what the “correct” temperature should be so there is no way to know if we should be alarmed or relieved at the direction the temperatures may or may not be heading and there isn’t anything to do about it anyway.
I see you ignored the audit performed on the IPCC process….
…which adds much more skepticism as to the accuracy of conclusions from analysis of any data.
But as a pragmatist and not an ideologue, I still can’t buy the whole “man made” global warming nonsense.
As for “…the proper definitions of “pragmatist” on the one hand and “ideologist”..” well, obviously you think your definition is “proper”.
Last night I finally got around to starting Jonah Goldberg’s new book, and what should I find near the beginning but this:
“….yet we hear constantly how independents who borrow a little from this side and borrow a little from that side are somehow more politically sophisticated and mature than the straight-line thinkers of the left the left and the right. But here’s the thing. The straight-line thinkers tend to think in a straight line not because they are hidebound and close-minded and clinging to an ideological agenda. They tend to think in a reasonably straight line because they’ve worked out a reasonably consistent way of seeing the world. The independents and moderates who just grab stuff from this shelf, then from that shelf, like a panicked survivor of the dawn of the dead grabbing what he or she can from the supermarket before the zombies spot her, do not value consistency at all.”
tiredoflibbs: I see you ignored the audit performed on the IPCC process….
Actually, if you actually read the report you would find that the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was not as damning as you (or the National Review article) make it out to be. They certainly found problems and made recommendations to correct them. But their general finding was: “The Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall.” They certainly did NOT say the IPCCs conclusions were “complete crap”. A true pragmatist would realize there is a big difference between not perfect, but “successful overall” on the one hand, and “complete crap” on the other. Dichotomizing things in that way is more a strategy of an ideologist rather than a pragmatist.
What the IAC hit on most, at least as far as the science was concerned (remember, the IPCC report included a lot more than just science), was the “characterization of uncertainty”. There is good reason to argue that the IPCC report underrepresented the uncertainty — especially with regard to the ramifications (as opposed to the certainty) of global warming. And that’s pretty much what I’ve been trying to say.
Amazona: And if we move out of an ice age, with its low temperatures, the Left screeches about the frightening, terrifying, dangerous RISE IN TEMPERATURE, though there is no proof that the increase has even reached pre-ice-age levels.
By “pre-ice-age” I hope you don’t mean prior to the last three or so million years when ice ages began? If so, that certainly wouldn’t be good — especially if it occurred over a century as opposed to several tens of thousands of years. I hope you understand the difference — and I hope you now more fully understand that it’s the VELOCITY of change that’s important, not change per se.
If it wasn’t perfectly clear before, I say again that while a change of that magnitude over such a short period of time wouldn’t mean an end to life on earth (or even human life), it certainly WOULD change things DRAMATICALLY! In particular, a change of that magnitude over such a short period of time would, with absolute certainty, dramatically change the geopolitical stability around the world (including here in the US), and would thus have very profound economic effects. That’s just for starters, but that alone is a very compelling argument.
I have tried to be very accommodating in answering, to the best of my abililty, most of the questions put forth to me (granted, I’ve omitted the most unsubstantiated and ill-informed of them). In a similar spirit, allow me to present a study published in reputable, peer reviewed journal in early 2009 whose main conclusion is: “Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years.”
Any thoughtful, fact-based comments on it? 🙂
On a somewhat happier note, US CO2 emissions have peaked, and by the end of this year the US will be back to 1996 levels. Also, it appears a 17% reduction (from 2005 levels) by 2020 is not out of reach. Remarkably, that is from Joe Romm’s blog, “Climate Progress” (by way of “Grist”, which, IMO, is more fact-based and less politically-based). Anyway, the primary drivers for that reduction are all largely economic (albeit some good, some bad). One obvious contributor is the bad state of the economy. But other major contributors are the rising cost of coal (even without factoring in the very major externalities associated with coal, transportation costs swamp production costs), the falling cost of natural gas, the better than expected success of renewables such as wind and solar, and the fact that energy demand is leveling off long-term. And a considerable amount of the has to do with better energy efficiency standards (as I have long said, NOTHING makes more sense than “negawatts”). And perhaps that could (at least partially) be a response to neocon’s inquiry, “now why are A/C equipment sales down all across the country?” Anecdotally in that regard, since we (I) replaced all the windows and doors with high-efficiency double-paned ones, built an opaque-roofed patio cover on the west side of the house (which not only kept the sun away from the house but added a rain-free refuge for partying — the latter was itself worth the cost of investment, lol!), added a western-facing deck off the main bedroom on the second floor (which also kept the sun away from the house and added more party space, lol!), added insulation in the attic, and replaced the passive fans in the attic with powered ones (it turns out we hardly ever use the powered fans — oh well), we have not found the need to turn on the central AC or the central heat — ever — in the two years since we made the bulk of those changes.
Amazona: Last night I finally got around to starting Jonah Goldberg’s new book…
Really? Just now? Anyway, it’s about time.
Amazona (quoting Jonah Goldberg’s new book): “But here’s the thing. The straight-line thinkers tend to think in a straight line not because they are hidebound and close-minded and clinging to an ideological agenda. They tend to think in a reasonably straight line because they’ve worked out a reasonably consistent way of seeing the world.”
Yup. And I would argue that such a characterization excludes not only “The independents and moderates who just grab stuff from this shelf, then from that shelf, like a panicked survivor of the dawn of the dead grabbing what he or she can from the supermarket before the zombies spot her, do not value consistency at all,” but also “hippie chicks” (your definition of yourself in a previous time) who substitute one ideology for another, and who likewise do not value consistency at all — except a consistency to ideology, whatever that ideology is at any given point in time.
Gee, rico, I guess I missed the memo about when to read Goldberg’s book. You need to keep me up to date on the rico-approved schedule.
No, I did NOT “substitute one ideology for another”. You seem to have very serious comprehension problems.
What I said, what I OFTEN said, is that during my PL days, during the time I now describe as being an “unexamined liberal”, I had no ideology whatsoever. THAT IS THE POINT.
I had a grab-bag of accepted talking points and unexamined concepts which had I assimilated and made part of my consciousness without the slightest hint of understanding of the underlying ideology.
I have explained this many times. It is really not all that hard to understand.
This is why I understand the position of those who post here in defense of the Left. It started out as a guess—I just took a flyer and asked a particularly vehement Leftist defender why he was a Lefty, and when I got no answer (beyond Barbie-speak of just wanting, you know, everything to be FAIR and all) I realized that I was not alone, that this ideological ignorance is pretty much what DEFINES people like me in my earlier days, and people like the PL trolls here.
