« National Intelligence Estimate Key Judgements Released | Main | Blogs Are Inviting Targets »

Good Morning Alarmists

I happened to catch this segment on GMA this morning and was pretty alarmed -- not just by the alarmist rhetoric, but by some of the things that GMA reported as fact. Before anyone accuses me of being an environmental ostrich, all I am asking is to have a few words added to most global warming stories. Words like "believed by many" or "estimated" would do for starters. Instead, it is often declared that scientists say or warn us, about things that "will" happen, rather than "many" scientists say it is "possible." You can read the GMA report at Newsbusters, but my "alarm" went off when I heard that temperatures are the warmest in a million years. Just exactly how accurate were the thermometers 999,999 years ago anyway? I sure would like to get hold of one of them because we have several in our home and vehicles and they rarely ever all say the same thing. I pass three time and temperature signs in a one mile stretch on the way to Wal-Mart and the temps generally vary a few degrees. I am sure those caveman thermometers were accurate within hundreths of a degree though.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Good Morning Alarmists:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Journal: U.S. blocked hurricane report

Comments (170)

Wow. Did they really say th... (Below threshold)

Wow. Did they really say the warmest temperatures in a million years? Usually they use "warmest temperatures ever. So I guess this is a step forward to ward reason and healthy skepticism.

This is great reading Lorie... (Below threshold)

This is great reading Lorie
SENATOR JAMES INHOFE CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

The media have missed the big pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the Earth's temperatures and mankind's carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend.

Inhofe reported this on the Senate Floor yesterday. Full story here:http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

One of the ways you calcula... (Below threshold)
chris:

One of the ways you calculate temperature is in relations to CO2 levels in the atmosphere - currenlty at about 360 ppm,the highest level they have been for 700 000 years (measured by taking ice core samples).

An interesting report from two weeks ago. While 58% of Americans believe that there is some 'debate' about whether or not global warming is a reality, 100% of the papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals over the past 5 years have concurred that global warming due to man made emissions is occuring.

Many of the arguments put forward by global-warming naysayers remind me of those used by Creationists who claim there is some debate in science about whether evolution occurs. If the ratio of scientists who have data supporting one supposition is 100 000:1 (against those who claim otherwise), that is NOT a debate.

Part of the problem is special interest groups like Exxon fund alternative 'research' - google "Royal Society tells Exxon: Stop Funding Climate Change Denial."

Even the Bush Administration has agreed that global warming is occurring.

The only debate at this time is how bad things will be. That is difficult, if not impossible, to calculate - read up on chaos maths on wikipedia if you want to know why.

What people have to get their heads around is that the environment dictated the placement of our cities and farms - and that even minor changes in global weather patterns can have disasterous results.

Imagine New Orleans being regularily hit by category 5 hurricanes.

Australia has just come out of winter, yet our water catchments are the lowest on record. The Great Barrier Reef is dying. Our bananna industry was devasted last year by an unprecedented tropical storm. And $500 million dollars of damage was just sustained by our fruit industries dues to a (once again) unprecendented frost.

And don't even get me going about migrating disease vectors - malaria being just one of them.

One question the naysayers have NEVER been able to answer. If converting the economy to one that is 'carbon clean' is such a difficult, expensive process,.. why would 155 OTHER countries endevour to do this? I mean, if there was ANY doubt at all about global warming, you' think they'd hold off. But they haven't - they are prepared to bite the bullet, and at least try to do something about the problem.

It's amazing how, in one br... (Below threshold)
Lee:

It's amazing how, in one breath, Republicans will deny they are in the oil comapny's pockets -- that they aren't just just front men and women for the oil cartels -- yet in the very next breath they will condemn global warming and mount one attack after another on the scientific evidence that is mounting, daily.

One would think that if the Repubulicans are not just political shills for the oil companies they wouldn't really have such a stake in this game - but boy, as Lorie clearly illustrates, the Republicans are VERY interested in protecting their oil company pals.

And to those morons who claim that the oil company's are juggling gasoline prices to benefit the Republicans at election time -- this is the other side of the coin - the PAYBACK from the Republican shills -- in return for lower gas prices in October and November. The conservative oil company Republican shills were all over the blogosphere and conservative talk radio today, talking down global warming. They will continue this assault on America right up until their sorry *sses are voted out of office in November.

Honest, hard-working Americans take it in the *ss again.

"And don't even get me goin... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

"And don't even get me going about migrating disease vectors - malaria being just one of them."

Posted by: chris

Nice try Chris. Malaria is a mosquito borne disease. The essential banning of DDT based on faulty alarmist research is what keeps malaria going. Don't blame "global warming', blame Rachel Carson and those who believed her crap.

"100% of the papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals over the past 5 years have concurred that global warming due to man made emissions is occuring."

Sorry Chris, but that just won't cut it. I have learned to be skeptical of such claims, just as people have become skeptical of many things. Did any of these scientific journals note the possibilty of the solar cycle impacting temperatures? Did they tell us that the earth has always maintained the same climate throughout its long history? Did they tell us about the thermostat setting that the earth should be at? There are enough credible scientific skeptics out there too convince me to keep the powder dry on this issue.

"unprecendented frost"

Tough break (and poor spelling). Farmers for millenia have gambled that conditions would be favorable for their crops. I'm sorry you lost all those bananas, but here in the US midwest that doesn't surprise anyone.

One more thing: Would you please tell me what the temperature was in the place you are sitting 1 year ago? 10 years ago? 100 years ago? 1,000 years ago? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Lee, please stop sharing yo... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Lee, please stop sharing your love life details with us.

Give me a break, Lee. I am... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Give me a break, Lee. I am an agent of big oil now? I wish I were getting that big oil paycheck. I just don't believe that scientists are Gods. I have seen too many instances when something taken as a scientific fact is later shown to be completely and totally incorrect a few years later when better technology or information are available. Were you arguing the dangers of global cooling back when I was in college? What is the difference between then and now? I just wonder what the irrefutable truth will be when my kids are in college.

Wow, if the people of Tenne... (Below threshold)
smartguy:

Wow, if the people of Tennessee had voted for Al Gore they could have saved the world.

Chris, Lee, you are absorbe... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Chris, Lee, you are absorbed by the current fashion. Remember in the '70's, the "scientific community" was convinced we were suffering from GLOBAL COOLING!

What happened to all those temperature measurements; did the scientists read them wrong? Were they in celsius instead of F?

If you read the literature out there, you will see that a number of scientists, many tops in their fields, have found numerous other potential causes of warming, including increased size of cities/land use, natural phenomenon in the earth and sea.

They have also found that in many parts of the world, if you go back 100 years, and graph temperatures, they either go down, or stay roughly the same.

The weather is a vastly complex thing. Hell, the Accuweather guy can't even predict snow in a five day forecast properly around here.

How would you believe science can predict warming/cooling in the next 10,20,1000 years given that record?

And how much do non-human causes contribute? Are they greater than human causes? If so, what do you do about that?

Read Michael Crighton's book "State of Fear." It's a novel, but the scientific references are real, all footnoted, and the author who is a unique and honest thinker himself, gives an opinion in a note at the end that does not hue to the environmentalist orthodoxy.

Chris, another fallacy you ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Chris, another fallacy you got stuck in your head, but never considered in a meaningful way (like the rest of this):

155 countries. There are no such thing. Few have signed Kyoto, and hardly any have made any attempt to control c02. India and China are full steam ahead and racing away from Kyoto like an out of control train.

Name me more than a handful of coutries that have reduced emissions meaningfully.

This is the problem with Libs and Enviros. It's not the facts or science that matter, it's a fatuous, almost religious belief in things that don't exist, or have not been proven to exist.

Another problem for you supposedly enlightened, compassionate types. What happens if you cut C02 dramatically--what effect does it have on empoverished countries? Do you know what that would do to there already fragile food distribution and economic systems?

Everything in the natural world has an effect that may be counter to what you suppose. What effect will shutting down our economic capacity with and ill-considered Kyoto type treaty have on us and the world?

No -- I don't think you are... (Below threshold)
Lee:

No -- I don't think you are receiving a paycheck for what you write, Lorie -- but you are and your fellow Wizbang! bloggers sure go to extreme lengths to defend the oil company pals of the Republicans against the evidence of global warming.

According to that link there were 4 Wizbang! posts in the month of August debunking global warming - and a total of 42 since November 2003!!!

Shilling for big oil isn't the way to protect your children's futures, Lorie. Why not err on the side of safety and reduce greenhouse gases -- now that we know global warming is real (for whatever reason you choose to believe that we temps are rising - -you have to acknowedge that they are rising)...

but no - we're treated to another blatant oil-company *ss-kissing blog post instead?

Oh, and another thing you d... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Oh, and another thing you dingbats never considered: wonder if our thermometers and other temperature recording devices are much more accurate, and thus, recording things differently, from those that existed 30, 40, 50, 100 years ago?

There is alot more here than meets the simpleton's eye, friends.

What happened to the polar ... (Below threshold)
Burt:

What happened to the polar ice caps on Mars? Yeah, I know Bush did it. It's how, that I'm asking about.

John, I'm not sure what poi... (Below threshold)
chris:

John, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make re malaria. You might want to read "Global warming disease warning" at BBC news.

Re DDT - you mean it DOESN'T enter the food chain, and have long-standing ramifications? Wow - I'm clear on that now - I'll just take your word for it, then.

"On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone) [6]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change may be anthropogenic in nature."

I note that the naysayers cannot demonstrate that CO2 levels are not increasing. I also note that the naysayers cannot produce even ONE peer reviewed paper for every 10 that I can produce to support their position (re mine).

Honest to goodness, Lee, I ... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Honest to goodness, Lee, I had not one thought of oil or gas or anything but common sense and all those conflicting thermometers I see all the time when I posted this. I just wonder how you can be so sure that you know exactly what the temperature was a million years ago. So are those ice core plugs accurate to tenths of a degree? I guess I should be using those. I just want a little common sense to be employed.

Oh, and as for talking about my kids and how I provide for their futures, sorry but use your own kids to make your points. I am more concerned about my kids' school getting invaded, Beslan style or bombed 9/11 style. You accuse me of shilling for big oil when all I want is to know why I should trust caveman thermometers. I could accuse you of shilling for big terrorism and find plenty of your comments here to support the accusation if I chose to make it. I don't though.

I have a column due tomorrow and have to have it in tonight because I work tomorrow morning, so I won't be able to check comments again for a while. I apologize for hit-and-run commenting, but I just don't have a choice tonight.

There are enough cred... (Below threshold)
Brian:

There are enough credible scientific skeptics out there too convince me to keep the powder dry on this issue.

Name one.

Mitchell said: "155 countri... (Below threshold)
chris:

Mitchell said: "155 countries. There are no such thing. Few have signed Kyoto..."

Yes, your right, I checked my facts.. 122 have signed on to Kyoto. Google it if you doubt me.

"This is the problem with Libs and Enviros. It's not the facts or science that matter..."

So, hang on, it's the facts and science that matter? Um, but every major scientific institution in the world has concluded the same thing (including the US). So if it was about science, Mitchell, you'd be arguing the opposite.

And yes Mitchell, you're right again. The only measurement scientists have taken re global warming is that of air temperature,.. and for that they use thermometers... and, of course, as we all know, mercury expands at a different rate nowadays... :D

One more thing: Would yo... (Below threshold)
Brian:

One more thing: Would you please tell me what the temperature was in the place you are sitting 1 year ago? 10 years ago? 100 years ago? 1,000 years ago? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Sounds like you're saying that you don't believe germs cause diseases because you can't see them.

Oh, just checked something ... (Below threshold)
chris:

Oh, just checked something else.. the GMA segment was crap - the study actually concluded that

"The world is the warmest it has been in the last 12,000 years as a result of rapid warming over the past 30 years, a study has suggested."

But the authors of the study are complete lightweights: "The study by researchers from Nasa, Columbia University and the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB)...".

You can read more about this study at:

news.bbc.co.uk
" World 'warmest for 12,000 years".

Mitchel -"155 cou... (Below threshold)
jweman:

Mitchel -
"155 countries. There are no such thing. Few have signed Kyoto, and hardly any have made any attempt to control c02."

I do not disagree with your sentiments, and I think GW is a big hoax, but I wanted to point out that Wikipedia(...I know) shows that "As of September 2006, 162 states have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, aimed at combatting global warming"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories

Rgds,

Jwehman

Oh Chris, where to begin.</... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Oh Chris, where to begin.

How are thermometers calibrated? It's not the fact that mercury expands, it's how the expansion is measured. Again, your assertions show little regard for science, or truth. Perhaps you are too eager to get to your conclusions.

The point about Kyoto is not how many have signed it, but how many actually observe it. You've not answered the essential point I made about non-compliance and economic impacts because you know it would demolish your flimsy argument.

Not every scientific institution has signed on to your theory, and it is only a theory, that there is 1) global warming beyond the average, and 2) predominately a product of human activities. There are a number of "peer reviewed" writing on the topic I have mentioned.

If you think it's such a slam dunk, why not answer my questions, and those of a serious thinker, and scientist in his own right, such as Mr. Crighton? And, Mr. Grey, recently of the news, and a pre-eminent scientist who stands opposed to this theory without proof?

Why did your scientific community think we were suffering instead of "global cooling" just 30 years ago?

Answer these legitimate questions reasonably, and you'll have to conclude the scientific proof is not there. Maybe it will be one day; but not today.

Mitchell, I was being ironi... (Below threshold)
chris:

Mitchell, I was being ironic. Do you honestly think that the science of global warming is based on the measurement of air temperature using thermometers? I suppose it would be possible for you to be less informed.. possible, but unlikely...

"Not every scientific institution has signed on to your theory." Name me one that hasn't.

