« Severe Weather and Damage Report from NC | Main | Republican House Leadership Races »

So What Do the Environmentalists Do Now?

According to some scientists, pollution can help curb global warming, if there is global warming.

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- Air pollution may be just the thing to fight global warming, some scientists say.


Prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate, said a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere could act as a "shade" from the sun's rays and help cool the planet.

Reaction to the proposal here at the annual U.N. conference on climate change is a mix of caution, curiosity and some resignation to such "massive and drastic" operations, as the chief U.N. climatologist describes them.

The Nobel Prize-winning scientist who first made the proposal is himself "not enthusiastic about it."

"It was meant to startle the policymakers," said Paul J. Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end we have to do experiments like this."

Serious people are taking Crutzen's idea seriously. This weekend at Moffett Field, California, NASA's Ames Research Center hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global haze proposal and other "geoengineering" ideas for fending off climate change.

So what are the environmentalists to do now? Do they save the earth from global warming by encouraging pollution or do they save the earth from pollution and cause more global warming? My, how the worries of an environmentalist never end.


Comments (87)

I guess what we need to do ... (Below threshold)
jack oneil:

I guess what we need to do is start seeding volcanoes. Maybe someone could find Xenu to help us.

We have to destroy the envi... (Below threshold)
Tim:

We have to destroy the environment to save it.

Kim, please see Lorie post ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Kim, please see Lorie post below yours, and than make a few more jokes.

"So Now What Do the Envi... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"So Now What Do the Environmentalists Do?"

For starters, hold congressional hearings this next year and let the Republicans make asses of themselves in front of the American public. This will help insure the election of a Democrat to the White House in '08 so we can address this issue in a serious manner.

What are the conservatives planning to do? Head off to Hawaii with their lobbyist pals?

Kim, please see Lorie po... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Kim, please see Lorie post below yours, and than make a few more jokes.


So we had no tornadoes or thunderstorms 100 years ago....

Kim, please see Lo... (Below threshold)
Heralder:
Kim, please see Lorie post below yours, and than make a few more jokes.

We're all waiting patiently for your scientific proof that directly links this particular storm with Global Warming.

Ah, I remember the good old days, before severe weather.

Damnit Vagabond,Yo... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Damnit Vagabond,

You beat me to it.

Oh, and more on topic...Kim... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Oh, and more on topic...Kim, I think all this proves is there is not 100% consensus of just what is happening with our environment. There certainly are trends being looked at and research being conducted, but not all of it matches up yet.

I personally believe we are contributing to the warming of the Earth, but I refuse to jump on the "Global Warming is a greater threat than terrorism" bandwagon.

That said, this idea is ridiculous. Sure, we'll have stopped the warming trend, and we'll all jump up and down with glee...and then die of asphyxiation from all the toxins in the air.

If any of you every get the... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

If any of you every get the chance, I'd strongly recommend reading Micheal Chriton's State of Fear.

Not only is it right on the mark, but it shows the utter ignorance and stupidity of what Lee and BarneyG posted above.

This will drive the moonbat... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

This will drive the moonbats more nutty then they already are.

Theyre already coming apart at the seams, and they havent even taken control yet.

There is NO long term empirical data that PROVES that whats going on today is anything other than normal climatic changes.

PLUS if libs really believe in all of this BS, why dont they prove they care, and all start walking more, and lay off the trolling in places like this by turning off the lights and computer.

Oops, tried to underline th... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Oops, tried to underline that but it didn't work. Also misspelled his name

I'll try again:

Micheal Crichton's State of Fear

After reading this book you'll also comprehend the complete 100% hypocracy of Algore saying: "He lied to us. He played on our fears..."

This sort of thing is not a... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

This sort of thing is not a dilemma to us liberals and the environmentalist progressive thinkers. Good policy can reduce the risk of both climate change and air pollution while causing the next technologically driven economic boom.

The differences is that conservatives are sniveling little whiney ass couch sitters who have no gumption for change, no ability to plan for the future and have for got what the CAN DO attitude of the real American is all about.


You guys just sit back on the couch and watch the games....we'll settle the problem for ya. That's why they call us liberals and progressives.

Michael Crichton's Stat... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Michael Crichton's State of Fear "The best peer-reviewed science since Jurassic Park"

--William Schlesinger, Dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University

Thanx, muirgeo. Someone pa... (Below threshold)

Thanx, muirgeo. Someone pass me the popcorn, will ya?

Wow. I didn't realize all ... (Below threshold)
Cousin Dave:

Wow. I didn't realize all that managing-the-global-climate stuff was such hard work. Makes me wonder how the Earth ever got by prior to 1970.

I'm not really sure if this... (Below threshold)
Jess:

I'm not really sure if this single report citing the research of "some scientists" quite debunks the decades of research conducted by "lots of scientists" suggesting the opposite.

I don't understand how they... (Below threshold)
dont know:

I don't understand how they think this will work. The pollution will only rise so high until it is blown randomly by whatever winds predominate in any particular locality. The global warming is caused by a thinning of the ozone layer which is not effected by winds due to its altitude. I'm just guessing, however.