No, rico, I moved from emoting to thinking, and this is what made it possible for me to develop an ideology. First I had to accept the fact that not only could I not explain why I thought the way I did, no one else could, either. This was the beginning of my epiphany. I would listen to indignant Lefties challenging conservative talk show hosts and then, when asked to please explain their positions, scurry off in evasive tactics. I would turn up the radio to hear the answers, because the person had just said something that echoed my own beliefs, and I truly wanted an explanation of why I thought that way, and all I would ever hear were questions answered with other questions, dissembling, avoiding, ducking and dodging, and general avoidance of actual information.
“Hmmm” thought I, “if this stuff is so important and so true, why can’t anyone explain it?” This was soon followed by “Those conservatives don’t have any trouble explaining what THEY think, and why, and backing it up with historical examples, and so on. I think they are wrong, but WHY do I think they are wrong? I’d better check this all out.”
Yeah, during my brainless days, I too bought into the idea that “ideology” was bad, that it was what some weak-minded people substituted for thinking, that it was far less sophisticated and intelligent than examining everything as an individual stand-alone concept. I thought it was WISE to vote “for the person, not the party”. I was quite the compliant little dupe, and quite smug in my conviction that not having a consistent political compass that could be defended with facts was actually proof of being so much smarter than those who do.
But I was willing to examine what was, at that time, “the other side” and the more I learned, the more I realized that I HAD been a dupe, that i HAD been suckered into accepting superficial ideas that could not be supported by fact or even evidence, and even that sometimes I had just bought into out-and-out lies.
It was not a sudden revelation. It took a long time, and it was hard, because so much of what I thought I had believed was tied into my self-identity as “pragmatic” and “objective” and so on, all fantasies designed to keep me from doing what my BRAIN finally told me to do. It had appealed to my ego but not my intellect, though it masqueraded as “intellectual”. Then I chose to examine my options, examine the success/fail records of those options, develop a spine, make a choice, make a commitment, and stop hiding my squishiness behind a facade of ‘pragmatism’. It was a very seductive lie, but it was a lie. I had excused my intellectual weakness by pretending it was intellectual superiority.
Sneering PL trolls here love to claim that I assert intellectual superiority here but all I do here is explain what I have LEARNED, instead of what I was told to believe, and now I can back up what I say. I had to abandon the illusion of intellectual superiority to get here, and I certainly do not claim it now.
I do, however, feel good about my willingness to admit when I was wrong, to challenge my belief system, and to move past my indoctrination into actual thought-based convictions. It’s like quitting smoking—once you have done it, you know it can be done if only one is willing to do it, and excuses for not doing it ring quite hollow.
It is quite dishonest, though convenient, for rico to conflate political ideology with, say, religious ideology or any other kind.
In politics, ideology is essential. Without a firm and consistent concept of what basic kind of government one believes to be the best, and without clear and consistent goals for achieving this ideal, one is a political twig afloat on swirling currents of what appeals to this emotion and what offends that. Without political ideology, one can vote for an individual based on various appeals to various emotions without the slightest realization that he is actually voting for the ideology the individual represents. People like might as well throw darts at a board, as they are not exhibiting a coherent pursuit of a specific type of government but merely reacting to what they are fed, and may very well be contributing to the success of an ideology they would find offensive if they understood it. They just float along, willy-nilly, catching this current and that eddy, and often congratulating themselves on their self-perceived intellectual acumen in dodging the constraints of that dreaded “ideology”.
I’m not exactly sure what is so clever about inadvertently supporting an ideology and agenda without even realizing it, but then I personally believe that understanding what I am doing is a mark of intelligence. One may argue that what I believe is wrong, and one is certainly welcome to make that argument. In fact, I have encouraged, invited, incited and even goaded people into doing just that, and so far not one has argued my asserted wrongness on the basis of ideology, just on the grounds of loathing it, without even understanding it. But at least when I vote, I know what I am trying to accomplish, and that I am supporting a coherent political philosophy, not just hopping from one idea of the moment to another.
On the other hand, “ideology” in science is most definitely a bad thing, because ideology is a blueprint for what you think should happen and science is supposed to be about what DOES happen, whether you like it or not.
The key is to know the difference between one kind of ideology and another, and it is clear that rico has the word all tangled up in some emotional knee-jerk rejection without even understanding the differences.
Which, of course, is quite consistent with one who would support a political ideology with which he might disagree, if he were to take the time to understand it, just to assert his imaginary independence of ideology.
For someone so enamored of his own words, he sure does use some of them indiscriminately.
Amazona: It is quite dishonest, though convenient, for rico to conflate political ideology with, say, religious ideology or any other kind.
Clearly the government of, say for example, Iran (not to mention many others), would certainly disagree with you. Likewise, there is every reason that Mark Noonan, taken as he is with the Holy Roman Empire of old, would disagree with you too.
But arguments like that are too easy, right? I hope/expect so. So let me get more direct and ask you (and BTW, the questions are completely independent, meaning your response to one has no bearing on the other (provided no inclusive ideology on your part is involved).
1. What are your comments on the comment I made very recently on this thread: “IMO, acting proactively by way of some sort of government involvement becomes important to the extent that the supply of an essential product is not controlled by free-market forces alone, and/or to the extent that the externalities of said product are not addressed by the transactions themselves on the free market.”
1a. Do you agree with that comment? To what extent?
2. Intelligent Design theory largely violates at least two of the basic tenets of what makes a good scientific theory. Specifically, (1) it cannot be tested, and; (2) it cannot be replicated (which necessarily follows from the first). Given that, and especially considering that the basic tenets of scientific methodology developed in the Western World starting at the dawn of the Renaissance largely DESPITE, rather than BECAUSE of, political and religious ideology, I certainly hope that IF you REALLY believe that political and/or religious ideology should be divorced from the pragmatic pursuit of science, that you should HERE AND NOW refute your support of Intelligent Design Theory.
2a. Can you do that? If so, it’s not a great leap for you to join with me in explaining to the rest here on this site how INAPPROPRIATE it is that their views on science (which, apparently, we both agree should be governed by pragmatism) should be governed instead by governmental and/or religious ideology.
I thank you in advanvce, and I look forward to working with you on that level.
Dammit! I screwed up again!. When I said, “should be governed instead by governmental and/or religious ideology”, I meant to say “should NOT be governed instead by governmental and/or religious ideology”. I apologize for the error.
“1. What are your comments on the comment I made very recently on this thread: “IMO, acting proactively by way of some sort of government involvement becomes important to the extent that the supply of an essential product is not controlled by free-market forces alone, and/or to the extent that the externalities of said product are not addressed by the transactions themselves on the free market.”