Who is Mr. Grey. Give me a link, and I'll follow it.

For Mitchell:"Not ev... (Below threshold)
chris:

For Mitchell:
"Not every scientific institution has signed on to your theory, and it is only a theory.."

Really???

"In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations (including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) - and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [1], and explicitly endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consensus."

You have heard of the National Academy of Sciences - advises the US government on science related matters.

And, once again...

"On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone) [6]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change may be anthropogenic in nature."

So who exactly is Mr. Grey? He's up against some stiff competition....


For Mitchell:re Mi... (Below threshold)
chris:

For Mitchell:

re Michael Crighton: nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcrichton.asp

Nice breakdown on his FICTIONAL work. Are you honestly trying to argue that there is a GLOBAL conpsirary amoung ALL the world's major scientific instiutes, plus the governments of 122 countries re global warming?

Wow. And what is the AIM of this vast conspiracy?

Yes, yes, I know: All your carbon are belong to us.

According to the BBC: "The ... (Below threshold)
J-Ho:

According to the BBC: "The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.
Ancient trees reveal most warm spells are caused by the sun Using ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity. "

Yeah, let's just ignore that great big bright spot in the sky and the effect it has on the planet!

Science News Magazine stated: "Even though carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have been rising constantly for the past 150 years, global average surface temperatures during that time have shown extended periods of both warming and cooling. After a period of warming early in the century, slow but steady global cooling began in the 1940s. It continued until the mid 1970s, when warming seems to have kicked in and overtaken the cooling trend."

THE EARTH IS GOING TO ICE OVER!!!! Oh, I remember it well. I'm gonna fire up the grill and let my V-8 powered 1974 Bronco just sit in the driveway and run for an hour, in honor of "science."

No one is disputing that th... (Below threshold)
chris:

No one is disputing that the cycles of the sun cause warming and cooling trends.

But NO scientists are disputing the fact that CO2 levels are the highest they have been for 700 000 years. And at 1000pm CO2, the oceans were 60 feet higher than they are today.

The point re global warming is that if you put enough CO2 into the atmosphere, the AVERAGE temperature of the planet increases... so that 'cool' periods of solar activity are not as cool as they would have been - and hot periods are significantly hotter.

Last paragraph was interesting:

"The scientists do not pretend they can explain everything, nor do they say that attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be abandoned."

For J-Ho:The Scien... (Below threshold)
chris:

For J-Ho:

The Science article was interesting. You misrepresented the conclusions reached, though:

"Although these results show that the solar variation can be a major contributor to climate change, Stott says he expects rising anthropogenic emissions to increasingly dominate as a cause of global warming."

"The Science article was in... (Below threshold)
J-Ho:

"The Science article was interesting. You misrepresented the conclusions reached, though:"

I'm not dismissing emissions as having an effect. I'm simply wary of the alarmists who dismiss 1) the cyclical nature of our environmental temperature [specifically ignoring a few decades of global cooling hysteria] and 2) anything besides fossil fuels as possible causes of any change [again assuming that there is no cycle to global temps].
I'd just like global warming alarmists to not be so anal as to ignore other aspects.

Don't even get me started on the amount of CO2 volcanoes spew out relative to human caused CO2 emissions.

The bronco is still running!

I am sure those caveman th... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

I am sure those caveman thermometers were accurate within hundreths of a degree though.

By: Lorie Byrd


No Lorie the cavemen didn't have thermometers. But the ocean floors foraminifera are known to accumulate Magnesium in proportion to the prevailing sea surface temperature that can be measured to an accuracy of 1°C .

This is science Lori, you might want to be careful making trite of things you know nothing about....especially when the facts show this is an issue that threatens the future of you and my two kids.

Stott L, Cannariato K, Thunell R, Haug GH, Koutavas A, Lund S (2004) Nature
431:56-59.

I just wonder what the irr... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

I just wonder what the irrefutable truth will be when my kids are in college.

Posted by: Lorie Byrd

I just wonder if you kids will forgive you for allowing this to happen. Haven't you guys learned when you ignore the experts like Bush and company did when they ignored Richard Clarke bad things happen?

For J-Ho.It would ... (Below threshold)
chris:

For J-Ho.

It would be a LOT simpler for everyone if global warming was not occuring. Nice cheap energy from coal and gas for everyone! That is why a LOT of time and effort have been put into researching whether or not man made emissions are causing problems, and they are.

It would be cheaper and easier for everyone if they weren't, but they are.

I'm not sure how you define 'alarmists'. As I've said maybe 3 times today, EVERY major scientific institution - including the National Academy of Sciences in the US - have concurred that CO2 emissions need to be decreased due to global warming.

And yes, volcanos have been taken into account. But bringing them up simply strengthens the argument that man-made emissions need to be limited. If you have X number of volcanos spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, do you really want to add to the problem by pumping even MORE CO2 into the atmosphere.

Not doing anything is like you being in the garage with your ford bronco AND another car. The door is closed, the other car is running, carbon monoxide levels are increasing. Do you really want to fire up YOUR bronco as well?

To be honest, I'm really at a loss as to how people in the US and Australia can argue that somehow, some way, THEY know the 'TRUTH'...and that everyone else, all 150+ countries that have signed onto Kyoto, all the Scientific Advisory boards and institutions of those countries, have somehow got it wrong.

"Haven't you guys learned w... (Below threshold)
J-Ho:

"Haven't you guys learned when you ignore the experts like Bush and company did when they ignored Richard Clarke bad things happen?"

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah....(inhale)
hahahahahahahahahah - I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Oh, and republicans were angry with me and said I was obsessed with Bin Laden. hahahahaha

Wheeeeeeeee. Oh, that was funny. Yep, this is why we don't trust you and your science.

Just for that, I went and started up the Jeep Wrangler. Now I've got two spewing SUVs running in the driveway for no good reason. If this keeps up, I guess I'll have to let the hemi-powered Durango run for awhile as well.

That was funny. Thanks muirgeo!

"To be honest, I'm really a... (Below threshold)
J-Ho:

"To be honest, I'm really at a loss as to how people in the US and Australia can argue that somehow, some way, THEY know the 'TRUTH'...and that everyone else, all 150+ countries that have signed onto Kyoto, all the Scientific Advisory boards and institutions of those countries, have somehow got it wrong."
The logic that just because x amount of countries have signed kyoto, somehow makes it right - is thinking that I'm sure your mother tried to correct in you using some type of jumping off a bridge metaphor. As if countries that don't even have plumbing somehow have figured out millions of years of geological and environmental impact.

Using your logic, we would still have slavery and legalized LSD.

BTW - be careful saying "EVERY" - it's not true (unless of course you only consider those who agree with your position as major)

This was fun. Going to bed. I'll let the SUVs just run till their tanks run dry.

Chris, When I se ... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Chris,

When I se these guys argue on something I know very well, the science of climate change , it reminds me never to trust anything they say. There arguments above are such old and tired and worn out Fossil fuel industry talking points that they keep chirping out never bothering to look into the abundance of contrary details. If I hear about Mars ice caps or the theory of global cooling from 30 years ago I think I might bark...so fricking ignorant and lame.

The best I can say about their pathetic thinking was said by Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents Dinner. Start the tap at 1:40. This explains exactly how these guys think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOprXKpuVRc

...my name is Stephen Colbert and tonight it's my privilege to celebrate this president. We're not so different, he and I. We get it. We're not brainiacs on the nerd patrol. We're not members of the factinista. We go straight from the gut, right sir? That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book.

Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works.

Um, J-Ho, I'm pretty sure t... (Below threshold)
chris:

Um, J-Ho, I'm pretty sure that a number of other countries, including Britain, outlawed slavery well before you guys did.

Re the bridge analogy. If one of my friends told me a train was coming, and jumped, I'd be skeptical. If a second did, the same, I'd STILL be skeptical. But if 150 of them did, plus ALL OF MY OWN OBVSERVATIONS taken over a period of 25 years ALSO demonstrated that a train was coming, I'd definately take my chances with the jump.

"As if countries that don't even have plumbing somehow have figured out millions of years of geological and environmental impact."

Your OWN scientific institutions, and your OWN government have concluded the same things as everyone else. (see below). This is a point I've raised 4 times - you've ignored it each time.

"In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations (including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) - and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [1], and explicitly endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consensus."

hahahahahahahahahahahahahah... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah....(inhale)
hahahahahahahahahah - I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Oh, and republicans were angry with me and said I was obsessed with Bin Laden. hahahahaha

Wheeeeeeeee. Oh, that was funny.

Posted by: J-Ho


I guess I missed what was so funny about 3,000 people dying under the rubble of the World Trad Centers because the President choose not to listen to the experts....and what was so funny about our country invading Iraq, spending away our treasury, destroying our army and its men and actually making us less safe because he choose not to listen to the experts....and what was so funny about people drowning and dying in New Orleans because he choose not to listen to the experts....now he's ignoring the experts on global warming...I'm not sure that I see the humor....I have two kids that will go out into the future he's laid for them.... And I know that he told them they could have his American Express Card with a $30,000 limit but he didn't tell them it was maxed out and they have to pay the interest.

muirgeo,I live in ... (Below threshold)
J-Ho:

muirgeo,

I live in New Orleans.

My Father worked in the Pentagon.

I don't mind serious debate. But you lose all credibility when your hatred for the President overides your ability to persuade.

Don't ever mention New Orleans again until you come walk down my street. People didn't drown here because of Bush.

Moron.

Ho, I came down to... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Ho,

I came down to Houston and the Texas Gulf on my own dime as a volunteer in a medical team to help the victims of Katrina and Rita. I spoke first hand to the FEMA people who were disgusted by how their agency went from one of high function under Clinton to one of complete disarray and ineptitude after being downgraded, underfunded and poorly managed by the Bush Administration.

I bet you find that funny too? These anti-government bastards get in and weaken and destroy the agencies they were supposed to strengthen. Then when they fail they say, see government doesn't work...lets privatize and send all that money to my crony donors.

Haven't you people learned ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Haven't you people learned you can't argue or have a common sense discussion with people like Lee, Chris and the left wing dumb asses. They've got theory on their side. Never have a fact but lots of theories. Someone is even defending the idiot Clarke, already a proven liar by hundreds of people in hundreds of situations. The only thing Clarke did right is prove that Slick Willie is still the liar he has been all of his life. If that doesn't prove the democrats are really stupid liars from the top down then welcome to your death wish. The lefties will bring it to you right in your home. Funny that the lefties don't know or won't admit that if the explosives in 1993 hadn't destroyed the "WMD" in the bomb there would have been more dead than on 9-11. That's why Osama began to plot another attack immediately after the failure. He knew the Slick Willie administration would immediately go back to the snooze position.

What the hell does fema in ... (Below threshold)
J-Ho:

What the hell does fema in Houston have to do with "people drowning and dying in New Orleans because he choose not to listen to the experts"???

Come on, it's too easy to jump to "anti-government bastards" rather than have reasonable debate. I'm not anti-government, not at all. I defy you to find anything I said against "government." I simply have a rational disagreement on a few points of the global warming hysteria.

As far as your New Orleans comment - you sir, are ignorant.

J-Ho wrote:The lo... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

J-Ho wrote:
The logic that just because x amount of countries have signed kyoto, somehow makes it right - is thinking that I'm sure your mother tried to correct in you using some type of jumping off a bridge metaphor. As if countries that don't even have plumbing somehow have figured out millions of years of geological and environmental impact.

Darn it. You just blew my plans to alter the laws of physics so countergrav and FTL become real and practical!

Almost 40 years ago when I ... (Below threshold)
Ric:

Almost 40 years ago when I was in first grade my "Weekly Reader" about had me about scared out of my pants with the Greenies preaching the coming "Ice Age". Considering the maps the Greenies produced at the time, Arizona was going to be under the ice cap by the time I was in junior high ... Whaddya know, I still haven't
seen a polar bear in my neck of the woods.

Global Warming is only the next fad in the junk science scam cycle. Read some history and learn the cycle, then follow the money. In ten years or so, we will all be scolded back onto the Ice Age track.

Now, if you will excuse me, while you Death-to-America hacks (read chris & Lee) bicker, hiss, and loose sleep about how the world will fail to survive this treacherous Capitalist induced global warming horror, I am going to go top off my gas guzzling carbon monoxide producing redneck pickup truck to get out and do some hunting and fishing.

Wow... Are we really talkin... (Below threshold)
Darby:

Wow... Are we really talking about global warming?

This amazes me... I was super worried about the polar caps melting and putting everything underwater...

Untill I took 5th grade science.

You global warming nuts crack me up!

The polar caps will melt and raise the sea levels! OH NO, We're all gonna drown.

But I always keep coming back to 5th grade science.

Which weighs more? 1 billion tons of rocks? Or 1 billion tons of feathers?

If all the polar caps were to actually melt, then we'd see a LOWERING of the sea levels.

Remember 5th grade science? Water expands when it freezes. It takes up more SPACE when in it's solid form. So our current ocean levels are as high as they are because of the polar caps. If they were to melt... Well, there would be less displacement in the ocean. Hence lower levels... I know, I know, most of the ice is on land... That's what you're gonna try to use to justify the rising of the oceans due to "global warming"

But really, lets compare the amount of SPACE Ice takes up in it's solid form, versus how much space it takes up in it's liquid form. I bet it's not enough to make any kind of overly noticeable difference. Even if it did? What's to say it will have any kind of negative impact? And on top of all that, where is the proof that it will? Oh, I forgot there is no proof, only theory's about it. I won't even get into the scientific evidence that the earth was MUCH, MUCH warmer millions of years ago, and that the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the air was much higher than back then. But that's an entirely different issue.