But "if human beings take i... (Below threshold)
yetanotherjohn:

But "if human beings take it upon themselves to carry out something as massive and drastic as this, we need to be absolutely sure there are no side effects," Pachauri said.

All conservatives are asking is that before you ruin the world's economy trying to fix global warming is that you consider the side effects and the accuracy of the science. Now when it comes to using pollution as a potential tool to ure global warming, caution is urged. If it is the Kyoto treaty, well lets not worry if it would really help or what the economic impact is, implement it now and if you don't agree you are a mean, evil, bad person.

"There is NO long term empi... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"There is NO long term empirical data that PROVES that whats going on today.." by G

Yea, the earth is only 6,500 years old, and global warming will only harm Arabs and Jews. Jesus told me.

So what are the environm... (Below threshold)
Brian:

So what are the environmentalists to do now?

Same thing they've always done. Encourage scientists to propose theories, then peer-review the hell out of them, further research the ones that have scientific merit, and then follow the resulting near-unanimous recommendations of the broad scientific community.

Fine-tuning the current theories is something to be encouraged, not feared.

My, how the worries of an environmentalist never end.

The only worries an environmentalist has are that there are still ignorant people out there who say things like, "if there is global warming".

I read something on the web... (Below threshold)
2klbofun:

I read something on the web a few months back (sorry can't remember where) that theorized that "Global Warming" due to "greenhouse gasses" from mankind's activities was somewhat offset by the release of particulates and sulfur compounds along with CO2. The article claimed that the warming affect would have been about 1.5 to 2 times greater if particulates and sulfur compounds were not present.

As you probably know, there have been tremendous advances in reducing sulfur content (to fix the "acid rain" problem) of fossil fuels and in scrubbing particulates from fired fossil fuel plants (to fix the "smog" problem).

I do not discount the possibility of greenhouse gasses contributing to global warming, but we have to be careful of the unintended consequences of any radical fixes we may pursue.

Reminds me of the new WHO "insight" regarding DDT -- while improper use of DDT likely has detrimental affects on some wildlife (e.g. thinner bird egg shells), appropriate use greatly reduces the mosquito population, thus reducing malaria in the human population.

Two words and a decade for ... (Below threshold)
Gringo:

Two words and a decade for anyone who thinks the climate is suddenly changing for the worse:

Dust Bowl, 1930's.

2klbofun,Your lear... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

2klbofun,

Your learned assessment of the causes of GW and consequences of certain fixes are valued.

Unfortunately, not for most of the stubborn morons on this site who, in the face of a mountain of evidence, will still champion ignorance since all their stupid neocon brethren are doing the same.

These idiots don't want to hear about solutions. They don't even want to admit there's a problem. They'd rather argue - wrongly - that the sky is not blue and their rose colored glasses are not really glasses at all.

Oh, and they'll simply just curse you for mentioning anything they don't want to hear. That's what throwbacks do.

I guess if you have time to... (Below threshold)
Matt:

I guess if you have time to sit around and worry what the environment will be like several hundred years from now, then you have way to much time on your hands.

Either that or you are a "scientist" justifying the next round of government grant money to live off of.

There are plenty of things in this world that could kill off a significant portion of mankind much faster than global warming.

Matt,How does some... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

Matt,

How does someone achieve your level of ignorance and cynicism?
And I guess you also don't have kids since you don't give two shites about their future.

Go back and stick your head in the sand.

Hey- What happened to hurri... (Below threshold)

Hey- What happened to hurricane season this year? Weren't we supposed be overwhelmed with Cat 5's?

You see hansel2- it's not that about whether or not the sky is blue, but whether or not it's falling.

If you think it's falling, then by all means- panic. But you'll long be dead (for hundreds of years possibly) by the time any man made changes we would even consider making in the next 100 years would make a significant change in global temperature trends if at all.

I drive a diesel, so I'm do... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I drive a diesel, so I'm doing my part.

C'mon, y'all, let's spew exhaust for the environment!

I believe that the scientis... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

I believe that the scientist are about evenly split on Global warming, half say yes, half say no. Some non scientists like the idiot Algore have went crazy, like a fox, he's used the unknown to suck millions right out of your pockets. Since it's a thousand years away why not let the scientist settle it with more studies and more billions of your dollars in grants.

I believe anyone one on here about as much as I believe that I'll hit a gusher of an oil well the next time I dig a post hole. So far no oil wells in the area. Natural gas, lots of coal, no oil.

Hey, Lee, Mungo, Crickmore,... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Hey, Lee, Mungo, Crickmore, the scientist on our side is a Nobel Laureate, so he's better than your cheap, ersatz, bought with left-wing funds, Ph.D.'s.

It's kinda like Cindy Sheehan; you can't question his authority. Nope. Can't.

Hansel2Hmmm, the i... (Below threshold)
Matt:

Hansel2

Hmmm, the ignorance comes from hanging out with environmentalists and global warming freaks most of my adult life.

The cynicism comes from ad-hominem attacks in blog comments from people that can't prepare a decent rebuttal to commentary they don't agree with.