1a. Do you agree with that comment? To what extent?”:
I addressed this at length. To summarize, I found the comment to be vague, though very wordy, gibberish, though it appears to state your belief that the government is better suited to handled economic affairs, particularly those associated with natural resources and energy, better than the free market. Not a surprise, by the way.
“Intelligent Design theory largely violates at least two of the basic tenets of what makes a good scientific theory. Specifically, (1) it cannot be tested, and; (2) it cannot be replicated (which necessarily follows from the first). ”
The random development of life and cross-species evolution (1) cannot be tested, and; (2) cannot be replicated (which necessarily follows from the first).
You conflate, either purposely for the sake of argument or inadvertently because of defects in your ability to process information, some very different ideas. One is that refusing to accept the theories of cross-species evolution (without proof and without the ability to test the theory and without the ability to replicate any successful experiment) is somehow related to —-and here, again, I am winging it, trying to wade through your scattered references—-a Middle Ages type of religious ideology which refuses to accept scientific principles. It’s so hard to tell, through the murk of your convoluted verbiage.
Let me try to simplify: I couldn’t possibly care less who, in what century, defied what scientific claims based on what religious and/or political dogma. I am in the 21st Century, I write here about 21st Century politics.
Here, in this time, in this place, I can state, clearly and in a simple and linear fashion, the following principles.
Science must be objective, not driven by any religious or political or superstitious beliefs.
I find the whole AGW fuss to be, not science, but politically motivated pseudo-science. When and if objective PROOFS are provided of man-caused climate change, proofs which can be replicated, I will reconsider the possibility that human activity has caused changes in our climate. When and if there are objective PROOFS of actions that can and should be undertaken to correct any damage done by human activity, I will examine those with an open mind.
I find the spectacle of flailing around in a panic with the somewhat incoherent idea that we must do SOMETHING, without the slightest idea of what the ‘something’ should be, or how it could be done, or what it should accomplish, or even if something is necessary in the first place, to be so utterly foolish it defies reason.
This is why I find your going on and on about it to be so utterly foolish it defies reason.
I am sorry, for your sake, that the bloom is of the rico marriage rose and that Mrs. rico, well past the honeymoon stage, no longer pretends that your endless meanderings are of any interest, so you have had to come back here to try to generate some give-and-take. Actually, I am sorry for our sake as well.
But give it a rest. OK?
Amazona: I am sorry, for your sake, that the bloom is of the rico marriage rose and that Mrs. rico, well past the honeymoon stage, no longer pretends that your endless meanderings are of any interest, so you have had to come back here to try to generate some give-and-take.
Oh wow, how incredibly MEAN of you! Even if it were true (which it isn’t)… WOW! I am flabbergasted. Obviously, you couldn’t limit yourself to countering my arguments (they are certainly fair game. You couldn’t even limit yourself to questioning my personal integrity (that would be bad enough). But now you’ve moved beyond that into my relationships?! I never thought you would stoop so low. Have you no shame?!
rico, I thought I would give you some time to recover from your swoon of breathless indignation. Feeling better now? Cold compresses and camomile tea starting to work?
Good.
Yes, I have “countered” your “arguments” as well as anyone can, given that they are not really arguments at all but merely blurts of unsupported opinion cloaked ( heavily cloaked) in nearly impenetrable and meandering rhetoric, much of it abandoning the circular argument model in favor of the descending spiral.
As for the mild commentary on what might have brought you back to the blog, after quite a lengthy absence, I merely speculated that as is so common in newish marriages, a spouse often finds the quirks and foibles that were once rather endearing, or at least tolerable, to be less appealing. As someone whose quirks and foibles clearly include a passion for the sound of his own voice and the echo of his own thoughts, this might leave you without an audience for your elaborate and interminable presentations of ego and what you evidently think are intellectual gems, therefore bouncing you back to this blog, where you can Clavin at length.
Believe me, the last place I would want to be would be is “in” your relationships. Eeeuuuwww!!! My only fleeting, superficial, observation about your “relationship” was that perhaps it, for a time, gave you an audience for your pontificating and lecturing, and that perhaps it no longer does so.
No stooping involved.
OK, back to the chaise now, for some soothing mood music and a little more of that tea. Dim the lights. You’ll be better soon.
I’m seeing a pattern here.
For example, if we lose (and I am going to make up figures here, just to make a point) 5 million jobs under a Leftist president and then regain 2 million jobs, the Left will announce that we have GAINED 2 million jobs.
And if we move out of an ice age, with its low temperatures, the Left screeches about the frightening, terrifying, dangerous RISE IN TEMPERATURE, though there is no proof that the increase has even reached pre-ice-age levels.
They seem pretty befuddled by this net loss/net gain thing. You don’t start measuring/counting till you have reached the point at which the decrease began.
As I have said before, to the Left, if one goes to Vegas with $5000, loses $4900, and then wins back $2000, he has “won $2000” even though he is in the hole for $2900.
It’s convenient pseudo-math but necessary for their agendas to be supported.
“For example, if we lose (and I am going to make up figures here, just to make a point) 5 million jobs under a Leftist president and then regain 2 million jobs, the Left will announce that we have GAINED 2 million jobs.”
That is EXACTLY what the obAMATEUR, his looters, moochers and drones are trying to do. They are trying to spin FAILURE into success.
Excuse #1: “The economy turns out to have been far worse … than we knew at the time.”
Well that dumbed down talking point simply tells us that obAMATEUR never understood the problems to begin with.
Rhetoric: “Moving in the right direction”?
Despite more than three years and some $2 trillion spent on bailouts, handouts, and so-called stimulus, there are approximately three million fewer people employed today than were employed in 2008. Of course, this is not counting those who have fallen from the roles of looking for work and are not factored into the unemployment calculation.
ObAMATEUR now claims to “need more time.” Having no plan in hand while simultaneously claiming that we are moving in the right direction, obAMATEUR is clearly telling us that if he is re-elected, we can expect more deficit spending to pay for the same failed policies over the next four years – again, something a pragmatist would not do – repeat the same failures as before.
As he said before after extending tax cuts (after grandstanding about letting them expire), “now is not the time for tax increases”, he is looking to raise taxes on the “rich” – after raising them with his befuddles obAMACARE – in the name of “deficit reduction”. How can he reduce the deficit after spending more than Washington through Clinton combined?!?
Well, he has SUCCEEDED in being the FAILURE we knew where his ideology would take him. A pragmatist obAMATEUR is NOT!
Somebody pointed out that this should have been in this thread instead of the Rice thread where I posted it.