Granted, I'm no PHD in this regards, but I always remember my 5th grade science class where I learned that if you freeze 500mL of water into ice it will take up more space than 500mL of water in it's liquid form.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Chemical/waterdens.html

According to this website, if only 8% of ice is visible that means 92% of the ice water in the Arctic is displacing an awful lot space... I tried to find a formula for it, but I didn't. But then, I didn't look that hard either. The fact of the matter is(pun intended)... Ice water takes up a lot of SPACE, much more than liquid water. Ok. Science lesson over. Anyone else want to worry about the world drowning if the polar caps melt?

This post is to preempt the... (Below threshold)
Darby:

This post is to preempt the comment that should be posting in a little while(I triggered the spam prevention filters). I am not advocating the destruction of our enviornment in the following comment. Merely point out a scientific fact.

Conservation is important, but not to the point it cripples our ability to survive. That being said, you'll have to wait for my other comment to be posted.

For Darbry:Wow, yo... (Below threshold)
chris:

For Darbry:

Wow, you're a genius. The weight of world-wide globabl scientific consensus is no match for your 5th grade science.

Except for one small point. The ice sheets that your talking about are sitting on LAND MASSES - they're not floating around as we speak. If they melt, they oceans will rise - simple.

That's because the water will flow down hill due to another 'theory' some people have concerning gravity.

And as for Scrapiron:

"They've got theory on their side. Never have a fact but lots of theories."

Um, you need to learn how to read - see the above 20 posts on global warming science and, if you can, counter them (you know, the parts about the National Academy of Sciences, the Bush Admininistration, the science institutes of all the G8 nations etc etc etc).

I'll give points to J-Ho for at least trying - up until this point:

Your OWN scientific institutions, and your OWN government have concluded the same things as everyone else. (see below). This is a point I've raised 4 times - you've ignored it each time.

"In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations (including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) - and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [1], and explicitly endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consensus."

Hm. What continent is at th... (Below threshold)
Patrick Chester:

Hm. What continent is at the North Pole? I know, I know: details are irrelevant in the face of Scientific Consensus!

Without further delay, <a h... (Below threshold)

Without further delay, Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

Also from Lindzen, an explanation of why there is such a "concensus."

"Wow, you're a genius. The ... (Below threshold)
Darby:

"Wow, you're a genius. The weight of world-wide globabl scientific consensus is no match for your 5th grade science." -Chris

The fact that you need to use insulting "overtones" in your response also tells a lot about you.

I only called people global warming nuts because like anything, people can tend to get to the extreme in regards to animal and or environmental activism. Some even go as far to say that the human species should be wiped off the face of the earth so that we can no longer damage it, earth would be better off that way.

"Except for one small point. The ice sheets that your talking about are sitting on LAND MASSES - they're not floating around as we speak. If they melt, they oceans will rise - simple." -Chris.

Yes, I also predicted you would try to use that arguement against me. The only ice that is on land is in the Antarctic Polar region. Which is indeed "on LAND MASSES". And there is scientific evidence, as of May '05 that the Polar Ice Sheet in Antarctica is actually growing larger in
places
. But that doesn't fit into your reality, so I fully expect you to dismiss this point entirely.
My premise doesn't change. I could point out all kinds of scientific facts about the two polar regions, but I'm not going to. I won't waste my time, or yours for that matter.

Global warming fits into your reality, it's a be all end all ailment of mankinds creation for you to latch onto.

There is evidence supporting, and disproving global warming both at the same time. You seem to prefer the pessimistic, and I prefer the optimistic outlooks on the subject. That doesn't change the fact that I still think conservation is a good thing, and preventive measures taken now can, if it's proven that we do affect the "Global" environment, possibly alter our damage to the environment.

"That's because the water will flow down hill due to another 'theory' some people have concerning gravity." -Chris

Gravity is not a 'theory', it's proven scientific fact and a law of nature (though String Theory may blow it out of the water :P ). Where is the scientific proof that the amount of ice on the planet, if melted all at once, would drastically alter the level of the oceans waters, it is a VERY big planet after all.

I have an idea; A show and tell game if you will. You show me one site/resource/professor/scholar/scientist that has, or can show definitive proof that humanity has caused global warming, has caused the ice to melt and increase the levels of the ocean and I will in turn show you one in that says otherwise.

The best way to look at it is like this, what's easier to believe?

That through mankinds actions he has forever changed his environment in a negative manner. By melting the polar ice caps which in turn altered the sea levels, which in turn changed the weather patterns, which in turn caused the extinction of entire species, possibly including himself in that?

Or?

The earth is a changing place and because we lack the knowledge of how our planets environmental ecology really works we can't make prove or disprove it either way. But just in case, lets be a little more careful.

Always trust in Occam's Razor.

For Patrick: Darby... (Below threshold)
chris:

For Patrick:

Darby's explanation was so ludicrous I made the mistake of using verbal shorthand to deal with it.

More accurately:

The Greenland ice sheet is supported by Greenland.
There is a definite land mass under Antartica.
The North Pole isnot supported by landmass per se, although elements of the ice do reach landmass.

Darby's contention that ocean levels would fall remains wrong. Neither you nor he have demonstrated otherwise.

And neither you nor he have explained why your own government has ALSO concluded that man made emissions are a problem.

"The fact that you need ... (Below threshold)
chris:

"The fact that you need to use insulting "overtones" in your response also tells a lot about you. I only called people global warming nuts..."

Yes, you are right. I am a bad person. Calling someone nuts, however, is acceptable. My bad.

"And there is scientific evidence, as of May '05 that the Polar Ice Sheet in Antarctica is actually growing larger..."

You need to read the article. Precipitaton is increasing on the interior ice sheet. However, the amount of ice calved from the exterior is greater than the amount building up on the interior.

See:
"The Antarctic ice sheet continues to shrink according to a NASA study released last week. Using data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) scientists concluded that Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by about 152 cubic kilometers annually from April 2002 to August 2005"

"Global warming fits into your reality, it's a be all end all ailment of mankinds creation for you to latch onto."

Probably best not to resort to Republic/Democrat lingo & insults re me. I have little respect for those who can only see the world through politically-tinted lenses. Take a look at any of my statements - politics neutral at all times.

You require "...definitive proof that humanity has caused global warming" is occurring.

Ok, so the combined input from every major scientific instituation worldwide, including those in the US, including the latest panel set up by the Bush Administration in 2005/2006... all these are insufficient for you? Can you show me one study where global warming is refuted? Couple of people have tried, and failed, today.

Occams razor: all things being equal, the simplest solution is true.

ie 1. there is either a world wide conspiracy re global warming involving the governments from 150+ countries (including yours)plus their scientific advisory boards.

OR

2. Global warming naysayers are deluding themselves,and global warming is occurring.

Chris, it's really not wort... (Below threshold)
Earl:

Chris, it's really not worth it. I've spent hours on this site trying to discuss the science of climate change, but it's difficult to do that when the people you're talking to honestly believe their "5th grade science" makes them more scientifically literate than most climate experts, and who view their elementary school's "Weekly Reader" as the final say in cutting-edge science.

If anything, all this discussion proves is the sorry state of science education in American schools.

Did a little futher researc... (Below threshold)
Darby:

Did a little futher research.

1. The Arctic ice is not a factor, even if it did melt it would not change the levels of the ocean.

2. The Antarctic Ice, just isn't going to melt, period. I may get smaller through sublimation, but it's not melting anytime soon. The average temp in Antarctica is well blow the negative numbers.

3. Greenland, I had not factored that into the equations, after a bit research, into that particular ice self, that is a little disturbing. If it did indeed melt completely it would rise the level of the oceans of the world by a good 7 feet or so.

So yeah, Greenland melting is a bad thing. But that doesn't change the fact that the level of flurocarbons in the air, and the level of carbon dioxide is no where near the high points form pre-historic evidence.

If the earth were indeed warm up enough to melt Antarctica, we'll already all be dead. So it's a moot point anyways.

Putting all of that aside however. My original premise is incorrect, I stand corrected on that matter.

However, I will not stand by and get into this Global Warming craze untill I see proof that we are causing it.

Greenland may be covered in ice, but that could merely left overs from the Ice Age. I still stand by that there is no definitive proof that man-made global warming is causing the ice to melt. It may be the natural order of things. Volcano's and wildlife spew an awful lot of toxins and chemicals into the air. Has been doing it for a lot longer than mankind has been around, for that matter.

Greenland melting may be natural, or it may be man-made, but there is no evidence either way.

For Darby:If nothi... (Below threshold)
chris:

For Darby:

If nothing else, I'm impressed that you are actually prepared to spend a little time checking thing out. So grab a coffee, and take a little time to check this out: wired.com/wired/archive/8.11/ecohacking.html

CO2 levels need not necessarily be a problem. If you try to fix the problem mechanically, you are buggered - its just way to expensive. But if you use microbes to do the work for you, and remember those buggers double in mass every 20 minutes, you can actually scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere quickly, efficiently, and cheaply. Really cheaply. No need to modify your power plants, or build new nuclear plants.

In response to your actual post:

1. The Arctic ice is not a factor, even if it did melt it would not change the levels of the ocean.

2. The Antarctic Ice, just isn't going to melt, period. I may get smaller through sublimation, but it's not melting anytime soon. The average temp in Antarctica is well blow the negative numbers.

I'd be interested to see this research. Links or quotes, please.

"But that doesn't change the fact that the level of flurocarbons in the air, and the level of carbon dioxide is no where near the high points form pre-historic evidence.

Yes, true. At 1000ppm CO2, the oceans were 60ft higher - and the last time that happened was 60 odd million years ago. Current CO2 levels are 360ppm, and increasing about 1.5ppm per year. Pre-industrial revolution levels were about 200ppm.

However, the increase in greenhouse gases is NOT linear - 25% of the worlds methane is currently stored in Russian permafrost, which is currently starting to melt. Methane is 40X more efficient at storing heat than CO2.

"If the earth were indeed warm up enough to melt Antarctica, we'll already all be dead. So it's a moot point anyways"

So what you are saying is that if the proof you required was actually presented to you in a form you believed, it would be a moot point?

"However, I will not stand by and get into this Global Warming craze untill I see proof that we are causing it."

Ok, so the combined input from every major scientific instituation worldwide, including those in the US, including the latest panel set up by the Bush Administration in 2005/2006... all these are insufficient for you?

I don't believe in global w... (Below threshold)

I don't believe in global warming. That should get lots of people worked up, but I don't. For every shred of evidence that says global warming is happening there's at least one more saying it isn't. I like how one report I read claimed that global warming was causing ice atop mountains to get THICKER. Sorry, global WARMING cannot cause more ICE.

Here's one of many, many, many for you to ponder: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14944138

The writer tries to say that global warming some times 'takes little dips'. No it doesn't. . . it doesn't exist.

I'm not open to debate, folks, so go ahead and post how angry you are, and how stupid I am. . . 'cause I don't care, I've got a life to get back to.

We're still talking about t... (Below threshold)
J-Ho:

We're still talking about this?

My disagreements are the result of seeing the same goofy science that screamed "hurricanes seasons are getting worse because of global warming" and their horrific predictions of what the 2006 hurricane season would bring (nothing, thus far!).

So, here's this:

"Part of the reason for the slow season is that tropical western Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are running about normal, if not slightly below normal.


In contrast, at the same time last year SSTs in the same region were running well above normal.

The cooler SSTs in the Atlantic are not an isolated anomaly. In a research paper being published next month in Geophysical Research Letters, scientists will show that between 2003 and 2005, globally averaged temperatures in the upper ocean cooled rather dramatically, effectively erasing 20% of the warming that occurred over the previous 48 years.

Global Warming?
The slow hurricane season and the cooling sea surface temperatures might be somewhat surprising to the public. Media reports over the last year have suggested that, since global warming will only get worse, and last year's hurricane activity was supposedly due to global warming, this season might well be as bad as last season. But it appears that Mother Nature might have other plans."

But, that's not "real science", right?

"I spoke first hand to the ... (Below threshold)
The Whistler:

"I spoke first hand to the FEMA people who were disgusted by how their agency went from one of high function under Clinton to one of complete disarray and ineptitude after being downgraded, underfunded and poorly managed by the Bush Administration."

Look up Grand Forks, ND in 1997. Who was President?

Fema was not functioning "high" by any stretch of the imagination.

I still don't understand ho... (Below threshold)
J-Ho:

I still don't understand how "I spoke first hand to the FEMA people who were disgusted..." = Bush drowned people.

Honestly, how am I supposed to trust your science, if you speak so ignorantly about Bush / Katrina, just as an opportunity to blame Bush.

Also, just as big oil is corrupted by money, money also corrupts scientists who depend on grants. Not all, of course - but it's there. Just as journalism requires a "CRISIS!!!!" every five minutes to keep their ad revenues pouring in.

"The slow hurricane season ... (Below threshold)
chris:

"The slow hurricane season and the cooling sea surface temperatures might be somewhat surprising to the public. Media reports over the last year have suggested that, since global warming will only get worse, and last year's hurricane activity was supposedly due to global warming, this season might well be as bad as last season. But it appears that Mother Nature might have other plans."

Yes, you are right J-Ho. Quoting the guy on the weather channel is not real science.

Did you even read that link?

And, once again, need I explain that bringing up the odd person here, the odd person there who support your opinion does NOT mean that there is any meaningful debate occuring? In your mind, does consensus mean that EVERYONE, every man, woman, child, on the planet would have to agree before anything would be done?

I'm still waiting for you to address the points I raised for you in the 1.33am reply.

Folks, you're fighting a lo... (Below threshold)
Cousin Dave:

Folks, you're fighting a losing battle here. For folks like chris, lee, and muirego, global warming isn't science -- it's a religion. And they are true believers, and every bit as fanatical in their beliefs as bin Laden is in his. They are hoping and praying for the day that Gaia will rise up and smite their enemies, which is everyone that doesn't agree with them 100% on every issue and agree that chris and lee are smarter than they are and should run everyone's lives.