Consider some of the alternative discussion about global weather patterns such as can be found at http://www.anxietycenter.com/

Kids? Yup, got plenty of kids, none of which will be around several hundred years from now.

I am also confident that my kids and their kids, and their kids etc will have enough time to deal with global climate change in a rational manner without destroying earth or mankind in the process.

I'm not terribly old, but recall vividly the "Ecologists" of the 70s being terrified of the impending global cooling that would have us all huddled along the equator by the next millenium.

Have a great day.

Scientists are worried abou... (Below threshold)
John S:

Scientists are worried about "massive and drastic" operations such as pumping soot into the upper atmosphere but have no problem with destroying the world's economy just in case there is global warming. But their plan won't work because when starving mobs begin to burn the world's cities more carbon will be released into the atmosphere. Not to mention the occaisional nuclear exchange over a can of beans.

Why weren't any of these al... (Below threshold)

Why weren't any of these alleged scientists who claim to be able to predict the weather 100 years from now in North Carolina yesterday telling people to get the hell out?

Global warming is probably ... (Below threshold)
Charles Martel:

Global warming is probably a good thing. Plants will grow better, it will increase crop yeilds. Al Gore is a moron, this is not apocalyptic. back in the 70s they were flipping out about 'global cooling'. One good volcano puts out more CO2 and other green house gasses than people have ever.

Mitchell. Dr.Crutzen is no... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Mitchell. Dr.Crutzen is not a sceptic of anthropogenic global warming. He says that "Climatic engineering,... is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature rises" if international efforts fail to curb greenhouse gases.. so far there is little reason to be optimistic." By, the way 110 Nobel Laureats endorsed the 1997 Kyoto Treaty, (even with all its flaws).

Matt said: "I'm not terr... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Matt said: "I'm not terribly old, but recall vividly the "Ecologists" of the 70s being terrified of the impending global cooling that would have us all huddled along the equator by the next millenium."

Newsweek/MSNBC (bottom of page 2)

The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal now--vastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical models--render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph of communism. Astronomers have been warning for decades that life on Earth could be wiped out by a collision with a giant meteorite; it hasn't happened yet, but that doesn't mean that journalists have been dupes or alarmists for reporting this news. Citizens can judge for themselves what constitutes a prudent response-which, indeed, is what occurred 30 years ago. All in all, it's probably just as well that society elected not to follow one of the possible solutions mentioned in the NEWSWEEK article: to pour soot over the Arctic ice cap, to help it melt.


I'm not terribly old, but r... (Below threshold)
muirgeo:

I'm not terribly old, but recall vividly the "Ecologists" of the 70s being terrified of the impending global cooling that would have us all huddled along the equator by the next millenium.

Have a great day.

Posted by: Matt


This is called a planted memory. It happens to suggestable people who listen to "planters" like Rush repeat a mesage over and over and over again until the reciepient actually believes they lived the ordeal. If we dug around deeper in that head of yours I'm sure we'd find many other planted memories thanks to Rush and the likes.

Man, it never fails. Whene... (Below threshold)
Earl:

Man, it never fails. Whenever there's a climate change story in the news, you can always count on someone at Wizbang to make a sarcastic post about environmentalists, while totally missing the point of the article, and failing to grasp even the basic science behind the story.

...and then without fail, commenters make the same ridiculous, repeatedly debunked comments, usually about the "ice age predicted in the 70's", or past temperature fluctuations. And there's always one (today it's bullwinkle) who can't seem to grasp the difference between "weather" and "climate", which most of us learned back in elementary school.

Good times.

<a href="http://www.co2scie... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

CO2 Science is a good resource for those who want a scientific analysis of the science of climate change.

Dr. Sherwood Idso, stated the CO2 vs. climate debate at a time when most other scientists were still worried Earth was headed for another Ice Age.

There's a new editorial every week and I have been reading this site for several years. What's apparent is that Earth is warming. However, study after study shows that Earth has gone through many millennium scale periods of global warming and cooling. Recent science has proposed the mechanism by which small changes in the Sun's output causes large climate changes. In an editorial where Dr Idso examines a paper, by Scafetta and West, there's evidence that the Sun is responsible for at least 50% of the warming since 1900. That leaves the other 50% for CO2. That convinces me we should go nuclear, wind, solar and biomes as fast as we can. Even if this proves to be unnecessary, it's worth doing if it gets us out of the middle east.

The only thing I can ask of... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

The only thing I can ask of environmental scientists is to put the evidence of so-called contemporary climate change in the perspective of what the history (and the causes) of climate change have been on earth well before the influence of mankind.

http://www.livescience.com/history/060720_sahara_rains.html

http://www.greendiary.com/entry/north-pole-once-had-a-tropical-climate/

Sorry muirgeo I don't liste... (Below threshold)
Matt:

Sorry muirgeo I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, he's an idiot.

My "planted" memories come from indoctrination (whoops, lessons) from the 3rd and 4th grade.

Citizens can judge for themselves what constitutes a prudent response-which, indeed, is what occurred 30 years ago. All in all, it's probably just as well that society elected not to follow one of the possible solutions mentioned in the NEWSWEEK article: to pour soot over the Arctic ice cap, to help it melt

Lee, thanks for the tidbit from newsweek/msnbc, the bottom sentences hits the nail on the head. Individuals need to decide for themselves.