Yes, there was a gradual rise of just over one degree F, I believe, up until about ten years ago, when it leveled off. We have addressed this many times, in posts by many people. What you guys do, instead of actually CONTRIBUTING anything, just lurk to see if you can find anything you can glom onto as an alleged inconsistency.
But this is about all you can come up with. Even when asked, none of you can tell us precisely what human activity has caused any change in the climate, either warming or cooling. Oh, you can toss out unproven theories but not one single verifiable repeatable experiment which has proven a theory. You can’t say what might be the special reason for THIS particular warming trend, that makes it different from the thousands or tens of thousands that have preceded it.
You can’t even tell us why you are so deeply invested in the theory. Rational people are quite happy to go where the science takes them, but you guys freak out when science does not support your emotionally based need to shore up this belief system of yours. And you get quite angry about it, name-calling and insulting and having temper tantrums.
You can’t tell us what human activity has caused this “climate change” and you can’t tell us what human activity could correct it.
What you do do is lie. You repeatedly claim that we “deny global warming” when every one of us has acknowledged higher temperatures in some parts of the world. You lie and claim that we are baffled by the fact that there can be floods in some places and drought in others and that both represent climate change. You lie and claim that we are “trying to undermine science”. You get extremely upset and hostile.
And all we do is point out that climate changes have always happened, that many if not most have been far more extreme than a one degree rise in about a century, that we can’t even talk intelligently about long-term temperature changes as we have only been recording temperatures for about a century and not all that accurately for much of that time, that there have been theories but no established proven facts to support them, that there is a very obvious political aspect to the whole topic, that warmer temperatures mean longer lives and more productivity and less energy use, that there have been climate change predictions and scares for many many years some of which were about too much cooling, that most scientists relate higher temperatures to solar activity and distance to the Earth—we don’t get frantic and shrill and hysterical.
But you do.
I don’t care what you think, as long as you don’t try to use your belief system to impose political ideology on me. But you care what I think, to the point of calling me names and insulting me and becoming quite disturbed because I don’t agree.
When you look at paleoclimate studies, you get a sense of just how absurd the present climate change/global warming debate really is.
I posted on July 12 at 11:20 PM about our drought situation.
Well, Casper said that he was praying for rain for me. That was two days ago.
Casper, I want to let you know that your prayers were answered, and it started raining here about an hour after you and I last posted Thursday night, and it’s raining now. We’ve had some nice thunder-showers this afternoon. And there’s chance for showers everyday through mid-week. So it’s lookin’ pretty good!
Thank you for the prayers, Casper, and everyone who has prayed for rain.
As to my personal opinion of “global warming.” I put no stock in the theory. Mine is the more simplistic view, because it is a theory after all, and it does not need dis-proven, because there is no concrete evidence to prove that such a phenomenon exists.
“Global warming” in my view, is a myth conjured up by the mind of man in order to control the minds of the people in order to alter our way of life. And the only way that “global warming” theorists can establish their theory as “fact” they would have to use the long arm of the government to implement policies that restrict the amount of fossil fuels we use, and everything else for that matter. They have been in the process for quite a while now of trying to use their “global warming” theory as a means to give credence to the abortion industry…trying to get people to believe that less people is better for “healing” the planet, and therefore, abortion must be used as a tool in the “healing-the-planet” process.
Let me say, these “global warming” theorists are evil people we are dealing with. They would make Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Kim Jong Il proud.
With that said, this is why if Barack Obama gets another term, we’re going to be in a bad way. As if we aren’t in a bad enough way, already!
The oceans might rise! The oceans might rise! And it’s all because of MANKIIIIIIIIND!!! and our industrial age.
But….
(CBS News) LONDON – British scientists scouring the bottom of the North Sea have begun piecing together a picture of life in Doggerland, what they believe was the “heart of Europe,” connecting modern day Britain to continental Europe, until about 7,000 years ago.
Among fossilized evidence of mammoths and large game animals, divers have found harpoons, flint tools and suspected burial sites they say belonged to residents of the submerged settlement more than 12,000 years ago.
A team organized by Dr. Richard Bates, a geophysicist at the University of St. Andrews, says the evidence points to a once-dry land passage between Scotland and Denmark which that was likely larger than many modern European cities, with tens of thousands of ancient humans calling it home.
“We haven’t found an ‘x marks the spot’ or ‘Joe created this’, but we have found many artifacts and submerged features that are very difficult to explain by natural causes, such as mounds surrounded by ditches and fossilized tree stumps on the seafloor,” explains Bates.
“There is actually very little evidence left because much of it has eroded underwater; it’s like trying to find just part of a needle within a haystack,” he adds. “What we have found though is a remarkable amount of evidence and we are now able to pinpoint the best places to find preserved signs of life.”
Bates says Doggerland was inhabited by a large number of hunters and gatherers, who roamed the ancient expanse of land stretching all around the British Isles and connecting what is now England to France and the Lowlands, and what is now Scotland to Denmark in the north.
The passage is believed to have been above land from about 18,000 BC until 5,500 BC, when rising sea levels and a devastating tsunami submerged the remaining islands.
Perhaps the most astounding aspect of the Doggerland discoveries is the insight it may provide into human life more than 12,000 years ago, particularly in difficult climates.
Bates says the findings suggest early man was able to survive, and thrive, “up through the north, more than we ever thought that they should.”
Using a combination of geophysical modeling data from oil and gas companies, and direct evidence from materials recovered from the seafloor, the research team has been able to build a model of what the lost land likely looked like to its inhabitants.
“We have now been able to model its flora and fauna, build up a picture of the ancient people that lived there and begin to understand some of the dramatic events that subsequently changed the land, including the sea rising and a devastating tsunami,” explains Bates.
The research team isn’t finished yet. They’re currently investigating further evidence of human presence and behavior in Doggerland, including possible human burial sites, intriguing standing stones and a mass mammoth grave.
The research project is a collaboration between St. Andrews and the Universities of Aberdeen, Birmingham, Dundee and Wales Trinity St. David. The artifacts go on display this week at The Royal Society’s Summer Science Exhibition in London.
This story was filed by CBS News’ Leigh Kiniry in London.
The passage is believed to have been above land from about 18,000 BC until 5,500 BC, when rising sea levels and a devastating tsunami submerged the remaining islands.
Must have been the result of all those coal-powered SUV’s the ancients drove.
It is worth remembering that our warm present day inter-glacial climate is the exception, not the rule during a glacial epoch. For as much as 90% of the last 2 million years the ice fields on earth have been more extensive than they are today.
On the other hand, our the current glacial epoch and ice on earth and for the most part is also an abnormality. Our present-day Arctic Ocean is about 10-15°C cooler than it was at the time of the dinosaurs for almost all of the time from about 2 to at least 200 million years ago (Ma) the surface temperature exceeded that of today.