Climate research in the U.S. has been horribly corrupted by the government grant mechanism. There is an entrenched, on-high politocracy at the NAS and other granting institutions that passionately believe in global warming, who want it all to come true, who hope and pray for unbounded environmental catastrophe to teach the nonbelievers a lesson -- and they control the grants. The reason so many climate researchers are signing on is that they've seen the writing o the wall: anyone whose research fails to reach the politically correct conclusions will be shunned by the agencies, have their grants cut off, and their institutions will be threatened if they fail to drum that scientist out of academia. Ask John Christy if you don't believe me. He has global infrared sattellite data that measures the temperature of the entire Earth's lower atmosphere, not just a few pinpricks like the collections of uncalibrated and frequently-moved ground thermometers that others use. And his dota shows no trend -- and the random variations that it does show match up almost perfectly with solar variations over the same period as recorded by Solar Max, SOLCON, and other Shuttle/Spacelab and satellite experiments. For this heresy, he has lost grants, been refused seats on panels, and many journals will not publish his papers. Most other climate researchers will not debate him or even speak to him cordially. He has been subject to personal attacks and death threats.

Global warming is the ultimate Stalinist realpolitik: "You breathe, therefore you pollute. Since you are a polluter and your very existence is bad for the planet, your every move and every thought must be rigidly controlled by the people who are inherently smarter and better than you, in order to miminize the horrible damage that you do by just living. Bad citizen! Bad, bad! Sit! Roll over! Play dead!" (And never mind that the people who are inherently smarter and better than you breathe and are polluters too -- they have absolute moral authority, which overrides your puny factual arguments.)

When the global warming mod... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

When the global warming models are able to accurately predict the weather over two weeks (which they have never accomplished) I'll start believing what they will happen in 100 years. Any other project that had such a collosal failure rate would have been cancelled.

Otherwise, it's all just bunk to justify government grants.

The issue of global ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:


The issue of global warming is one of the symptoms of what's wrong with our political discourse. It's pretty obvious where I stand politically to regular posters here. And I confess to not having enough knowledge about global warming to weigh in with my opinion.

What I absolutely don't understand is the apparent lack of willingness on both our sides to work together to resolve this. What we are potentially talking about is catastrophic damage to the earth. I'm not saying that's what is going to happen but how can the idea simply be blown off?

I'm not trying to assess blame here -god knows I do it enough on other issues. But it seems to me that the potential here is as serious, or maybe even more serious, than terrorism. It's a shame "we" think so polarly opposite so often we give no quarter to one another.

Chris,I am reasonabl... (Below threshold)
J-Ho:

Chris,
I am reasonably skeptic, whether you think it reasonable or not. Unlike you, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. No, I'm only trying to explain the basis for my skepticism. You certainly don't win people over by beating them up with your viewpoint. Nor do you win people to your way of thinking when you consistently say "EVERY" institution, when that is simply not the case (as if there were no scientists at all who question global warming theories).

My resting body temperature is 97.1 degrees F. My doctors monitored my body temp for 4 months to get a consistent reading of my temp. To say that we can understand millions of years of global climate behavior by 20 or so years of science, is like my doctor taking my temp once and knowing what my regular resting body temperature is.

Yes, 20 or so years of science - because 30 years ago your scientists and your government were screaming GLOBAL COOLING!!!! What changed? And if they were so wrong about something of which they were soooo certain at the time, why should we believe them now?

Plus, it's just fun to tweak the pseudo-intellectual tolerant crowd.

because 30 years ago you... (Below threshold)
Earl:

because 30 years ago your scientists and your government were screaming GLOBAL COOLING!!!!

That's a myth.

Case in point. Monday even... (Below threshold)
tarheelcon:

Case in point. Monday evening the weatherman in Raleigh, NC said on Thursday it would 69 degrees but last night the weatherman said is would 81 degrees on Thursday. The point is if they cannot tell me what the weather is going to be on Thursday from one day to the next then how can they tell me they know for sure what it will be like in 5, 10, 50 years? I think there is some manner of warming going on but no one can say for sure how the earth itself will adjust which is the other irony of this. All of these guys are probably firm believers in evolution and the idea that the earth made itself capable of supporting life all on its own and since then has going through numerous changes in climate and what not but now they are saying it wil not do the same in response to human activity? I just do not see how it can run both ways.

ScarpionDo you kno... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Scarpion

Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head?

Wow... Are we really talkin... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Wow... Are we really talking about global warming?

This amazes me... I was super worried about the polar caps melting and putting everything underwater...

Untill I took 5th grade science.

You global warming nuts crack me up!

The polar caps will melt and raise the sea levels! OH NO, We're all gonna drown.
AYDAYADAYAD......
Ok. Science lesson over. Anyone else want to worry about the world drowning if the polar caps melt?

Posted by: Darby


No! Science class is just beginning you STUPID IGNORAMUS!!!
Sit down at your damn science table get cup of water. Now melt some ice and then add it to the cup of water. Did the water level go up ?

Because the sea level rise doesn't occur from the ice caps melting and NO ONE BUT RUSH F"ING LIMBAUGH EVR SID IT DID. The sea level rise comes from thermal expansion and melting of ice sheets and glaciers which are not floating in you cup you super ignorant TWIT!!!!!!

People like you are so undeserving the fruits of science. You get leukemia I say no medical treatment for you ...you go pray your silly azz to death.

Almost 40 years ago when I ... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Almost 40 years ago when I was in first grade my "Weekly Reader" about had me about scared out of my pants with the Greenies preaching the coming "Ice Age". Considering the maps the Greenies produced at the time, Arizona was going to be under the ice cap by the time I was in junior high ... Whaddya know, I still haven't
seen a polar bear in my neck of the woods.

Posted by: Ric

You lying piece of crud. I grew up 40 ears ago to and there were no such articles in our "Readers". The was one article in the 1970's about the next ice age and almost none in the scientific literature.

You're just a stupid dern fool parroting the brainwashing crap you heard on right wing nut job talk radio....GOD you're dummer then dirt.

I think what a lot of peopl... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

I think what a lot of people are missing is that few global warming believers are saying it will kill mankind or make the earth unsuitable for life. Man is a very adaptable species and our will to live is probably our strongest guiding force. Before we become extinct, we will adopt some policy to mitigate the effects and ensure our survival.

But what is being said that something like 25% (maybe more) of mankind lives within 100 miles of the ocean. Any significant rise in sea level will cause an immense refugee problem dwarfing that of Katrina.

Of course, this will likely happen over the courses of generations, not a week to a month like Katrina, and the adverse effects (other than losing many historic monuments) may not be as bad as predicted.

But this is minimizing the certain effects of global warming (if it continues, which I believe it will unless measures are taken to reduce emissions and/or sequester airborne CO2). There are many other less certain effects like increased drought and wildfire, the melting of the permafrost and the release of carbon deposits, increased insect population and disease, lack of fresh water due to the melting of glaciers, etc, etc, some of which could create a positive feedback loop and cause the problem to grow exponentially. The impact of these factors is immeasurable until they actually happen (but if they did, they do have the possibility of being catastrophic).

Now I'm too young for this supposed Global cooling trend back in the 70's, but as Chris has been trying to say - nearly all major scientific institutions "buy into" global warming. I think it would be pretty difficult to prove the same consensus existed for global cooling 30 years ago.

In this debate, we see clas... (Below threshold)
Herman:

In this debate, we see classic, Bush-era conservatism in action. The United States puts out much of the greenhouse gases, but the conservatives would rather not do anything at all than make such sacrifices as giving up their SUVs and foregoing their attendance at NASCAR. Conservatives don't like to have to make sacrifices for anybody, people of the future be damned. Dick Cheney said, conservation is a merely a "personal virtue," not a basis for public policy, and, as we all know, conservatives have little interest in being virtuous (being selfish, well that's another story).

So how do these conservatives proceed? They'll claim over and over again that the overwhelming scientific consensus on the threat of global warming doesn't prove anything. They'll claim that the sun causes all of the problems, despite the fact that even there own beloved Bush Administration doesn't buy this. It's curious how the conservatives were so willing to wage war when they thought there was a chance Saddam had WMD, but they're so reluctant to even lift a finger when there's a good chance that smaller island countries will be overrun by water. But hey, this global warming thing would affect other people and not them, so naturally they don't give a damn.

I'm not open to debate, fol... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

I'm not open to debate, folks, .....

Posted by: Logan

Wow that's so unusual because my experience shows me that the average Bush supporter is en exuberant person with an open mind willing to listen and learn from others in a two way dialogue. Logan...what a rebel you are.

Two points:Gravity... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

Two points:

Gravity is a theory, not a fact. The properties of gravity are well known but why these properties occur is still not completely understood.

The spike in CO2 levels 1 million years ago is an observation. Why these high levels occured is not known. The postulated reasons being put forth by the global-warming crowd are theories unsupported
by other evidence.
The most likely cause for this observed phenomenon is volcanic activity. CO2 levels spiked in the 1880's after the eruption of Krakatoa, probably the largest eruption in modern history.
Man may be causing global warming, but this observation of CO2 levels 1 million years ago is a curiosity at best. It neither supports or refutes the current theory of global warming.

My money on the cause of current global warming is on that star I see rising in the East every morning. You know the one. Its emitting the highest levels of energy ever recorded in the 40 or so years we've been able to accurately measure them. In 20 years, as the Earth starts cooling, I guess it will be a 70's redux: global cooling.

See, those that worship at ... (Below threshold)
J-Ho:

See, those that worship at the church of Global Warming, miss the obvious larger picture.

It doesn't matter what we do. Why?

Because that Yellowstone Caldera is going to let loose very soon and destroy the atmosphere, send us into a cataclismic ice age, destroy all life (except roaches) and ruin my chances for a tan. Wanna see CO2 in the atmosphere, wait til that puppy erupts!

So, it doesn't matter how much my sweet 1974 Bronco pollutes. The planet is going to spank our butts regardless! So, DRIVE ON!!!

Look up Grand Forks, ND in ... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Look up Grand Forks, ND in 1997. Who was President?

Fema was not functioning "high" by any stretch of the imagination.

Posted by: The Whistler

...."but most residents are pleased with this, seeing it as fulfillment of President Bill Clinton's promise that the cities would "rebuild stronger and better than ever."......

Yes, 4 years before that flood occurred President Clinton elevated FEMA to a more powerful and efficient cabinet level department.

http://www.answers.com/topic/red-river-flood-1997

Both have since been replaced by new and elegant buildings, though not before spending a few years housed in a former elementary school and an ice rink's warming house, respectively.

New dikes have been constructed in both cities. The system of levees and new "invisible floodwalls" should be complete in


2007, having cost several hundred million USD. What were once entire neighborhoods are now covered by grass and trees, part of an extensive area of parkland called The Greenway. In East Grand Forks, this transformation is especially visible. One former neighborhood is now a large campground, the spiritual center of what is now known as the Red River State Recreation Area. The cities of today are significantly different from their pre-flood state, but most residents are pleased with this, seeing it as fulfillment of President Bill Clinton's promise that the cities would "rebuild stronger and better than ever."

What I absolutely don't und... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

What I absolutely don't understand is the apparent lack of willingness on both our sides to work together to resolve this.

Posted by: Hugh

Well Hugh solving the problem would improve air quality, spur new technologies in renewable energy, hurt the oil industries profits, allow us to become energy independent, allow for home grown localized sources of energy not requiring huge energy companies, minimize the risk of future warming and spur the US economy.

I'm not sure but apparently some one apparently doesn't like resolving the issue. I wonder if its the guys who are sitting on a trilllion dollars of future oil profits.....NOOOOOO it couldn't be them because they don't just worry about their bottom line they care about America and its people first...of course they do.

Hey -- Look who popped out ... (Below threshold)
Ric:

Hey -- Look who popped out from under the rock! Hi muirgeo! Your BDS is showing!

sean nyc/aa --

I had the opportunity to work in the "science" world years ago. Follow the money. The "buy in" is there because politicians trying to appease constituents make monies available for "scientists" to study a "problem". Tell the science community there is a grant available and watch'em line up at the trough.

Herman --

What are your credentials to evaluate so called global warming data and information? Physics? Meteorology? Business Administration?

ALso, what verifyable personal sacrifices have you made?

Just for fun, here's a cons... (Below threshold)

Just for fun, here's a conspiracy theory that was new to me - I don't think it's true, but I must admit that my tinfoil hat was off for extended periods today:

There is a shadowy group of global warming supporters who know the world will soon ACTUALLY start to cool.

They want power and authority to 'combat global warming' because they know that whatever they do with it, the world will get cooler and they will then be able to claim credit for making it happen.

The more they can be seen to be doing, the more power they will be able to consolidate to carry out their real agenda (which is, of course, sinister).

Remember - Shiny side out, and the black helicopters can see through your roof!

My money on the cause of cu... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

My money on the cause of current global warming is on that star I see rising in the East every morning. You know the one. Its emitting the highest levels of energy ever recorded in the 40 or so years we've been able to accurately measure them. In 20 years, as the Earth starts cooling, I guess it will be a 70's redux: global cooling.

Posted by: KobeClan


Well that's because you are uninformed. Solar irradiance has not changed much in 40 years and temperature is continuing to climb.

http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/PRODOCS/erbe/browse/b_tsi_erbs_8410_9912.gif

M-go, "but most residents ... (Below threshold)
J-Ho:

M-go, "but most residents are pleased with this, seeing it as fulfillment of President Bill Clinton's promise that the cities would "rebuild stronger and better than ever" - sure they are pleased now. But were they a day after, a week after, a year after??? Of course they weren't. People here in New Orleans understand the insanely large task Fema was faced with, and although they wish things could have gone more smoothly, everyone here is thankful for what Fema has done.