I've got to go rake leaves now.

Toodles

More CO2 Science links:... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Something that has never be... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

Something that has never been explained to me is this: If our activities can so radically change the climate, then why hasn't someone come up with a way to stop even a localized thunderstorm? After all, we have the technology to send people into space, yet we can't make it rain or not rain on purpose. Imagine the fame, money and power someone (or company) could acquire? Couldn't Bill Gates and Warren Buffett put some money behind something like that? They are big libs, after all.

Global warming myths again?... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Global warming myths again? Not one, not a single one of the so called climate models can take data from 100 years ago and come even close to predicting what our weather is like today. The most oftern used one generally predicts Denver will be a desert by 1995.

Hell, they can't even accurately predict what the weather will be in two weeks much less 200 years.

Here is my prediction...a scientist's opinion on global warming is directly proportional to the amount of funding he receives to express that opinion.

Funny how the study that shows the primary case study using tree ring data that resulted in the famous hockey stick never seems to be discussed in the media. Especially since it exposes the whole "global warming is caused by man" crock science to be the bunk it is.

There isn't even agreement on exactly what gases and variables affect global warming. There is more scientific proof behind feng shui and leprechauns than there is real science behind the causes and human impact on global warming.

But the lemmings keep following along willing to give up their brains to the government to save them from a problem that doesn't exist.

Liberal support for all the anti-global warming has more to do with their socialist agenda of wanting to tell people how to live and nothing to do with the tempature of the Earth. Wake up people.

My "planted" memories co... (Below threshold)
Brian:

My "planted" memories come from indoctrination (whoops, lessons) from the 3rd and 4th grade.

Doubtful.

Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces.... But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis.
Why would we want to go thr... (Below threshold)
suhnami:

Why would we want to go through all the expense and effort to address something where the data is non-conclusive,wrong, questionable, or cherry picked . I guess since we already went to war over the same type of data, we don't want to make the same mistake twice.

Boy, I don't even get into ... (Below threshold)

Boy, I don't even get into this argument anymore. There's no arguing with a true believer. These are the people whose mottos are always "Be skeptical" / "Question authority".

If our activities can so... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If our activities can so radically change the climate, then why hasn't someone come up with a way to stop even a localized thunderstorm?
...
Hell, they can't even accurately predict what the weather will be in two weeks much less 200 years.

You people have no sense of the issue.

Why, we should ignore any possible cures for cancer until we can cure the common cold first!

By, the way 110 Nobel La... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

By, the way 110 Nobel Laureats endorsed the 1997 Kyoto Treaty, (even with all its flaws).

Without commenting on the validity of the statement, the Kyoto Treaty wasn't about reducing green house emissions. It was about having the U.S. and a few other nations send money to third world countries while exempting some of the biggest polluters (China and India). The Kyoto Treaty is to global warming what Jesse Jackson is to race relations.

All in all, i... (Below threshold)
Lee:

All in all, it's probably just as well that society elected not to follow one of the possible solutions mentioned in the NEWSWEEK article: to pour soot over the Arctic ice cap, to help it melt.

"Lee, thanks for the tidbit from newsweek/msnbc, the bottom sentences hits the nail on the head. Individuals need to decide for themselves."

"I've got to go rake leaves now."

Spoken like a true Republican, Matt. Ignore the reasoning, facts and data, and pick out an handy anecdote to hang your hat on... then toddle off, oblivious to the future. Perfect example of why the republcians no longer are in power.

There's a future in the GOP for you, Matt.

The Faith said: "Global warming myths again? Not one, not a single one of the so called climate models can take data from 100 years ago and come even close to predicting what our weather is like today. The most oftern used one generally predicts Denver will be a desert by 1995."

Correct. Predicting the weather is difficult. Predicting climate trends is much easier, for reasons stated in the Newsweek/MSNBC quote above. Let me guess - you don't even know the difference between weather and climate, but are prepared to tell those of us who do how wrong we are?

Faith: "Liberal support for all the anti-global warming has more to do with their socialist agenda of wanting to tell people how to live and nothing to do with the tempature of the Earth. Wake up people."

Oh, I see your just a political shill for the GOP. That explains it. Thanks for your thoughtful input, Faith. At least, I think there may have been some thought in there somewhere... I'll check later.


I used to be an environment... (Below threshold)
theExecutioner:

I used to be an environmentalist. But not after I was threatened with a $25,000 per DAY fine. I NO LONGER DO ANYTHING FOR THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND NEVER WILL.

Are Ace of Spades HQ and Th... (Below threshold)
eman:

Are Ace of Spades HQ and The Jawa Report under attack?

I am an environmental analy... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

I am an environmental analyst and have been working in the field of air quality and air conformity analysis for the past 17 years. And I can tell you the problem is not global warming. I can agree with you that the earth is warming. It is hard to refute all of the evidence that points to that warming trend and I am not even going to try.