Climatic can change more rapidly than previously thought. The Gulf Stream plays an important role carrying heat from the equator poleward. When this current is disturbed, dramatic climatic changes can occur over a short period of time.
has Guam capsized yet from over population?
The story behind Doggerland, a land that was slowly submerged by water between 18,000 BC and 5,500 BC, has been organised by Dr Richard Bates at St Andrews University.
Dr Bates, a geophysicist, said “Doggerland was the real heartland of Europe until sea levels rose to give us the UK coastline of today.
………..Researchers also used geophysical modelling of data from oil and gas companies.
Findings suggest a picture of a land with hills and valleys, large swamps and lakes with major rivers dissecting a convoluted coastline.
As the sea rose the hills would have become an isolated archipelago of low islands.
Not that we need to be reminded that the PL trolls who infest this blog come here only to attack and try to insult (“try” because you cant’ be insulted by someone for whom you have only contempt) but never to contribute. But anyway, here is more proof that they do not come here to discuss.
Here are questions posed right here on this thread, which have been ignored while the trolls have barged ahead with more lies and personal attacks—evidently all they have to work with.
tiredoflibbs July 12, 2012 at 6:18 am
“What is the NORMAL temperature of this planet?” With that in mind: Are we above it and rising? Are we below it and rising?
*******************
tiredoflibbs July 12, 2012 at 6:23 am
Again creepy assclown, what is the NORMAL temperature of this Earth?
*******************
tiredoflibbs July 12, 2012 at 4:50 pm
stumpy, 35 years ago, the same environmental alarmists were claiming we were headed for an ice age!!!
It was in Time magazine. By your own standards, how far behind the curve were they? How could they have so easily changed their minds?
******************
Amazona July 13, 2012 at 5:38 pm
“If the planet is warming due to natural causes, why would you exacerbate the problem?”
More to the point, HOW would you “exacerbate the problem”? Just what activity of mankind has been proven to “exacerbate the problem”? Proof, please.
******************
Amazona July 13, 2012 at 10:53 am
Why is it hot this summer?
Is it due to natural fluctuations in temperatures, which have happened since the earliest days on Earth and which will continue as long as the Earth exists?
Or is it now, for the first time, caused by something else? Is it that after eons of temperature fluctuations, THIS PARTICULAR fluctuation is not part of the normal cycle but is, somehow, for some reason, different?
And if you believe that this particular heat wave is, unlike the thousands or millions which have preceded it, caused by some actions of mankind. what are they?
What, specifically, has mankind DONE to create these changes? Remember, so far all we we have seen are theories, about carbon dioxide and so on. Please provide proven verifiable FACT of the impact of various human activities on global temperature change.
And if you can, then please tell us what can be DONE about it to reverse it.
**********************
Amazona July 14, 2012 at 1:10 am
What’s the proved reason for the changes?
What do you think can be done to reverse them?
Why do you think they are bad?
*************************
tiredoflibbs July 14, 2012 at 8:23 am
Again, creepy assclown, Rico, Casper I’ll ask the question that no believer in “settled science” has answered:
WHAT IS THE “NORMAL” TEMPERATURE OF THE PLANET?
Are we warming towards it or away from it?
****************************
Retired Spook July 14, 2012 at 11:11 am
Perhaps Ricorun could show us what a GLOBAL mean land-ocean temperature index looks like for the last 2,000 years
**************************
Amazona July 14, 2012 at 11:27 am
Perhaps rico can also tell us, in 10,000 polysyllabic words or less, what the normal temperature of the planet IS. What is our goal here?
A pragmatist would not charge willy-nilly into an enterprise without a clearly defined goal, now, would he? So what is the goal of any effort to change/reverse/alter/modify the temperature fluctuations that, at this time, in this place, are suddenly different and more alarming than those which have preceded them?
What’s your target temperature? How do you arrive at it? Do you just pick a temperature from an era you think sounds comfy and plan to recreate it now, in this time and place?
And how?
*****************************
tiredoflibbs July 12, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Why don’t you pony up and tell me what the normal temperature of the planet is…. since you think you have all the answers. Plus are we above it? Below it?
In spite of the fact that I’ve been trying to avoid “talking about the science”, I actually HAVE answered many (in fact most) of the questions in your comment. So… what’s up?
I have done so even though it has become ever more obvious that trying to answer even the simplest of them could prove to be endless. Maybe the educational system is to blame, or parents, or bus drivers 🙂 or whatever, but clearly basic logic is in short supply.
Be that as it may, I again assert that I am NOT a climate scientist. Despite that limitation, I HAVE been bending over backwards trying to “contribute” and “discuss” as best I can, considering my other, more important obligations.
And what is a PL troll anyway? Apparently the definition has escaped me. But I”m guessing it’s bad, lol! And if I am one, WHY am I one? Is the definition made on purely ideological grounds? If so, those grounds must be highly restricted. If not, what ARE the grounds?
“I actually HAVE answered many (in fact most) of the questions in your comment.”
Really? Where? When? How?
Let me see—you have “done so” even though “…even the simplest (answer) could prove to be endless…”
Kinda like your posts, eh?
And then there are the Usual Suspects, to explain the fact that no one can find any of your answers. Damn those bus drivers!
But give it a try, m’kay?
What is the normal tempeature of the Earth?
Are we below or above it?
What is our temperature goal?
How is it chosen?
How would we achieve it?
There. Five simple questions.
As for “PL troll” this is really quite simple.
You see, we have all these people coming to the blog and attacking conservatives, and it becomes increasingly clear that they do so with no understanding whatsoever of wht the term “conservative” even MEANS. That is, the meaning in political terms, which is really what we are supposedly talking about here.
So I started asking those who appear to be on the Left, based on their defense of Leftist policies and people and their savage loathing of all on the Right, why they have chosen Leftist ideology. Not any really complicated questions, nothing that would require extensive delving into Leftist writings, just the query of why they have chosen the big powerful central government model over the small restricted federal government (Constitutional) one.
Assuming that these people are really really pragmatic and all, I figured that they have come to conclusions they believe to be logical, based on their evaluations of the two opposing systems. So I figured that at least one of them would be happy to explain and defend his political position.
And not one ever has.
Oh, we have seen some stuff that sounded like interview answers from beauty pageants—“Well, you know, like I think everything should be, like, FAIR ?, and children should not be, you know, HUNGRY ?, and….” But never a peep about why the Leftist system is better than the Constitutional system, never even an effort to defend Leftist political philosophy based on a history of success. Not even a clue that any of them even KNOW what Leftist political philosophy IS.