Oh, and yes - I was taught in elementary that we were headed for an ice age. It was a big deal.

And why is it that you guys hate oil companies. If a strange new wonder fuel is found tomorrow, don't you think that the free market will cause large companies to form, producing this new fuel? Who will you hate then? Or do you believe there will be some utopian free energy source provided by the government?

muirego,So tell me... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

muirego,

So tell me honestly, you believe global warming is soley the result of oil companies?

If that is the case then there isn't enough oil in the world to keep the trend going long enough to destroy the earth...and/or our civilization. That is, of course unless it all happens within 50 years, which I doubt.

Hugh,

You mentioned Global Warming being potentially more serious a problem than terrorism.
I think that can be best answered by asking the question:

Which would be more likely to kill me in the next ten years?

A) A Terrorist
B) Global Warming


I had the opportunity to wo... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

I had the opportunity to work in the "science" world years ago. Follow the money.

Posted by: Ric

OK I'm following;;;

Oil: Exxon Chairman's $400 Million Parachute

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/images/1027-06.jpg

http://koti.mbnet.fi/badbee/wavs/foodchain.wav

and here is where the money leads for you;

http://www.shiromi.com/images/diary/20040601-serf.gif

Heralder:Good ques... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Heralder:

Good question. I am 60 and I have children and grandchildren. So I look at it in the long term.

H

muirego,So tell me... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

muirego,

So tell me honestly, you believe global warming is soley the result of oil companies?

If that is the case then there isn't enough oil in the world to keep the trend going long enough to destroy the earth...and/or our civilization. That is, of course unless it all happens within 50 years, which I doubt.

Posted by: Heralder


Global warming is mostly from burning fossil fuels of which oil is a major portion.

Let me ask you...if you were in charge of an industry that's making more profits then any industry ever has and has hundreds of billions of more profits to make by just doing what you are doing and maintaining the status quo would you go looking for other sources of energy.....would you support legislation to look for alternatives....would you support electric cars....would you try to discredit scientist who talk about global warming....?????

Which would be more likely ... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Which would be more likely to kill me in the next ten years?

A) A Terrorist
B) Global Warming

Posted by: Heralde

Absolutely with out a doubt global warming..well except Bush is making the terrorist threat worse but not enough to set off the effects of his ignoring global warming.

Simpletons have seen dramatically how terrorist can kill people so for them they fear that threat more because they've never seen some one die of global warming. But its mostly epidemiological death. Just like you've never seen anyone die from cigarette smoke...but they do.

The heat wave in Europe several years ago claimed 14,000 -30,000 lives but it's hard to attribute any specific one to global warming.

And if you combine the two, terrorism and global warming what we can say is that if you die from either in reality you will have died from our dependence on foreign oil because they are both linked to that dependence.

Fix global warming and you fix the terrorist problem.

"Fix global warming and you... (Below threshold)
J-Ho:

"Fix global warming and you fix the terrorist problem"

I'm really sorry, but what planet are you on??? Do you actually think that if we take away the one thing the arab muslims have going for them (oil money) that all of a sudden they will be joyous and elated and develop a great love the west? You take away their only real source of income and they'll stop being terrorists???

You do realize that there were terrorists and terrorism against the U.S. prior to Bush becoming president, don't you?

Chris, I obviously don't de... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Chris, I obviously don't devote as much of my time to this debate as you do.

But there are very real concerns about the science on your side of the equation due to who is funding the research in question. It can throw a bias into results.

No one can tell us how much an effect, if at all, humans have on the potential phenomenon. I'm with the writers above: show us your definitive proof.

If you have no proof, you have a theory, at best.

Isn't it interesting that while temperatures have risen in places like NY City, they have stayed the same for the last several decades away from the City, in NY?

How do you account for that.

You're trying to reach to a conclusion for which there is no clear support, and for which there are a number of other factors that militate against it.

You could at least be honest and acknowledge that fact, as many scientists have done.

You still haven't answered a point worth thinking about: if the scientists got it wrong on global cooling, why do you think they might not also get it wrong with global warming?

You never answer these essential points. So, my time here is at an end. Enjoy your Church of the Global Warming observances.

By the way, if you really f... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

By the way, if you really felt strongly about this, you'd be irate that your fellow parishoners, the Clintons, Kerrys, Kennedys, and every other limousine liberal, are all flying around the globe on their lear jets.

Flying has the largest "carbon footprint" of any activity we do.

Morons.

Hugh,I see, I'm 30... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Hugh,

I see, I'm 30...so perhaps I'm thinking too much in the short term. The long term may be a different story...but it really depends on how we handle both.

muirego:

Let me ask you...if you were in charge of an industry that's making more profits then any industry ever has and has hundreds of billions of more profits to make by just doing what you are doing and maintaining the status quo would you go looking for other sources of energy.....would you support legislation to look for alternatives....would you support electric cars....would you try to discredit scientist who talk about global warming....?????

In short:

yes

yes

no

no

But that's just me. There's money to be made everywhere in our society, including alternate forms of energy...especially if you're on the forefront of the effort and pioneering and patenting new technology.

But that question is unfair in a way...because I don't think like a CEO of a large business. I imagine I'd be willing to take risks and set precedents that they are not willing to.

I believe global warming completely aside, it's important to find alternate forms of energy for other purposes.
For one, I would like to see us independent from places like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia for oil.

As far as the basis for global warming...I believe it to be real, I don't necessarily believe it to be something that will destroy our society in twelve years, despite some estimates.

muirego, You really are an ... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

muirego, You really are an A-1 asshat.

I state the sun is at a 40 year high in energy output, and you refute my claims with a graph that starts in 1985 and ends in 2000.

Hey, asshat, my calender says 2006!

BTW, the total energy released by the Sun is not measured by solar irradiance. You also might want to find someone who possesses a cluebat to interpret that graph for you. Even the years you cherrypicked show the cyclical nature of solar output and showed a 10-year spike in 2000.

Your chart proves my point. Are you as stupid in real life as you seem to be on this thread?

muirego:A... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

muirego:

Absolutely with out a doubt global warming..well except Bush is making the terrorist threat worse but not enough to set off the effects of his ignoring global warming.

I have two major issues with this answer (which includes the rest of your post as well).

First, if you think that within ten years you're going to drown or die in a heat wave then you're not being honest. Despite the fact that that either can be prevented with very simple devices; an air conditoner and inflatable boat, respectively.

But I realize from how you set up your answer later, that you, by your own reasoning believe it to be semantically correct.

Secondly you say his (Bush) global warming. This is the noose that hangs your argument. Going on, you start making extremely remote and and improbable connections.
I think the main reason I disagree wth you're reasoning is that I disagree we went to Iraq for oil. If we are to take out that whole link in your tangled chain your connections no longer connect.

muirego,It would h... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

muirego,

It would help if I read closer...when I said:

"Secondly you say his (Bush) global warming."

I was wrong. I misread that you said "his ignoring global warming".

The rest of my post stands without that remark.

But I'd like to add, Bush ignoring global warming won't result in the end of the world. We should be looking more at China for that...which holds about a third of the earth's population. Have you ever been there? The air is almost opaque.

I see we have all of the us... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I see we have all of the usual arguments against global warming, from outright denial of its existence to downplaying our impact to silly conspiracy theories about scientists. I'll just take a few.

Global Cooling

Yes, there was a cooling trend between the 1940s and the 1970s, and yes, some of the media played it up in their typical doomsday fashion (as Lorie points out, they continue to do so with global warming). However, climate science was still in its nascency at the time, and much has been learned since. If you review the scientific literature (see Earl's link above also) at the time, you'll find it was much less conclusive about the cooling trend and what it meant, and that at the very least more research was needed and always recommended in the scientific literature. Furthermore, it was the scientific community that first presented the idea, and it was the scientific community that showed it to be wrong. Science is self-correcting by nature, even if it sometimes takes a while. If global warming theories are incorrect, they will be shown as such by rigorous scientific study and the scientific community will change its consensus. That is a big "if".

Is global warming happening?

Please. I understand the argument that we have little to no effect on global warming. I don't believe it, but at least its a healthy skepticism. I understand the argument that the warming trends are part of a natural cycle, for much the same reasons. But to deny that the Earth is warming despite the absolute certainty that it is is just plain stupid. If this is what you believe I wish you the best in finding the Ark, and a few more brain cells.

Scientists make conclusions about global warming based on desire for grant money.

First of all, any scientist who could conclusively show that global warming is not happening, or that we have no impact on it, would be rolling in grant money, for two reasons. First, revolutionary research is held in high esteem among scientists and funders, anything that opposes conventional wisdom will receive a lot of attention, if it is scientifically sound. Second, in case you haven't noticed most of the "research" denying anthropogenic warming is well funded by energy companies. Those guys don't have any trouble getting grants; too bad they decide to abandon their principles and perform shoddy, dishonest science to do so. Of course if any of them were conducting rigorous research and not shilling for the energy industry they would have no problem getting funding for their research from legitimate funders. Further, to believe this is the motivation of most climate scientists is to ignore how so many of them are funded. Do you suppose that the climate scientists at NASA and other government bodies under the auspices of the current administration are making claims about global warming for grant money, especially considering they have often been censored?

Thermometers

Climate scientists do not get their historical data from air temperatures, they get it from ice, or more specifically from air trapped in ice sheets that go back millions of years. If you want to dispute their findings, educate yourself on how they arrive at them.

Ok that's it for now. In any case, I agree with Lorie's main point that the media tend to give absolutist, doomsday type reports on this kind of thing, erroneously. Reading the scientific literature will make you understand what climate scientists are actually saying. One thing they do not do is make predictions with absolute certainty, but rather probability.

Your chart proves my poi... (Below threshold)

Your chart proves my point. Are you as stupid in real life as you seem to be on this thread?

Posted by: KobeClan

Yes, he is. I've asked the same question before.

mantis,Of course g... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

mantis,

Of course global warming is happening. I doubt many people disagree. The question is why.

I'm sitting at my computer on a beautiful, sunny, Fall day watching the cats watching the birds at the feeders. I see your statement 'bout the cooling trend from the '40s to the '70s and I ask myself, what was the hottest year on record?

Wasn't it in the '30s? Yep!

Wasn't the Sun at a peak of its cyclical output in the 30's? Yep!

Are we now approaching the temp. record set in the '30s? Yep!

What's the Sun doing these days? Approaching the high end of its cyclical output.

I see a pattern here. Doesn't anybody else?

Clancy:LOLOL... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

Clancy:

LOLOL

Its fun playing with trolls, though I wouldn't want one for a pet.

Fix global warming and y... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Fix global warming and you fix the terrorist problem.

Wow!! There it is, it's just that simple. If it wasn't for bush and those damn oil companies the pope and the mullahs would be holding hands and singing with each other!

Congratulations muirgeo, with that statement and the rest of your comments you have truly become Wizbang's most inane and dim-witted commenter.

what was the hottest yea... (Below threshold)
Earl:

what was the hottest year on record? Wasn't it in the '30s? Yep!

Nope! (But it sure is easy to "prove" a point when you just make up stuff, huh?)

Of course global warming... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Of course global warming is happening. I doubt many people disagree.

Some on this very thread do not. You are obviously in the sane, if uninformed, category of doubters.

I see your statement 'bout the cooling trend from the '40s to the '70s and I ask myself, what was the hottest year on record?

Wasn't it in the '30s? Yep!

Nope. Since reliable data has been kept on temperature in 1861 (instrumental) or 1895 (official records), the hottest day on record is, lo and behold, 2005. 1936 was the hottest summer, not year, on record (though it seems you may be talking about the hottest day on record, anyway). It was, at least, until this year. And the top 5 hottest years since 1891? 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2004. Fancy that.

What's the Sun doing these days? Approaching the high end of its cyclical output.

Wrong again. It reached its peak (of the 11-year cycle, by the way) most recently in 2002. A more accessible chart is available here.

I see a pattern here. Doesn't anybody else?

Yes, I see patterns in solar variation. However, they do not explain the climate change that is occurring.

I see pattern too - the rig... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I see pattern too - the right-wing blogosphere does its darndest to lie about global warming -- and the price of gasoline drops, favoring the Republican likelihood in the upcoming elections.

What a coincidence!

The Federal Environmental P... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

The Federal Environmental Protection Agency, directed by Bush appointee Steve Johnson, has this to say about global warming on the EPA website:

"According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases - primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed although uncertainties exist about exactly how earth's climate responds to them. Go to the Emissions section for much more on greenhouse gases."

So this is essentially the Bush administration's stated opinion on global warming. Surely you don't want us to doubt Our President and His People, on such an important issue?

Earl: Nice try. <... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

Earl:

Nice try.

Your link was to NASA. Use of satellite temp. readings began in 1979. Prior years they guessed at. Apples and oranges, you know.

Your homework assignment is to find a temperature record using the same technique for the last 125+ years.

Again, trolls: Your arguments would be stronger if you did your research better and not just stop at the first site that supports you. NASA's temp. measurements are only accurate to 1979.

The year 2005 is #2 on the apples to apples list, not #1.


We should be looking more a... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

We should be looking more at China for that...which holds about a third of the earth's population. Have you ever been there? The air is almost opaque.

Posted by: Heralder at September 27, 2006 01:06 PM


Yet the neocons support Walmart and the selling of our souls to China....

And why is it that you guys... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

And why is it that you guys hate oil companies.

Posted by: J-Ho


Why is it you guys hate democracy and fair markets and instead prefer to have multinational corporations running your country???