I can even agree that man has had an impact on that warming. You can't puke tons of refuse into the air for decades and not expect to affect the climate. The $64 questions are:
1) How much to we impact the climate?
2) What can we do to limit our impact on the climate?
3) Will any action or series of actions we take make any real difference?

Answer those questions for me. I do this for a living and I do not know the answer. Show me that by adhering to the Kyoto Accords, or any similar such actions, we can reverse those warming trends or even make a real difference. And then show me how to do it without destroying our economy in the process - that is the problem!

Have you ever seen more arr... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Have you ever seen more arrogance than in the pronouncements of the global warming fear mongers on the left?

Get a clue you lefties, if it weren't for global warming almost the entire US would be under miles of ice. The most recent spat of "global warming" started over 20,000 years before the first evil republican capitalist walked the Earth. And regardless of how much CO2 we create it will be under ice again. Hell, maybe we're postponing the next ice age, which would be a good thing.

Idiots.

And there's another thing. You lefties paving over the surface of the Earth and turning forests into yards are probably contributing a lot more to global warming than CO2 emissions. The electricity to run your air conditioners in your 3000 sq. ft. homes takes more coal than the cars in this county take gas.

I wish we were all wealthy enough to be democrats so we could afford not to burn fossil fuels, but for right now they are the best thing going. New technologies will replace them in the future, but it will not be government that causes the change. Actually we came up with an excellent solution earlier last century, but you lefties ran your typical lies, fear, and smear campaign and prevent that solution.

Idiots.

MAN BEAR PIG!!! IT"LL KILL US ALL!!!

VOTE FOR THE SECULAR REGRESSIVE SOCIALISTS!!!

ONLY THEY CAN SAVE US!!!

Idiots.

Perhaps we can ask Al Gore ... (Below threshold)
Proud Kaffir:

Perhaps we can ask Al Gore to explain why the Hurricane season was such a disappointment this year? Could it be that vairations in weather are, well, normal?

<a href="http://www.junksci... (Below threshold)
Ed:

http://www.junkscience.com/

Try this url, whackoos.

Sorry to be productive Lee,... (Below threshold)
Matt:

Sorry to be productive Lee, but one must make hay while the sun still shines.

Hanging my "hat" on individuals making up their own minds about major issues like global warming is a good thing.

I don't have a future in the GOP, I'm way to conservative for them.

Why do you take things so personally?

Ciao.

Executioner, were you threa... (Below threshold)

Executioner, were you threatened because of refrigeration and freon?

I remember from studying for my EPA test, $25,000 (adjusted for inflation now), per DAY per INFRACTION.

I love how Lee is an instan... (Below threshold)
MItchell:

I love how Lee is an instant expert on every conceivable issue (even those clearly beyond his competence).

I don't need some unemployed Googler telling me anything on the topic.

Next, we have Brian swatting someone down with a bunch of left-wing website links. Puhleaaaase.

Kyoto has been implemented by how many countries?

You lefties are as wrong on this as you were/are on economics, socialism, communism, the Soviet Union, Red China, Ronald Reagan, and the list goes on. Bunch of damn fools, and you want us to follow your Pied Piper, Al Bore, down the primrose path.

F off, you losers.

"Why, we should ignore any ... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

"Why, we should ignore any possible cures for cancer until we can cure the common cold first!"

Boy, did you miss the point.

Global warming is based on the outputs of computerized climate models. The same ones that predict weather--only they are inaccurate beyond a few weeks.

I reject them as a basis for determining global warming which eliminates about 80% of the evidence.

It's also been shown that the estimation of past temperatures based on tree rings that shows a marked "hockey stick" increase in temperature was a factor more of the data analaysis method rather than the temp trend. Using the same method, completely random data showed the same hockey stick effect.

Therefore, the basis of the "man causes global warming" is wrong. Destroying economies (as Kyoto would have done while doing nothing about global warming) is a high price to pay--probably at the cost of millions of lives.

It's bunk science being used to try and setup governments to control the lives and actions of people. Something you dictator worshipping leftists salivate at.

It's obvious from your "cure common cold" statement you have done zero reseach into the issue and simply spew the crap you've been spoon fed. In other words, useless and ignorant.

I was undecided about globa... (Below threshold)
smartguy:

I was undecided about global warming, until Al Gore said that cigarette smoking was a substantial contributor to it. That sealed it for me. Gore does to real scientists what Cindy Sheehan does to our military.

Piss on the facts, promote your agenda.

Or, Gore does to real scien... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Or, Gore does to real science what Murtha does to "ethics," or as he puts it, "crap."

This is called a planted me... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

This is called a planted memory. It happens to suggestable people who listen to "planters" ...


Kinda like the dimwits who now claim that only the rich got tax cuts, and the rich dont pay taxes, even though the top 20% pay app. 81.

No wonder dims need unions, tenure, etc. These friggin idiots arent bright and diligient enough to succeed on their own without some kind of safety net.

How many libtards have star... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

How many libtards have started walking or biking, sold their cars, and turned off their lights and computers in an effort the ave the earth?

Maybe if Al Gore would lose 75 lbs, he wouldnt sweat so damned much.