So it has become clear that these people are not posting to defend a political position but that they are merely taking advantage of the Leftist tactic of validating otherwise unacceptable personality disorders such as uncontrolled rage and mindless hostility, but when it comes to politics they are Pseudo Liberals.
And yeah, the term IS based on ideology, or rather on the lack of one while attacking those who have a conservative ideology. But then politics, real politics, IS ideology. Politics is the determination of the best blueprint for governing a nation, and this is the very definition of political ideology.
You qualify because you defend Leftist ideas without understanding them or committing to them, apparently being one of those who are driven by emotion rather that objective analysis of the pros and cons of the competing political systems. Oh, you try to cover up this inability to understand either ideology or commit to one or the other, or at least to admit to committing to one or the other, with a lot of blather about how it is just so much more LOGICAL to ignore the underlying ideology of the two competing systems and just flit from onerepresentative to the other based on how each appeals to you on any given day.
But I define a Pseudo Leftist as one, like you, who defends Leftist politics without understanding them. As for “troll”, feel free to substitute “speed bump” if you are species-bigoted.
Amazona: What is the normal tempeature of the Earth?
Are we below or above it?
What is our temperature goal?
How is it chosen?
How would we achieve it?
There. Five simple questions.
I thought I already answered most of them, but apparently my reply did not show up on this site, for whatever reason. Whatever the cause I was certainly remiss — I did not save my reply. My bad. This time I will be certain to do so. Anyway, here goes…
I know of no reputable climate scientist who has ever suggested that there is a “normal temperature” for earth. Rather, the arguments made by reputable climate scientists largely hinge on the velocity of change, not change per se.
In those two sentences I think I have covered all five of your questions. Pretty good, huh?
rico, you’re kidding, right?
If you think “In those two sentences I think I have covered all five of your questions. Pretty good, huh?” you are even more delusional than I thought—and that’s a whole bunch of delusion, buddy.
No, rico, you “covered” not a one of my questions, unless you are redefining “cover” as “dodge” the same way you just redefined “anthropogenic global WARMING” as “anthropogenic ACCELERATED global warming”.
Perhaps you can link us to that gem of new info. Is it now AAGW? I must have missed the memo.
You say “I know of no reputable climate scientist who has ever suggested that there is a “normal temperature” for earth.”
That’s OK. For now I’ll settle for one of the disreputable climate scientists who have been lecturing us that the Earth is just getting too damned hot.
“Rather, the arguments made by reputable climate scientists largely hinge on the velocity of change, not change per se. “
OK. What is the ideal velocity for warming? And while we’re at it, for cooling. If these “reputable climate scientists” say that the problem is not that there is change, and not the extent of the change, but just the speed of the change, then what is the correct speed?
Since you didn’t answer a single one of my original questions, but just tried the old gambit of changing the terms, we’ll make a small modification to the query to accommodate your sudden discovery of the speed vs degree issue.
What is the normal velocity of temperature change of the Earth?
Are we below or above it?
What is our change of velocity goal?
How is it chosen?
How would we achieve it?
But thanks for the peek into what passes for “pretty good” on Planet Rico. It explains a lot.
As I said in an earlier post:
A pragmatist would not charge willy-nilly into an enterprise without a clearly defined goal, now, would he? So what is the goal of any effort to change/reverse/alter/modify the temperature fluctuations that, at this time, in this place, are suddenly different and more alarming than those which have preceded them?
“In those two sentences I think I have covered all five of your questions. Pretty good, huh?”
Hardly… rico, nice dodge. “velocity of change” only has meaning if you know where you are and if you are moving to/away from the desired target.
Again, nice dodge – the blog ate my response! What a hoot! ROTFLMAO!!!!
Amazona: What is the normal velocity of temperature change of the Earth?
Are we below or above it?
What is our change of velocity goal?
How is it chosen?
How would we achieve it?
Now those are much better questions! And they are much more controversial within the climate science community. There are those who are very concerned that the earth is getting too hot too quickly and we are on our way to calamity. Others are not nearly so concerned. My own opinion tends toward the latter, and is not unlike James Lovelock’s (current) opinion. Plus, I am of the opinion that there is not now a unified, world-wide political will to do too much, and whatever is done has to make economic sense. On the other hand, I don’t believe doing nothing makes economic sense. And by the way, that’s pretty much the conclusion the Chinese have come to in recent years, and have thus made considerable investments in non-fossil fuel development.
In other words your attacks on and dismissal of those who object to the pseudo-science of AGW has no more basis in fact or conviction than your pseudo-political ideology-free chatter.
It’s all just noise.
Pompous, self-congratulatory, clueless and directionless noise.
“There’s no world-wide will to do much and I have no opinion at all about what could or should be done but I don’t think we should do nothing and yes the world is heating up according to my links which I found significant enough to post but I don’t think heating up is the problem and velocity of change is the problem but I can’t point to anything to support that either but you are supposed to admire my cut and paste polysyllabic blather.”
Got it. Pretty good, huh?
Amazona: In other words your attacks on and dismissal of those who object to the pseudo-science of AGW has no more basis in fact or conviction than your pseudo-political ideology-free chatter.
As I see it, there are two basic questions. The first is: “Is the human species responsible for the current warming of the troposphere?” To that I answser “yes, to a very high level of probability”. The second question is: “Is it a major concern?” To that I answer “It certainly could be if we continue on our present trajectory and do nothing, but that would be stupid.” After all, there are other very compelling reasons why we should wean ourselves from oil to power transportation, and coal to power “the grid” (i.e., stationary needs for heat and electricity). With developments in horizontal drilling and fracking technologies we have recently made significant in-roads on the latter: coal plants have significantly decreased in importance as the major provider of base load grid power. They have been primarily supplanted by natural gas plants, which are much cleaner burning per BTU and which are easier to start and stop, which makes them better suited for significant supplementation by more variable sources such as windmills, solar PV, and solar thermal. It is also interesting to note that many of the same technologies involved in horizontal drilling and fracking to release gas (and to a lesser extent oil) deposits can be employed to more effectively harvest geothermal resources. There are some differences, of course, but those are the major technologies involved. There doesn’t appear to be that many hurdles left. Time will tell, I guess.
Supplanting oil as a technology fuel is the more difficult nut to crack. But even there our now vast resources of domestic natural gas resources could make a significant contribution, especially with respect to heavy vehicles. And there are ALL KINDS of positive implications to that. Those implications include national security, trade imbalance, domestic jobs, etc.