I agree that the earth is g... (Below threshold)
ejmad:

I agree that the earth is getting warmer. My problem is with what is causing the increase. While man-made causes may play a part I believe it is a very small part. Those who promote global warming usually point to two major pieces of data. (1) The mann hockey stick graph and (2) the icecore data. Both of these should not be used because they are unreliable.

(1) The mann hockey stick graph is usually used to prove that the earth has been warming for the and is showing a significant spike in temperature in the last century. This data is based on tree ring data from parts of North America only. This fact alone should disqualify this graph for use on total global warming trends. Also tree rings are not reliable indicators for temperature as temperature is not the only thing that affects ring growth. If one were to assume this chart is correct then there was never any medieval warm period and the "Little Ice Age" (1500's - 1850). But we know from historical evidence that these periods did exist. Historical records from the vikings show that Greenland was green. England had huge vineyardsprior to the 1500s which are not possible now because the warm season is not long enough. In japan they keep records of when a certain tree bloomed (cannot remember tree now but will look it up). Prior to the 1500s it bloomed early in the year. As the little ice came, the blooms occured later in the year. The trees are just now starting to bloom as early as they did prior to the 1500s. There are many more examples of these events. Since we are coming out the little ice age, of course the earth is going to warm. On other point on the graph. Take a look at the graphs region of error. If I were to try and base predictions and control of product at my company with that much error I would no longer have a job.

(2) CO2 from Ice cores is highly unreliable also. Dr. Jaworowski has been studing this for several decades. He has stated in senate testimony and publications that CO2 reading vary from the low 100s to almost 2500 ppm. He has shown that the higher higher readings are often ignored and thrown out on the basis that these must be contaminated samples. How does this not make the other samples suspect? Also glacial ice is not a closed system. The act of drilling for the samples alone can alter the chemistry of the air samples.

One other comment to the following statement by Mantis:

Do you suppose that the climate scientists at NASA and other government bodies under the auspices of the current administration are making claims about global warming for grant money, especially considering they have often been censored?

How exactly have they been censored? They have been publishing papers and commenting in every media outlet they can get to. And they still have their jobs. If this is censorship, it is the worst attempt at censorship I have ever seen.

You do realize that there w... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

You do realize that there were terrorists and terrorism against the U.S. prior to Bush becoming president, don't you?

Posted by: J-H

The issue is clouded by the creation of the state of Israel but even with that tell me how much of a problem Muslim terrorism was before the USA passed internal peek oil production in the 70's.

Was terrorism a big deal before the 70's? You think this is a coincidence:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

KobeClan--Your ... (Below threshold)
Earl:

KobeClan--

Your link was to NASA. Use of satellite temp. readings began in 1979. Prior years they guessed at.

You obviously didn't even read the article, since that's simply not true. It included weather stations and ship-based measurements. You really like making stuff up, huh?

If you want a plot of temps from the last 125 years, it's linked to at the bottom of that page.

muirego:Y... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

muirego:

Yet the neocons support Walmart and the selling of our souls to China....

What? I said pollution is bad in China and it gets turned into a republican issue.

Pollution is not going to get better in China, they're on the verge of their own industrial revolution, imagine what a billion more cars driving around would do. This does not have to do with Bush, neocons, republicans or Elvis...this has to do with a what I believe to be a future superpower.

muirego, You really are an ... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

muirego, You really are an A-1 asshat.

I state the sun is at a 40 year high in energy output, and you refute my claims with a graph that starts in 1985 and ends in 2000.

Hey, asshat, my calender says 2006!

Your chart proves my point. Are you as stupid in real life as you seem to be on this thread?

Posted by: KobeClan

Here's your longer graphs ...

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/solar/solar.htm


Temp and solar activity diverge. The warming is NOT solar and no peer reviewed literature exist to support your wish.

Earl: You're the o... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

Earl:

You're the one who needs to learn how to read:

"...Our analysis, summarized in Figure 1 above, uses documented procedures for data over land (1), satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982 (2), and a ship-based analysis for earlier years (3)."

They mixed 3 different measuring systems and tried to call the results meaningful.

Aren't you curious to know why the big rise in temp. coincides with the advent of satellite measuring? Wouldn't you like to know if the number of satellites being utilized has increased since 1982? (The answer is YES)

Why is it you're skeptical of everything else under the sun but not this?

Congratulations muirgeo, wi... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Congratulations muirgeo, with that statement and the rest of your comments you have truly become Wizbang's most inane and dim-witted commenter.

Posted by: J.R.

Shut up you dim witted minion. If this were Lord of the rings you'd be a damn Orc supporting Sauron.

"Why is it you guys hate de... (Below threshold)
J-Ho:

"Why is it you guys hate democracy and fair markets and instead prefer to have multinational corporations running your country???"

What??? Are you off your meds???

On what do you base your major assumption that I hate democracy and fair markets? By the way - it's FREE markets, not FAIR markets, but I'm not surprised by your error. Besides, the USA is not a democracy - we're a representative republic, but again, I don't expect you to know the difference.

As I said, I guess when oil is no more, you'll be angry with BIG HYDROGEN or BIG ETHANOL or BIG WIND! Because it's not about energy and the environment with you, you've made that abundantly clear. You just hate American business, the FREE Market (if you know what that means) and crave fairness (i.e. socialism/communism) above all.

Look into CLOZARIL, it might help.

muirego:T... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

muirego:

The issue is clouded by the creation of the state of Israel but even with that tell me how much of a problem Muslim terrorism was before the USA passed internal peek oil production in the 70's. Was terrorism a big deal before the 70's? You think this is a coincidence:


Yes I think it's a coincidence. This line of thinking is incredibly ignorant. I see now, no matter which direction the conversation flows it always comes back to us creating terrorism.

What was their excuse?:

In the 11th century, the radical Islamic sect known as the Hashshashin (this word, derived from the word "Hashish," which the Hash-Ishiim reputedly used to drug their victims, translates directly to the word "assassin" in the English language) employed systematic murder for a cause they believed to be righteous. For two centuries, they resisted efforts to suppress their religious beliefs and developed ritualized murder into a fine art taught through generations. Political aims were achieved through the power of intimidation.


J-Ho:As I... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

J-Ho:

As I said, I guess when oil is no more, you'll be angry with BIG HYDROGEN or BIG ETHANOL or BIG WIND!

As hard as I laughed when I read this, it's true.

Big Wind...ha!

"The issue is clouded by th... (Below threshold)
J-Ho:

"The issue is clouded by the creation of the state of Israel but even with that tell me how much of a problem Muslim terrorism was before the USA passed internal peek oil production in the 70's."

M-go, terrorism grew out of the fact that armed muslim armies could not destroy Israel by conventional means, and as such, turned to terrorism as their only means to fight "effectively."

How does IRA terrorism fit into your oil-based terrorism theories???

"If this were Lord of the rings you'd be a damn Orc supporting Sauron."

Are you 12 years old??? hahahahahahaha. No, 12 year olds would never say this!

How long have you lived in your mother's basement?

KobeClan-They m... (Below threshold)
Earl:

KobeClan-

They mixed 3 different measuring systems and tried to call the results meaningful.

Aren't you curious to know why the big rise in temp. coincides with the advent of satellite measuring? Wouldn't you like to know if the number of satellites being utilized has increased since 1982? (The answer is YES)

Come on, you need to realize scientists aren't stupid. Things are carefully checked. It's okay to combine satellite and thermometer measurements if the two agree.

Which they do.

Funny, GW skeptics used to say that the satellite data showed that the climate wasn't warming - now that they clearly show that it is, you think satellite data is junk. Nice.

J-Ho:BIG WIND!... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

J-Ho:

BIG WIND!

You're hurting me, big man. Had surgery recently and you have me in pain.

I'm curious, what do you think the average age of a troll is? (In Earth years, not Middle-Earth years?)

Shut up you dim witted m... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Shut up you dim witted minion. If this were Lord of the rings you'd be a damn Orc supporting Sauron.

Muerto's finally peaked. He'll never say anything funnier than this.

Orc. Sauron. Bwaaaa-hahahahaha!

"Why is it you guys hate de... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

"Why is it you guys hate democracy and fair markets and instead prefer to have multinational corporations running your country???"

What??? Are you off your meds???

On what do you base your major assumption that I hate democracy and fair markets? By the way - it's FREE markets, not FAIR markets, but I'm not surprised by your error. Besides, the USA is not a democracy - we're a representative republic, but again, I don't expect you to know the difference.

As I said, I guess when oil is no more, you'll be angry with BIG HYDROGEN or BIG ETHANOL or BIG WIND! Because it's not about energy and the environment with you, you've made that abundantly clear. You just hate American business, the FREE Market (if you know what that means) and crave fairness (i.e. socialism/communism) above all.

Look into CLOZARIL, it might help.

Posted by: J-Ho

You must hate democracy (Representative Republic) or government OF, BY and FOR the people...we're talking about the same thing regardless of your stupid azz semantic side track, because you support a government that is nothing to do with democratic principals but is in fact a Corporatocracy. Or it could be called Corporatism as it is the merger of State and Corporate powers. And Dwight D Eisenhower, a true statesmen and republican, warned us of this long ago. People like you put the will of Corporations and their elitist owners/CEO's above the interest of the people.

Further I said FAIR market and I meant FAIR because there is no such thing as a FREE market.......well actually there was back in the days when we lived in caves but there are NO FREE MARKETS in any governed society unless its a true anarchy. MARKETS ARE THE CREATION OF GOVERNMENTS....Got it???

There is however capitalism and I'm a whole hearted supporter of capitalism but I put democratic governance in charge of how we regulate capitalism...thats for WE THE PEOPLE to decide ...not for Corporations or the elitist who run the to decide.

Capitalist have a right to operate but only under the rules that we the people decide to set up. That's nothing to do with Communism like you guys like to claim. But you guys definitely could be considered fascist if you don't think people should be setting up the ground rules for businesses to follow or you could be consider Plutocrats or Aristocratic if you think those with the most power and money should determine disproportionately how are government runs. But you are not democratic of for FAIR markets as you say or think you are.

Earl:Glad to see y... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

Earl:

Glad to see you finally read the article yourself.
Where's my apology. Hahahahahahahahaha!

Your current link is cute but meaningless. Doesn't give enough methodology to know if the data was properly re-interpreted. At first glance it appears the refered researchers manipulated their analytical methods to get the results they wanted.
"revised", "error estimates", "revision of methods","correction", and the use of like words always raise red flags with me.

Also, one of the graphs has the annual surface temp. peaking at ~1998. Curious?

How exactly have they be... (Below threshold)
mantis:

How exactly have they been censored? They have been publishing papers and commenting in every media outlet they can get to. And they still have their jobs. If this is censorship, it is the worst attempt at censorship I have ever seen.

Ok, I should edit that to "there have been frequent attempts to censor them". If you want examples, here you go:

Climate-controlled White House

Censorship Is Alleged at NOAA

Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking - (Don't miss this one)

Is US hurricane report being quashed?

The last one you can't access without subscription, but I have one so I'll excerpt a little bit here:

A statement on the science behind the politically sensitive issue of hurricane activity and climate change has been blocked by officials at the US Department of Commerce, Nature has learned.

...

The document was finalized by the panel in mid-May and was due to be released to the public and the media in time for the start of this year's hurricane season in June. But panel chair Ants Leetmaa, director of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University, New Jersey, received an e-mail on 18 May from a commerce-department official informing him that the document needed to be made less technical and was not to be released. Leetmaa says department officials have not responded to his efforts to contact them since.

When asked about the document, NOAA administrator Conrad Lautenbacher told Nature that it was simply an internal exercise designed to get researchers to respect each other's points of view. He said it could not be released because the agency cannot take an official position on a field of science that is changing so rapidly. But panel members contacted by Nature, including Leetmaa, disagree strongly with this interpretation. Internal NOAA and commerce-department e-mails also discuss the timetable for the document being "cleared" for "distribution". The draft states that it refers to the "current state of the science" and does not contain "any statements of policy or positions of NOAA".

Ok, that's all I'm comfortable posting.

The administration hasn't gotten away with it, you are correct there, but it wasn't for a lack of trying. It was thanks to the tenacity and commitment of the scientists.

Laugh at me will ya......</... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Laugh at me will ya......

http://beanbagcentral.com/kritter/archives/bush%20and%20the%20ring.jpg

...yeah....now who's laughin???...ummm??

http://veged.ru/forlj/orc.jpg

Most "skeptics" of global w... (Below threshold)
ejmad:

Most "skeptics" of global warming I know do not argue whether or not the earth is warming. It is what is causing it to warm and how much more it will warm in the future. As for the satelite data, the predictions for future temperature are continually shifted down as more data is collected.

Hey Ding Dong......it was n... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Hey Ding Dong......it was not warmer in the 30's then it is now by any measure.....stop making yourself look more foolish. You were wrong now get over it.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.txt

First, please stop pretendi... (Below threshold)
Earl:

First, please stop pretending that you read the article in the first place ("Prior years they guessed at").

Second, all the information you need to know about how those data were analyzed can be found in the papers that were cited. Your local university library, etc. The correction referred to was a very big deal in climate science, and not a result of some wild conspiracy, in which people manipulated the data to serve their needs. For a while, satellite and surface measurements disagreed substantially. The satellite people stood by their data, until a problem in their analysis was pointed out to them. They fixed it, and found the agreement shown in the plot.

Your tactic - calling a paper from the peer-reviewed scientific literature "cute but meaningless", with no reasons to back it up - is ridiculous. If you're anti-science, just say so.

(Your point about 1998 is a good one; not sure how that fits in with the 2005 number. But the hottest year on record was certainly recent, and not in the 1930's, as you originally said.)

muirgeo,Do you hav... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

muirgeo,

Do you have a job?? Everytime I come back here there are about 10 new posts from you.