Global Warming means that t... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Global Warming means that the OVERALL temperature of the earth is rising. This rise in temperature wreaks havoc with well established weather patterns causing more extreme, unpredictable weather.

Like 2 feet of snow in Buffalo in October.
Like tornadoes in North Carolina in November.
Like one hurrican season from hell followed by a harmless one.
Get it? Unpredictable....

You won't believe Global Warming is happening. Most of us believe it is. Fine.

Next step:
Which is worse:
1. Doing something about Global Warming and then finding out it's not a real threat?
2. Or doing nothing about it and finding out it is a real threat?

Make your choice.

BTW, little Kim, Crutzens idea of the cloud cover reducing global warming has already been debunked since the cover would actually perform just like a blanket and not only keep some sunshine out but more importantly and more destructively keep more heat in. More heat more ice melt, more ice melt more changes.

Some of you act as though you don't have a computer to be able to read. Obviously what we "environmentalists" do is use our computers to read, learn and use our brains.

Try a little experiment for us Kim. Go into your garage, but a blanket against the bottom edge of the door. Turn on your car and sit in the garage for about 6 hours and then come back out and post how you feel about global warming.

Foolish Americans........

Civil behavior is typical o... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Civil behavior is typical of the self-styled "experts" who claim warming affects everything.

We've had tornados in November for as long as I can remember, bozo. I grew up in NC, and we have wild weather, due to our location mid-Atlantic, between the cold north and the hot deep south.

You morons shouldn't be allowed to vote. We just end up with Nan Pelosi shitwits.

Faith+1: "you have done ... (Below threshold)
Earl:

Faith+1: "you have done zero reseach into the issue and simply spew the crap you've been spoon fed."

This just after saying "global warming is based on the outputs of computerized climate models. The same ones that predict weather"

Which is completely untrue, and exposes just how little you know about the topic. Sorry, climate is not the same thing as weather. Most of us learned that in elementary school.

Look behind the curtain of ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Look behind the curtain of everything the liberals claim, and you'll discover a radical political agenda. Some things never change.

And as liberals like to say, "Question Authority." Especially when that "authority" is depending on a large government grant.

No mun-go that's why we cal... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

No mun-go that's why we call you dumbass with shit for brains.

So much dumb shit on this t... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

So much dumb shit on this topic, I'm going to have to touch a few of them here:

Wow. I didn't realize all that managing-the-global-climate stuff was such hard work. Makes me wonder how the Earth ever got by prior to 1970.

Peace, love, and marijuana, of course.

Why, we should ignore any possible cures for cancer until we can cure the common cold first!


You aren't going to cure the common cold. It's not one particular virus, but hundreds of rhinovirii that mutate quickly.

"I'm not terribly old, but recall vividly the "Ecologists" of the 70s being terrified of the impending global cooling that would have us all huddled along the equator by the next millenium."

Yep, I remember it too...It was Cesare Emiliani who first predicted this ice age, and then there was "The Population Bomb" by Ehrich.

In fact, all during the late 60s and 70s, there was lots of chatter about this cooling trend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1970s_Awareness

Yep, you can say now in hindsight they were wrong, and no doubt in 20 more years people will be rolling their eyes at all this "global warming" business as some pointy-headed ecologist predicts a global cooling trend.

It's kinda like predicting that I'm going to be exhaling during the 2.4 seconds that I'm inhaling.

Dust Bowl, 1930's

Well, that was the global cooling, you see. :)


This is called a planted memory. It happens to suggestable people who listen to "planters" ...
Cycles, people, cycles.

Well, these "planters" were the same left-wing eco-nuts who are now trying to "plant" the idea of global warming.

"I've got to go rake leaves now."
Spoken like a true Republican

Well, that's because Republicans know that for something to be done, you have to actually DO it, and not rely on the magic government fairy to rake the leaves for you.

BARNEY: Jesus told me.

Jesus just rang me, Barney, and said for you to fuck off and stop playing with yourself.

simply spew the crap you... (Below threshold)
Brian:

simply spew the crap you've been spoon fed

Yes, I freely admit that I spew the crap I've been spoon fed by 6000 peer-reviewed scientists with not a single peer-reviewed dissent among them. I also believe the crap fed to me by doctors, who tell me they can cure me, although not 100% of the time. I'm also fooled by those charlatans at NASA who tell me that they put a man on the moon, and plan to again.

And all that without doing a bit of research myself. And all that in opposition to junkscience.com, faith healers, and conspiracy theorists.

And I'm supposed to be embarrassed by this, by people who accuse me of not understanding the issues, by people who do not know the difference between weather and climate. Yep.

Next, we have Brian swat... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Next, we have Brian swatting someone down with a bunch of left-wing website links. Puhleaaaase.

Ah yes, the ad hominem dismissal. Used only when one is lacking any facts to support their position. So thank you for supporting mine.

Look behind the curtain ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Look behind the curtain of everything the liberals claim, and you'll discover a radical political agenda.

OK, Jo's got the biggest loony tinfoil hat in the room.

Ah yes, the ad hominem d... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Ah yes, the ad hominem dismissal.