The major impediment there is pipeline infrastructure. There has been a huge flap about the Keystone XL pipeline, which was intended to transport heavy crude (and by necessity a variety of very toxic solvents) down to refineries on the Gulf Coast. I still don’t understand how that makes sense. First of all, why not build refineries closer to the source? Second and most important, why not spend the money building an infrastructure to transport natural gas instead? After all, the tar sands fields are seriously screwing up Alberta. Plus, it’s more economical to harvest natural gas from domestic deposits.
There are some problems with fracking. One is that there is evidence that it causes minor earthquakes of 4.0 or less on the Richter scale. As a resident of California, all I can say to that is… oh please. Considering that the increase in domestic natural gas reserves resulting from fracking has provided a way to significantly impact our reliance on foreign sources of oil, should anyone really care if their china rattles from time to time? Perhaps that’s an oversimplification, but not much. And even if (very rare) more significant events might occur, does it really change the argument much? Personally, I don’t think so. A second is that there is some evidence that some fracking sites release toxic substances into the local water supply and/or into the atmosphere. That, to me, is a realistic concern. And for those sites where such evidence exists, the practice should be curtailed unless and until those concerns are effectively mitigated. But IMO, it is NOT a reason to put the kibosh on fracking overall.
““Is the human species responsible for the current warming of the troposphere?” To that I answser “yes, to a very high level of probability”.”
Based on what?
“The second question is: “Is it a major concern?” To that I answer “It certainly could be if we continue on our present trajectory and do nothing,…”
Do what?
What makes this particular “warming of the troposphere” different than any of the previous thousands or tens of thousands of “warming of the troposphere”? What is the evidence that THIS “warming of the troposphere” is more extreme,faster, or in any way scarier than any other?
What can be done?
With what goal in mind?
Once again, I remind you of the foolishness of embarking on a plan of action with no stated goal, and no idea of what can or cannot be done, to accomplish something no one can define. Stop the warming? Slow it down? Stop the warming at what temperature? Why that temperature? What is there to say this temperature is more desirable than any other?
Do you believe fracking contributes to global warming, or speeds it up? Why include fracking in your comment about AGW?
What evidence is there that “…some fracking sites release toxic substances into the local water supply and/or into the atmosphere. ” ?
How do chemicals pumped underground at depths of up to a mile or so deep get into the atmosphere? What is the nature of these alleged releases of “toxic substances into the local water supply”?
“That, to me, is a realistic concern. “
“Realistic” if there is no proof of an ongoing problem?
(FYI, the only time I know of where fracking water got into a water supply was an isolated situation where the well casing was cracked. When fracking liquid is pumped into deposits through intact casings, there is no evidence of migration into water supplies. The fractures are small and limited in length and thousands of feet below aquifers.)
“As I see it, there are two basic questions.”
So as you see it, there are only two questions, not the five I repeatedly asked, and your two are not included in my five, and you didn’t even answer your own substitute questions with anything but waffling and studied vagueness.
The problem is not what you said it was and might or might not be a problem at all but there is evidence it is but it might be and it might not be and it would be a mistake to not do anything about it but you have no idea of what to do and even less idea of what could be accomplished or even should be attempted should someone try to do the something you can’t identify but that natural gas sure is nifty and fracking might or might not be a problem but we shouldn’t eliminate fracking and solar is nice but time will tell and then there are those trade imbalances.
And bus drivers. Don’t forget the bus drivers.
“the tar sands fields are seriously screwing up Alberta. ”
Except “the tar sand fields” are doing no such thing.
An evaporation pond was not properly secured and a lot of waterfowl landed on it and were poisoned by the toxic chemicals in the water.
Oil field workers are sloppy about how to dispose of their garbage, and lots of bears have started coming around, leading to the killing of nearly 150 by wildlife officials.
rico’s boundless naivete (and I am being very very kind here) probably has him buying into the watermelon whine that when a truck carrying fracking liquid had a small leak, dribbling some water onto a roadway, this was really a “fracking accident”.
Amazona (quoting me): “Is the human species responsible for the current warming of the troposphere?” To that I answser “yes, to a very high level of probability”.
Amazona’s reply: “Based on what?”
My reply to Amazona’s reply is: Based on the confluence of the best evidence available. One could certainly argue that the present evidence is not perfect. But I argue that it’s close enough to make a compelling argument. Likewise, it is FAR MORE easy to argue that no compelling, cohesive argument to contrary comes anywhere close. But if you think there is such a cohesive, compelling argument, please inform us.
So far the argument you’ve presented is basically, “temperature just varies”. It certainly does, but there still has to be reasons, right? So what are they, in your opinion? Certainly different variables predominate at different times over history, but there is always a cause, right? — unless, of course, you subscribe to the arbitrary, inexplicable ” finger of God” theory, in which case you don’t have to offer a mechanism, you can just say “God willed it”. But other than that, there has to be a cause. So, if you agree that the earth is warming (and the fact that 9 out of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000 suggests it is — and the effect hasn’t been limited to the years following 2000 either), how do you account for that? Is it radiance from the sun? Is it cosmic rays? Is it changes in clouds? Is it volcanic activity? Is it variations in the earth’s orbit, or a wobble in its rotational axis? What? Or what combination? All of those things can be measured with considerable (though again, not perfect) precision. At the same time there is increasingly little evidence that any of them, in any combination, can account for anything more than a relatively small portion of the warming that we’re presently experiencing. It is, in fact, ONLY IF you add to whatever your preferred combination of other known variables are, you add the GHG loading currently occurring to the atmosphere. Only then can you adequately explain it. James Lovelock doesn’t deny it. Lonborg doesn’t deny it. Roy Spencer doesn’t deny it. Who is left with any credibility (Monckton is not credible)?
Then again, since climate science is basically a correlational study (i.e., you can’t run experiments to isolate variables, at least not on a truly global scale). But correlational studies are not hopeless: one can eliminate known variables through the process of part/partial correlational and other statistical techniques. That said, there is always the possibility that there is an “unknown variable” at work — or some combination of “unknown variables”. But considering the phenomenon of climate change has been so intensely studied for the last 30 years or so, that possibility is increasingly remote. I wouldn’t bet the farm on it, that’s for sure.
So that’s the thinking upon which I based my statement.
What can be done?
With what goal in mind?