And don't you think you are being a little bit hysterical about the "corportocracy" crap you're spewing? And keep it up with LOTR references, they make you look soooo much smarter. Loser.

ejmad,To respond t... (Below threshold)
mantis:

ejmad,

To respond to your other points, I'll make it quick and just provide linkage.

1. Hockey Stick: Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

2. Icecore data: A thorough debunking of Jaworowski's testimony

Enjoy.

muirgeo,Do you hav... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

muirgeo,

Do you have a job?? Everytime I come back here there are about 10 new posts from you.

And don't you think you are being a little bit hysterical about the "corportocracy" crap you're spewing? And keep it up with LOTR references, they make you look soooo much smarter. Loser.

Posted by: J.R.


J.R. huh.....is that it? Maybe its JRR...and just what is your last name???

And I apologize for being hysterical about my country being sold out to the multinational corporations. I don't know what I was thinking.

No, Mungo has not job. </p... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

No, Mungo has not job.

He just plays here with us because he can't find anywhere else that would even put up with his drivel.

Interesting that link you cite re warmest temps in the century cites El Nino as a culprit.

Are you saying El Nino is caused by man, too?

The problem here is, no one can separate out all the potential causes of warming, if we assume there is such a thing as global warming, and that it is not something more complex we can't fathom.

So, we had 100 years of coal, gas, and other fuels burning, but it's only the last 30 years that count re CO2 and global warming only arose then, despite the Global Cooling hysteria. . . hmmmm. That doesn't really make sense, does it?

Anyone who has a passing ac... (Below threshold)
Nahanni:

Anyone who has a passing acquaintance with Paleogeograpy knows that everything the members of the Global Warming cult says is a crock of shite.Just like it was back in the 1970's when we all were told to be ready to get paved over by the glaciers.

Here is a handy little website for you to play with:
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

And here is a book that you should read to understand the forces at work on this planet. It is very easy to understand and is a pleasant read.

Origins: The Evolution of Continents, Oceans and Life by Ron Redfern

On the website you will note the nice big graph of global temperature over time, you will also note that we are at the tail end of a cool spell. All in all the only constant in the entire history of the earth is change, anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or pushing an agenda. Those who think that man (particularly Americans) have such a vast impact on the earth to change the global climate is about as arrogant (or agenda driven) as you can get. Well, I sorta take that back. Want to see devastating climatic change? Go make about a 100 miles of Panama disappear inbetween the Pacific and the Atlantic-then you will see the global climate change at the hand of man.

Earl:Lets see. </... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

Earl:

Lets see.

They manipulated the data until the two sets agreed.

Oh, I'm sorry, they stood by their data until an analysis proved they were asshats and then they manipulated their data until it agreed.

Bwahahahahaha!!

KobeClan -Congratu... (Below threshold)
Earl:

KobeClan -

Congratulations, you've pretty much summarized the GW skeptic's MO, in 3 easy steps:

1) make up some "facts";
2) if confronted about your made-up "facts" being totally false, change the subject and ask to see a different data set, hoping the other person won't be able to find it;
3) if confronted with the data set you asked for, say "I don't believe it", even without understanding the methodology by which the data were obtained.

Mitchell -

Congratulations, you've almost gotten a bingo.

Lorie: I think Lee... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Lorie:

I think Lee's comments reflect the disingenuousness of at least that particular commenter.

If you and Wizbang bloggers enunciate arguments that coincide with the oil industry's, then obviously you're an oil industry shill. Doesn't matter if you take their money or you just happen to agree (b/c, after all, who but slavering Gaia-hating death beasts would agree w/ the oil industry, right?).

But apply that same "logic" to the Left and their coincidence with the Islamist jihadis, and hear the howls. The fact that Osama and Mikey Moore (or Lee) happen to see eye-to-eye, and apparently that's non-kosher (or would that be non-halal?).

Earl:Leaving all B... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

Earl:

Leaving all BWAHAHAs aside,this is what YOU wrote:

"For a while, satellite and surface measurements disagreed substantially. The satellite people stood by their data, until a problem in their analysis was pointed out to them. They fixed it, and found the agreement shown in the plot."

SO. Scientists were wrong, refused to admit that they were wrong and finally conceded that they were wrong after conclusive proof proved that they were wrong.

And why should anyone believe them now?

A scientist has to be a complete skeptic to be a good scientist. "Me bad" does not instill confidence.

Man may be causing global warming. We don't know because there is no conclusive evidence yet available. There is plenty of evidence that the available data is being manipulated. My BS meter tells me to wait and see.


Another point:Is t... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

Another point:

Is there a single troll out there who can do more than link to an entry from "Global Warming FAQ" or Wikipedia?

Is there a single troll ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Is there a single troll out there who can do more than link to an entry from "Global Warming FAQ" or Wikipedia?

I'm not a troll, but I did provide eight links so far, and only one of them was to wikipedia, and that was just for the graphic. Those in my second post pointed how much you had gotten wrong. You, tellingly, have ignored all of them.

Scientists were wrong, refused to admit that they were wrong and finally conceded that they were wrong after conclusive proof proved that they were wrong.

That's how science works, friend. You put forth a hypothesis, and if further study finds it to be wrong, you go back to the drawing board. Did you want them to concede they were wrong before they were shown to be wrong? You can't even admit you're wrong when it's proven you are.

Man may be causing global w... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Man may be causing global warming. We don't know because there is no conclusive evidence yet available.

Another point:

Is there a single troll out there who can do more than link to an entry from "Global Warming FAQ" or Wikipedia?

Posted by: KobeCla

Hows about the summary statement form the worlds premier scientific academy, The National Academy of Sciences. How's about that chunky?? Ypu think you know more then them or can point to one major scientific paper that supports your stupid azz claim...."Man may be causing global warming. We don't know because..." because your a dope so SHUT UP and learn the facts.

http://darwin.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=1

Summary

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

...The committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC Working Group I (WGI) scientific report...

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/

KobeClan-Scient... (Below threshold)
Earl:

KobeClan-

Scientists were wrong, refused to admit that they were wrong and finally conceded that they were wrong after conclusive proof proved that they were wrong.

No, not at all. Man, you really just don't get it. Scientists disagreed - and one group was presenting evidence that seemed to show the earth was not warming substantially. They never "refused to admit they were wrong" - they just found nothing incorrect with their data analysis, so, as good scientists, couldn't just manipulate the data. When an error was finally pointed out, they were able to reexamine their analysis.

There was no "conclusive proof" of anything. In fact, outside of mathematics there's pretty much no such thing as "conclusive proof". You mentioned "that star (you) see rising in the East every morning". Prove, conclusively, that it will rise in the east tomorrow. You can't.

And the whole argument that "they were wrong...why should anyone believe them now?" is totally BS. Do you apply that standard to everyone and everything? Since you were wrong earlier in this thread ("what was the hottest year on record? Wasn't it in the '30s? Yep!") I take it no one's supposed to believe you about anything, ever again?

I'm no troll. I'm just responding to your horribly misguided and incorrect ideas about climate, and science in general. And asking for more links from someone who hasn't provided a single one so far is pretty ridiculous.

The interesting thing about... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

The interesting thing about global warming is how the politics of it sides up with cons denying the existing science,, the scientist and their academies and liberals/progressives agreeing with the science.

First you have to remember which side has a lot of support for a 6,000 year old Earth and denial of evolution.

Next you have to ask if global warming is true what does it imply about the cons silly notions on "FREE MARKETS"

These people are simpletons with preconceived notions about the world mostly drilled into them when they were impressionable children or after some life trauma like recovering from their alcoholism or their third divorce or such.

They have ROM brains and are incapable of much free-thought and have to be told what to think and what to say. Anything that goes against their preconceived notions must be rejected outright rather then actually looking into the facts that they know they couldn't handle if true.

Earl:Now I'm reall... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

Earl:

Now I'm really confused. You wrote:

"There was no "conclusive proof" of anything. In fact, outside of mathematics there's pretty much no such thing as "conclusive proof". "

It seems you agree with me. If there is no conclusive proof of global warming or its effects (positive or negative) on modern society, why shouldn't we wait before we impliment drastic changes on our society.

I don't want conclusive proof, I just would like some compelling evidence. Haven't seen it yet.

It will take another 10, 20, 30 or more years before we can accept man-made global warming as fact, not theory.

Maybe by then someone will figure out what gravity is.

"They have ROM brains and a... (Below threshold)
J-Ho:

"They have ROM brains and are incapable of much free-thought and have to be told what to think and what to say"
You know, you're the one who is following the gw group think! You're the one not thinking on your own!

I guess you mean like geniuses who rise to the intellectually elite pinnacle of making an LOTR reference when someone disagrees with you!!! "(If this were Lord of the rings you'd be a damn Orc supporting Sauron.")

HAHAHAHAHA.

It's true, stupid people don't know they're stupid. They just keep calling people names and pretending they're a LOTR character!

Do you pay rent to live in your momma's basement, or does she just feel sorry for you.


Another thing:Why ... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

Another thing:

Why don't I provide links?

Waste of time. Just spend 5 minutes following links from someone like muirego. Promises pictures of horses. Instead, you get zebras.

No link I could provide you would make a damn bit of difference to you.

If you look hard enough you'll find a graph showing surface temps taken the same way for 100 years. Four of the top 10 (including #1) are from the 1930s, four more are from the 2000s.

Apples to apples.

As for being anti-scientist, hardly. Just skeptical.

It will take another 10,... (Below threshold)
mantis:

It will take another 10, 20, 30 or more years before we can accept man-made global warming as fact, not theory.

Scientists don't normally talk about facts, those are for historians and lawyers. Everything is a theory. You either have a theory well supported by the evidence, or you don't. Theory of gravitation, atomic theory, evolution by natural selection, and anthropogenic global warming are all well supported theories. That doesn't mean we know everything about them, just that they are well supported by the current science. When you talk about theory becoming fact it reveals how little you know about scientific inquiry.

Sorry mantis, wrong again.<... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

Sorry mantis, wrong again.

Facts: Electromagnetic spectrum
Earth is round (vs flat)
Solar system (vs Earth as center of Universe)
fission
fusion
infectious disease
viruses
cells
molecules
genetics (remember Mendel?)
etc, etc, etc.

Or do you still say "the theory of infectious disease".

Gravity is theoretical, genetic transmission is factual. Theory eventually becomes fact, if supported by overwhelming evidence.

Buy a cluebat.

BTW, man-made global warming is still poorly-supported theory.


If you look hard enough ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

If you look hard enough you'll find a graph showing surface temps taken the same way for 100 years.

Here you go

Four of the top 10 (including #1) are from the 1930s, four more are from the 2000s.

That's cute. I've already provided links showing you were wrong about the hottest years on record, and you refuse to link to anything rebutting that, yet you maintain that you are right.


BTW,Before anybody... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

BTW,

Before anybody writes to tell me that gravity is a fact, you are wrong. We can describe the properties of gravity but still don't know what it is.

If you think you know what it is, the Noble Prize Committee is waiting for your call.

We don't know what gravity is but we're sure that man is causing GW? Hubris and vanity, thy name is Man.

Sorry mantis, wrong agai... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Sorry mantis, wrong again.?

Again? You haven't shown me to be wrong about anything. Anyway, you misunderstand, not surprisingly.

The goal of science is not to uncover facts, it is to understand how the natural world works. The explanations for how the natural world works are called theories. They do not cross some threshold and become fact.

Yes, it is factual that genes, germs, cells, etc. exist. How these things work are explained by theories. That genes determine heredity is a fact, how they do so is theoretical. Climate change is a fact (because the climate of the Earth changes), how and why this occurs is theoretical. It's not hard to understand if you try a little.

Or do you still say "the theory of infectious disease".

No, I call it germ theory of disease, or just germ theory, because that's what it's called.

man-made global warming is still poorly-supported theory.

Wrong again.

mantis:Your last l... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

mantis:

Your last link is an example why I don't link. In the first paragraph it states polar temps weren't used until the '40s and '50s. Which makes them USELESS in accurately documenting historic global temps for the last 100 years.

The graphs are educated guesses subject to the biases of the investigator. Basic stuff.

Keep looking. But when you promise me horses, stop sending me pix of zebras.

mantis:GERM THEORY... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

mantis:

GERM THEORY??

Not a troll?

BWAhahahahahaha

Your last link is an exa... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Your last link is an example why I don't link. In the first paragraph it states polar temps weren't used until the '40s and '50s.

Here's what you asked for:

If you look hard enough you'll find a graph showing surface temps taken the same way for 100 years.

All the temperature readings that make up those graphs were taken the same way. You asked for it, you got it.

Which makes them USELESS in accurately documenting historic global temps for the last 100 years.

Bullshit. They are readings from every region in the world except for the poles until the 40s and 50s, and then including the poles. Do you honestly believe that adding the polar data from the first forty years would significantly change the graph? Useless? Hardly.

Btw I'd still like to know where you get the idea that the hottest year on record is in the 1930s. Oh, that's right, you don't link. God forbid you would actually support your argument.

The graphs are educated guesses subject to the biases of the investigator. Basic stuff.

Explain how the absence of just polar data for the first forty years makes the graphs educated guesses. If it's so basic, it shouldn't be too hard for you to explain.

GERM THEORY??

Oh, excuse me, pathogenic theory. Same difference. What exactly is funny about that? And don't think I haven't noticed you have no further response to the whole "theory becomes fact" discussion.

mantis:The last ti... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

mantis:

The last time I heard the term "germ theory" was 30 years ago in college as a historic term. In my 30 years since I haven't heard it until today.
"Dr. White, This patient has Amoxicillin resistant pneumococcal pneumonia, how should we treat him?"
"Well, Dr. Black, the germ theory of disease suggests..." BWAhahahahah. You can still find "germ theory" on Wikepedia, though. Hmmm.