Ah, yes, the misused accusation. Sorry, an ad hominem attack is, by definition, an attack on the person. The referenced criticism was regarding your links to dubious websites.

You won't believe Global Wa... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

You won't believe Global Warming is happening. Most of us believe it is. Fine.

Next step:
Which is worse:
1. Doing something about Global Warming and then finding out it's not a real threat?
2. Or doing nothing about it and finding out it is a real threat?


Excuse me for my attempt at using lib logic, but:

You won't believe Social Security is going broke. Most of us believe it is. Fine.

Next step:
Which is worse:
1. Doing something about Social Security and then finding out it's not a real threat?
2. Or doing nothing about it and finding out it is a real threat?


Maybe what we need to do is have a referendum, and all those who vote to NOT attempt to fix SS will NOT get benefits in 2020, or whenever. Wow, self reliance, a concept libs will NEVER embrace!

Sorry, an ad hominem att... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Sorry, an ad hominem attack is, by definition, an attack on the person. The referenced criticism was regarding your links to dubious websites.

Web sites, containing articles, written by... people! It's people!

Oh, by the way...

ad ho‧mi‧nem Latin. 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

So you lose on the facts, and on the semantics.

"Which is completely untrue... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

"Which is completely untrue, and exposes just how little you know about the topic. Sorry, climate is not the same thing as weather. Most of us learned that in elementary school."

Sorry, but it IS true, which is why it's all bunk. The climate models have been shown over and over and over to be almost completly unreliable. Climate and weather are different hmm? Then why link the two with claims that weather pattern changes are due to climate change affected by man? And yes, they do use weather models in their climate claims. Hence my suspicion that since there are tons of groups willing to throw money at studying the issue--as long as your conclusion results in a leftist agenda--is why lots of so called scientists claim we are the cause.

All I'm doing is pointing out that the real truth is that scientists actually know very little about climate and weather. Many also take the position that climate and weather are governed by non-linear differential equations--i.e. there is no solution to them as it is impossible to determine allt he factors.

Radical changes to the environment or destruction of economies to the scale being proposed by the Goreites and pro-global-warming crowd is a ill advised when so little is really known.

The "we have to do something even if we don't know all the facts or the effects of doing it" runs a much greater risk of causing MORE harm than doing nothing.

civil behavior: contrary t... (Below threshold)

civil behavior: contrary to your statement, few people deny a change in overall temperature. The questions being asked are consistently being ignored.

Is the change in overall temps due to human activity or only a fraction of it or not at all?

Can we reverse or stop it or slow it? Can we reverse or stop it without bankrupting economies?

If Kyoto is so great and so practical then why are major polluters exempt and why hasn't one single signatory country met any of the stated goals?

If Global Warming proponents are honest then why the constant moaning about melting glaciers with no mention of growing glaciers?

Why is it that many "respected scientists" who are quoted voluminously in defense of Global Warming are not climatologists or even meteorologists?

Why do they focus solely on man made possibilites while carefully omitting solar output, volcanic activity, methane gases seeping up from the ocean floors, etc? All things we have NO control over.

Why is it that most of those who are so vociferous about fossil fuels also fight tooth and nail against other non-pollutiong forms of energy like wind, nuclear energy, etc? They rail against coal fired energy palnts and burn wood in their fireplaces thinking they're doing us all a favor.

No one denies that less pollution is a good thing. But some think the scaremongering and strong arm tactics are part and parcel of education. It prompts people like we see here to sling accusations, call names, play holier than thou and all with a barely rudimentary knowledge of what they pick and choose to believe on the Internet.

Oh, and one final thing. Why is it that those who have joined the consensus are called "respected scientists" and those who haven't bought in entirely are called "crackpots on Halliburton's payroll"?

Now go Google "brain surgery" and come back and tell us what an expert you are.

I am sure they are experts ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

I am sure they are experts on brain surgery
Brain Salad Surgery
(see who else remembers the 70s)

Here's an article on Prince... (Below threshold)

Here's an article on Prince Charles' recent green initiative. Kudos for him at least attempting to raise awareness of global warming...
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

SCSIwuzzy: the 70's - too ... (Below threshold)

SCSIwuzzy: the 70's - too many aspects of that era I'd just as soon forget. Along with bell-bottoms.

Both environmentalists and ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Both environmentalists and conservatives have reason to reduce CO2 emissions.

I'm convinced that global warming is real and that some part of it is caused by the CO2 humans have pumped into the atmosphere. The consequences of global warming and higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are not all bad. Nevertheless, there's good reason for the US to develop and use carbon neutral energy sources to the fullest practical extent. These energy sources include nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and biomass. Besides reducing CO2 emissions, these energy sources also reduce our dependency on middle east oil.

I strongly oppose Kyoto. If we want to reduce CO2 then lets do so by passing domestic laws that promote carbon neutral energy sources. CO2 could be reduced by more that what Kyoto requires without all the negative baggage of Kyoto.

Environmentalists need to decide if they are serious enough about reducing CO2 emissions that they will drop opposition to nuclear power. Environmentalists need to decide if they are serious enough about reducing CO2 emissions that they will drop support of Kyoto in favor of laws that promote carbon neutral energy sources.

Conservatives need to decide if they are serious enough about reducing our dependency on middle east oil that they will drop opposition to laws that promote carbon neutral energy sources. When I say promote, that also includes some form of domestic carbon tax that then funds development of carbon neutral energy sources.

Apart from some coalition of politically diverse groups, there's not enough support to overcome the many obstacles that stand in the way of developing an effective solution to global warming and our energy dependence that may require going to war to protect.

Snow cover in the Northern ... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has declined about five percent over the past 30 years.

The freezing altitude has risen in every major mountain chain.

Alpine and polar glaciers have retreated since 1961, the amount of ice melting in Greenland has increased since 1979.

Over the past 25 years, the average annual Arctic sea ice area has decreased by almost five percent summer sea ice area has decreased by almost 15 percent.

The collapse of the Larsen Ice Shelf off the Antarctic Peninsula appears to have no precedent in the last 11,000 years.
There were some major errors in some scientific papers recently that suggested the arctic interior ice was increasing faster than the Ross ice shelf was diminishing.

However recent satellite data contradicts that finding. We have a pair of satellites that follow each other in close proximity, and the distance between them is closely monitored by examining dopler effects.

The two satellites essentially measure local gravity. They are seeing less and less gravity over the antarctic, which essentially means the interior ice is not increasing as fast as the shore ice is melting.

It isn't so much that there has been longer term melting of far-north glaciers; its the rate of change that is so catastrophic.

Oceans comprise 97 percent of Earth's water. They have an average depth of approximately 13,000 feet.
From 1955 to 1998, the upper ~9,800 feet of the ocean have warmed by an average 0.067 degrees Fahrenheit.

If the average temperature of the world's oceans increased by 0.18 degree Fahrenheit and this heat was transferred instantly to the atmosphere, the air temperature would increase by about 180 degrees Fahrenheit

Record warmth in any one year is not in itself highly significant.

What is noteworthy, however, is that global average temperatures experienced a net rise over the twentieth century, and the average rate of this rise has been increasing.

When scientists attempt to reproduce these twentieth century trends in their climate models, they are only able to do so when INCLUDING human-produced heat-trapping emissions in addition to natural causes.

Some people are like oysters. They don't have computers to make them more knowledgable. Others sit in their garages, car running, doors closed and think they'll survive the experiment.

Foolish Americans......

civil behavior,<block... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

civil behavior,

When scientists attempt to reproduce these twentieth century trends in their climate models, they are only able to do so when INCLUDING human-produced heat-trapping emissions in addition to natural causes.

Many studies demonstrate climate oscillations closely follow solar cycles. Only recently have scientist discovered an amplifier mechanism that allows relative small changes in solar output to have much larger changes on Earth's climate.

Another phenomenon that's recently been observed is a biological response to the slight warming of the water in the south Pacific. Organisms stimulated by the warmth produce byproducts that cause cloud formation in an area that otherwise has few clouds. This negative feedback mechanism causes significant cooling over a large area.

None of the climate models include this and other such information, and as a result I can say emphatically they are all wrong. It's real simple, you can't model something you don't understand. Real science is working on understanding the basic details of climate while the computer model proponents are more interested in furthering a political agenda. The American people aren't buying that foolishness.

the scientist on our sid... (Below threshold)
Brian:

the scientist on our side is a Nobel Laureate, so he's better than your cheap, ersatz, bought with left-wing funds, Ph.D.'s.

Hmm. So when six Nobel laureates--along with hundreds of economists--say we should raise the minimum wage, they're hacks to be ignored. When one Nobel laureate--all by himself, in opposition to 6000 scientists--speaks up against global warming, then we should base policy on what he says.

Interesting standards you have.

Kim, please see Lorie po... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Kim, please see Lorie post below yours, and than make a few more jokes.

Hmm, how active was the hurricane season this year?
-=Mike

Bingo Mac Lorry. they don'... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Bingo Mac Lorry. they don't understand enough about global warming or its causes to justify making radical changes. They just keep being proven wrong.

Oh, and to the latest Left effort to re-write history claiming the 1970s Ice Age threats were "implanted" I present Time Magazine article from 1974.

http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

Note, the causes for the supposed upcoming Ice Age are supposed to be the same ones causing warming today.

The fact is they just don't know enough to be trashing economies are implementing drastic environmental changes.

And as others have noted, the champions of global warming from Colorado, using their supposed infamous models predicted many more storms and hurricanes last year during all the global warming hype.

They were wrong.

Again.

They don't know what they are talking about.

Brian, the widely-accepted ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Brian, the widely-accepted definition of an "ad hominem attack" is that which Mr. Cloninger referenced. That's what your 6000 peer-reviewed scientists would no doubt think of it.

A true ad hominem attack is not an attack on the substance of an argument, i.e. you citations of left wing sites.

It is more a personal attack; e.g., Brian, you are a pecker head; or, Brian, you are a Left Wing Nutjob. Or, Brian, you screw dead deer.

Those examples may be true, or not. But they illustrate the point, I believe.

Have a great day.




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