I thought I answered those questions, at least in general. But to re-hash… I think it’s ultimately important to reduce our carbon emissions, but in a way as to promote the economy (especially the domestic one) over the long term. In saying so, I don’t think we are at a critical stage where we have to restrict our GHG effluents at any and all cost. Maybe sometime in the future, but not now — and especially if we take reasonable steps to avoid that situation. Fortunately, there are many things we can do, both now and in the future. To answer another of Amazona’s questions, I brought up fracking on a “Global warming” thread because both are, at their core, energy issues, and thus cannot, and should not, be compartmentalized. Likewise, there are also other “energy issues” which, at their core, have little to nothing to do with global warming. But for the same reason that they significant impact energy considerations, I think they should not be compartmentalized either. Those issues include national security, trade imbalance, domestic jobs, “negawatts” (Avory Lovin’s term indicating the most efficient way to reduce the cost of energy is not to use it in ther first place), etc. Fracking, in particular, affects all of them [except negawatts — and I must say that given the current state of the issue, energy conservation is the best, most cost-effective contributing factor to the solution to the issue. But obviously it is not one which can solve the problem in its entirety. Other contribuing factors involve (but are certainly not limited to) the following…]
Fracking is a technology wherein natural gas can be harvested in large quantities at relatively low cost with relatively low energy expenditure, and in some cases with relatively low expenditures of other resources (particularly water). It is also a highly efficient fuel in the sense that the amount of energy extracted per molecule of CO2 released is higher than any other fossil fuel. It is also cleaner burning than any other fossil fuel. Finally, it can be easily compressed into a form which makes it a viable transportation fuel. With the exception of the last, ALL of those reasons make natural gas extraction FAR superior to tar sands extraction. And considering the last, it’s comparable.
[BTW, in a previous post I mentioned “oil as a technology fuel”. I meant to say “oil as a transportation fuel”. I apologize for my mistake, especially considering that it significanly changed the meaning of the comment I was trying to make: in case it was lost, my main point was/is that alternatives available for transportation fuels are very different for grid/stationary fuels. Energy density is far more important when talking about transportation fuels than when talking about grid/stationary fuels. Again, I apologize.]
Amazona also commented on the environmental impacts of both domestic oil/gas shale development and tar sands development in Canada (which is still a foreign source, but a friendly one). To be sure, the environmental impacts have been exaggerated in the media (and thus, in the public mind). But that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. In that regard I offer what I believe to be the most recent and most definitive meta-studies on domestic oil/gas shale reserves on the one hand, and Canadian tar sands reserves on the other. Assuming you were inclined to read them with a critical eye (as opposed to relying on a secondary source to tell you what they want you to think), it is very apparent that whatever environmental effects have (and especially could) occur during the exploitation of the two resources (and there are certainly those), the likelihood of a major environmental impact associated with domestic oil/gas shale development is FAR less than that for Canadian tar sand development. For one thing, the latter study indicates that as of 2010 the tailing ponds in Alberta have increased in size to 130 sq km (50 sq miles) — that’s the size of the city of Long Beach or Anaheim, CA. They continue to grow, and they don’t have the technology in place (or even reasonably contemplated) to stop it. A single major breach could cause significant major havoc, ala what happened when a sludge containment pond at a coal plant in Tennessee blew, or what happened to the BP oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico.
Also, the latter study indicates that the GHG contribution related to Canadian oil sand extraction is significant, with no real hope of mitigation. It is, after all, highly energy intensive. You, Amazona, talk about “embarking on a plan of action with no stated goal, and no idea of what can or cannot be done, to accomplish something no one can define”. Given the evidence, what would YOU suggest, especially regarding the relative merits of the two resources?
Additionally, it is clearly obvious that neither of the technologies are “perfect”. Perfection, apparently, is a major requirement of yours, Amazona. Given that, how can you possibly advocate one over the other — or both over ANY OTHER technology — if you solely rely on a dichotomy so constrained as to insist on the distinction between “Perfection” vs.”Imperfection”? Such a dichotomy is ludicrous in the extreme. And if you can’t agree on that point, I feel fully obliged to chalk it up to your “boundless naivete”. Face it, it’s a technicolor (i.e., a multi-dimensional) world. A world where uncertainties exist in abundance. And certainly where simple, unidimensional dichotomies don’t apply. Such a conception CAN’T EVEN BEGIN to explain the vitality of the real world. Is “technicolor” hard to explain? Abso-freakin’-lutely! It is SO much harder to explain than trying to fit all of life (or even political belief) into a simple, one-or-the-other Liberal/Conservative framework. But that doesn’t make it less real. Quite the contrary.
“Amazona (quoting me): “Is the human species responsible for the current warming of the troposphere?” To that I answser “yes, to a very high level of probability”.
Amazona’s reply: “Based on what?”
My reply to Amazona’s reply is: Based on the confluence of the best evidence available. One could certainly argue that the present evidence is not perfect. But I argue that it’s close enough to make a compelling argument.”
Hunches, intuition, speculation, guesses—what EVIDENCE?
“Likewise, it is FAR MORE easy to argue that no compelling, cohesive argument to contrary comes anywhere close. But if you think there is such a cohesive, compelling argument, please inform us. ”
Do you mean “coherent”? Or do you mean an argument that sticks to itself?
You appear to be saying that there is easier to argue that there is no evidence of natural climate change vs anthropogenic climate change. You are so enamored of the challenge of packing as many words as possible in between sentence full stops, it is often hard to figure out what you mean.
We have proof of prior swift and violent swings in planet climate. So we know they have happened. A baby mammoth, for example, perfectly preserved by cold, with intact flowers in its mouth, was obviously taken by surprise by a cold snap far more extreme and swift than any we have seen. Equally rapid swings toward extreme heat would naturally be harder to document with fossils and geologic data but there we do know there have been extreme swings toward high planet temperatures even if we don’t know, to use a favorite word of yours, their VELOCITY.
We have some records of some temperature changes within a period of time so short, in planetary terms, it is less than the blink of an eye, and the extent of these changes is hard to measure as the scientific methods recording the earlier data were hardly as precise as those we use now.
If FEELS fast, and it FEELS hot, and it FEELS as if something we can see must be causing it, like car exhaust or something, because we don’t like not knowing why things happen. Whether it is fear of the unknown or egos demanding that we must not only know but have the power to change, it still bypasses objective scientific methodology and is stuck in the realm of FEELING.
“I am of the opinion that there is not now a unified, world-wide political will to do too much, and whatever is done has to make economic sense. On the other hand, I don’t believe doing nothing makes economic sense. ”
Well, you’ve got that pretty well bracketed, don’t you?
But, as there is no idea of what TO do, if anything can or should be “done” at all, it is no surprise that there is not a “unified world-wide political will” to flail in ignorance at a very possibly nonexistent danger. Not to mention that there has never in all the history of mankind, ever BEEN a “unified world-wide political will” regarding ANYTHING.
If “doing nothing” makes no economic sense, then what does?
And what would you do?
And if you don’t have a clue, which is becoming increasingly more obvious, why are you wasting so much time blathering on about it?