And you say that not having data for a very large portion of the globe will not effect the accuracy of the data. Bwahahahaha!

The theory of the solar system? The theory of the EMS? The theory of the round earth?? Only moonbats and college professors talk like that. Which are you?

I'm tired. Take two cluebats. I'll check this thread in the morning.

"The interesting thing abou... (Below threshold)
Maureen:

"The interesting thing about global warming is how the politics of it sides up with cons denying the existing science,, the scientist and their academies and liberals/progressives agreeing with the science."

As if disagreeing with a current scientific theory makes you against science.

For the record, I don't disagree with "the science" as you want to call it. (I would call it the data being used to support a theory.) What I am is extremely skeptical toward the evidence (data) being presented to support the theory.

Mantis:To respond ... (Below threshold)
ejmad:

Mantis:

To respond to your point, I will comment and make linkages

1.) Hockey Stick: NAS Committee Hearings on Hockeystick
Your link just validated my point that the hockey stick graph is for the Northern Hemisphere only. He states that the graph is confirmed by dozens of other studies. It also does not state how they confirmed Mann's data. The problem is most reports using the hockey stick graph use the mann graph such as the NAS report earlier this year.

2) Ice core data: Debunking Jaworowski: I do not have time tonight to go over all the points in your link, but here are a few.
Point 1) There probably would not be evidence in the senate testimony record since he probably did not testify personally before the Senate. Also he could have been ask to prepare this testimony but it was never brought forward in a hearing.
Points 12 & 13) I followed the links in the article to see where Jarowowski is wrong for calling into question Callenders methodology for presenting his data. All the links say that Callender was correct and more recent studies have confirmed it but they failed to provide any actual evedince such as the actual study data.

I will try and comment on other points when I get some more free time.

Why don't I provide links?<... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

Why don't I provide links?

Waste of time. Just spend 5 minutes following links from someone like muirego. .......

No link I could provide you would make a damn bit of difference to you.

If you look hard enough you'll find a graph showing surface temps taken the same way for 100 years. Four of the top 10 (including #1) are from the 1930s, four more are from the 2000s.


Posted by: KobeClan

This is getting hard to watch KobeClan squirm so much so I'll help him out here. It's the liberal humanitarian side of me that hates to see people suffer so.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif

BTW,Before anybody... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

BTW,

Before anybody writes to tell me that gravity is a fact, you are wrong. We can describe the properties of gravity but still don't know what it is.


Posted by: KobeClan

Good point and this why people like Kobe should NOT be in charge of our space program. He'd STILL be saying we need more data on the theory of gravity before we send anyone to the moon.

muirego:You've pro... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

muirego:

You've proved my point , again. TWICE.

If you had the intelligence of a gnat you would have noticed the graph you linked to shows the highest annual mean temp for the US just happens to be in the 1930s. If you keep looking you'll find a similar graph for worldwide temps. Again, you send me zebra pix. The first thing you need to do when you get to high school is have some science teacher teach you how to read a graph.

As for the gravity thing, there's a one million pound prize in England for the first person or persons to uncover the nature of gravity. A smartass moonbat like yourself who has all the answers could probably use the coin. It'll get you out of your parent's basement.

Maybe you could find a graph to send them to prove your theory.

Wow, this discussion is sti... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Wow, this discussion is still going.

KobeClan, I think it's obvious that we affect our environment, how much and in what way is the question I think we need to ask.
I believe we contribute to the warming of the planet, it's not hard to believe, and there are legitimate supporting arguments.

I think the fact that liberals tend to be the most diehard proponents of global warming, turns you from healthy skepticism to outright denial.

However, doing a bit of research on the planet's oil supplies, I think we'll run out of, or be pumping very little of it in 50 years. I read an estimate that said we can expect a global temperature increase of 1-2 degrees in this time.

Not world-ending by any means.

Mantis claims above that he... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Mantis claims above that he's "no troll."

Ok, mantis' credibility now shot. I would tend to believe the exact OPPOSITE of what he says, based on his obvious lack of self-insight and perspective.

The good Lord has blessed us with an array of idiot lefty trolls on this website.

Here is a scientific study ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Here is a scientific study for you, from the JFK University, no less:

"A dream researcher from John F. Kennedy University in California has discovered fundamental differences between the dream worlds of people on the ideological left and the ideological right.

Among his findings, Kelly Bulkeley discovered that liberals are more restless sleepers and have a higher number of bizarre, surreal dreams -- including fantasy settings and a wide variety of sexual encounters. Conservatives' dreams were, on average, far more mundane and focused on realistic people, situations and settings..."

There you have it: Lefties, bizarre and surreal; Righties focused on realistic situations.

Proves my intuition correct.

However, doing a bit of ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

However, doing a bit of research on the planet's oil supplies, I think we'll run out of, or be pumping very little of it in 50 years. I read an estimate that said we can expect a global temperature increase of 1-2 degrees in this time.
Heralder

Every hear of a little thing called COAL?

Heralder:However,... (Below threshold)
ejmad:

Heralder:
However, doing a bit of research on the planet's oil supplies, I think we'll run out of, or be pumping very little of it in 50 years.

They been saying the same thing for the past 40 years. We keep discovering new oil finds, and improving technology to get more oil out of existing finds. There is potentially 200 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken "oil play" in Montana that have yet to be drilled. Also there are 100s of billions of oil in tarsands around the world. Canada has an estimated 150 - 200 billion barrels in known tar sand deposits.
We currently have more oil supply today than we did 15 - 20 years ago.

The last time I heard th... (Below threshold)
mantis:

The last time I heard the term "germ theory" was 30 years ago in college as a historic term. In my 30 years since I haven't heard it until today.

I'm surprised you've heard of it at all considering you asked 'Or do you still say "the theory of infectious disease"'. It's not as if I run around talking about germ theory all day, only if I'm discussing the foundations of microbiology. I was responding to your question. Glad you got a good laugh though. Btw only idiots and fourteen year olds write Bwahahahaha!. Which one are you?

Also, since you seem to think that germ theory is so archaic, I wonder what you think of Newton's laws of motion. They're only the foundation of physics the same way germ theory is the foundation of modern medicine, but they're so old!

"Dr. White, This patient has Amoxicillin resistant pneumococcal pneumonia, how should we treat him?"
"Well, Dr. Black, the germ theory of disease suggests..."

There is a difference between theory and practice, friend. All 1st year medical students learn about germ theory.

And you say that not having data for a very large portion of the globe will not effect the accuracy of the data. Bwahahahaha!

I'm still waiting for you to explain how the absence of polar data would significantly alter the plotting of the graph. Are you asserting that it was much warmer at the poles for the first 40 years of the century, respectively? This seems unlikely to me; how could it work in light of what we know about global climate?

The theory of the solar system? The theory of the EMS? The theory of the round earth??

Kobe, it's clear that you don't understand what a scientific theory actually is, you don't have to keep demonstrating it over and over again.

sean nyc,Yes. How... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

sean nyc,

Yes. However, transmuting coal to oil is negative energy, meaning it takes more resources to turn it to oil that what you get out of it. Not viable, in other words. Some factories still run on coal, but I doubt we'll be seeing coal-powered cars instead of ethanol-powered cars.

ejmad,

Admittedly, the estimates of world oil reserves are shakey at best. What we need to take into account, however, is population growth. Also, as I was saying in an earlier post, how would a billion more cars in China affect this?

Heralder,I wasn't ta... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Heralder,
I wasn't talking about converting coal to oil. I'm talking about burning coal for electricity. GHGs are still released.

Granted, they're stationary rather than mobile sources making it much easier to capture emissions, but the ability to capture 100% of emissions economically does not exist.

mantis:I hoped you... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

mantis:

I hoped you took the time to check the link that muirego said would make me "squirm". The one to refute my claim that the hottest year on record was in the '30s. The one that SHOWED the hottest year on record for the US was in the '30s? Bwahahahaha!

If you would bother to go back and read what you wrote, you should be embarassed. Alas, you're incapable of it.

Theory becomes fact. Deal with it.

BTW, 1st year med school WAS the last time I heard the term "germ theory". Like I said, college professors and moonbats.

BTW, you used the term "Newton's Laws of motion", not "Newton's theories of Motion". CURIOUS.

Also, if you don't understand why missing data from the polar icecaps is significant, you might want to take a course in statistical analysis.
Apples and oranges, ya know.

MEGO after the first 100 or... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

MEGO after the first 100 or so comments to this, but the article below nicely addresses dissent from the current "concensus" on climate change.

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/09/hey_hey_ho_ho_t.html

Basically, leftists are attempting to stifle dissent from their predetermined world view.

I hoped you took the tim... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I hoped you took the time to check the link that muirego said would make me "squirm". The one to refute my claim that the hottest year on record was in the '30s. The one that SHOWED the hottest year on record for the US was in the '30s?

First of all, it's not my fault that muirego doesn't know what he/she's talking about. That he showed you a chart of annual mean temperatures in the contiguous US is irrelevant, the charts I linked to which look at global temperature are quite relevant (here's another). You also continue to ignore the fact that the 5 hottest years on record, globally, are all in the last 8 years. What do you have to say about that?

If you would bother to go back and read what you wrote, you should be embarassed. Alas, you're incapable of it.

What exactly should I be embarrassed about?

Theory becomes fact. Deal with it.

Deal with your ignorance of scientific method.

BTW, 1st year med school WAS the last time I heard the term "germ theory".

I'm sorry you stopped reading after your first year. Maybe you should try it again sometime.

BTW, you used the term "Newton's Laws of motion", not "Newton's theories of Motion". CURIOUS.

Not really, the fact that he calls them laws doesn't make them facts; they are still theoretical, and well-supported in dealing with most physical motion. However, if you were familiar with physics you would know that the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics showed that the laws break down sometimes. How could that happen if they are laws, and therefore facts? Oh, because they are theoretical and subject to further experimentation and acquisition of new knowledge.

If all scientists were like you and decided that theories become facts after a period of confirming experimentation, we would not have relativity or quantum mechanics. Science continues to question well-supported theories as it is an evolving system of knowledge. You would do well to recognize that.

Also, if you don't understand why missing data from the polar icecaps is significant, you might want to take a course in statistical analysis.

What I don't understand is why you think that during the first 40 years of the century that the data for the poles would vary significantly relative to the data from the rest of the globe. Given what we know about the relation of polar temperatures to global temperatures for the next 60 years of the century, it is quite easy, statistically, to extrapolate the likely polar temperatures for the first 40 years. You would understand that if your knowledge extended beyond Statistics 101.

MANTIS:Theories: T... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

MANTIS:

Theories: Theory of Relativity, theory of quantum mechanics, theory of gravity.

Facts: The Earth is round, the Sun is the center of our solar system, "germs" cause diseases, the Periodic Table, elements, molecules, SPERM!!, the atmosphere, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Theories become facts. Deal with it.

Statistical analysis of unlike sets of data has a name: educated guess. BWAhahahahahaha!!

Come on, mantis. Take off the tinfoil hat. If you're unwilling to admit theories become facts,you'll never get out of your parent's basement.

Theories: Theory of Rela... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Theories: Theory of Relativity, theory of quantum mechanics, theory of gravity.

Well, you've got something right, so that's a start. By the way most people who know what they're talking about call it the theory of gravitation, and there's more than one theory of relativity.

Facts: The Earth is round, the Sun is the center of our solar system, "germs" cause diseases, the Periodic Table, elements, molecules, SPERM!!, the atmosphere, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Wrong. The Earth being round is a hypothesis, and a proven one at that. This fact is explained by the theory of gravitation and the big bang (plus the nebular hypothesis). Ditto the planets revolving around the Sun. That germs exist and cause disease are facts, or rather proven hypotheses, how this happens is theoretical. And on and on.

You see, what you fail to grasp, not surprisingly at this point, is that facts are things observed or measured (scientists usually call them evidence), whereas theories interpret, correlate, and explain that evidence. Theories do not become facts, they explain facts.

Come on, mantis. Take off the tinfoil hat. If you're unwilling to admit theories become facts,you'll never get out of your parent's basement.

I wear a tinfoil hat because I understand science? Am I claiming some vast conspiracy or something? No, I'm just explaining science, though your skull is clearly too thick to comprehend. And it's interesting that you think I live in my parent's (sic) basement, since you previously thought I must be a college professor, which you believe to be an insult. Not surprising from someone who refuses to admit when he's wrong.

I think a refresher in the scientific method is due for you, friend. Start with Karl Popper. He would be quite amused with your "theories become facts" idea.

mantis:Actually. m... (Below threshold)
KobeClan:

mantis:

Actually. mantis, I get great pleasure watching you making a fool of yourself. When you begin to use "(sic)" on a thread, its the equivalent of calling someone a Nazi.

parent's

parents'

What makes you think I didn't assume you lived in the basement of your mother's house, your father long gone when she refused to throw you out at the age of 40?

Give it up, mantis. A proven hypothesis is called a fact. You really need to read your own postings:

"That germs exist and cause disease are facts, or rather proven hypotheses, how this happens is theoretical. And on and on."

So you agree with me but I'm Wrong?? It would have been easy for you to just say "I mispoke". But the vanity of a moonbat is too great.

Wait, you don't know the di... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Wait, you don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis? Ok, I give up. Go read a book.

Pope Albert [Gore] I of the... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Pope Albert [Gore] I of the Church of the Enviromentalists:

"Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore warned hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff on Thursday evening about the perils of climate change, claiming: Cigarette smoking is a "significant contributor to global warming!"

There's some science for ya! Hell yeah!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy