March 13, 2007

WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?

Do you want to end airborne particulate matter, i.e., air pollution? Do you want to end the biggest greenhouse gas, the one that traps heat from radiating back to space? I bet you want both. If you got both, you would have a bone-dry planet.

Rain and snow, the water cycle, can only occur if moisture condenses on particles and then falls from the sky. The biggest greenhouse gas is moisture. Moisture, as clouds and fog, act like a blanket keeping you warm in your bed. It keeps heat from leaving the body of the planet. That is why it feels colder in the morning when the sky is clear, and warmer when cloudy. Carbon dioxide is miniscule compared to moisture. It serves as plant food along with moisture that falls from the sky.

Posted by Clay Barham at March 13, 2007 03:56 PM
Comments
Comment #211605

Clay,
What’s your point? You’re not talking about politics here. You’re just repeating a basic scientific point that every scientist knows.

Posted by: Steve K at March 12, 2007 04:17 PM
Comment #211609

Steve, I think Clay is trying to say it’s not the heat, it’s the humidity.

What is your point, Clay?

Posted by: phx8 at March 12, 2007 04:33 PM
Comment #211714

Yes, I agree. Every scientist knows this, so why are people alarmed about climate change and willing to kill our economy doing something that will not change the weather? I know moisture is not one of the things Al Gore measures, except all his “smokestacks” to alarm people give off steam. Steam, of course, is moisture. Global warming is a political scare to elect caring democrats and prop up the criminally inclined UN.

Posted by: Clay Barham at March 13, 2007 12:42 PM
Comment #211722

Clay,

Have you read any of the climate studies from either of these two organizations?

http://www.nationalacademies.org/
http://www.ipcc.ch/

I think you’ll find they answer your questions.

Posted by: Steve K at March 13, 2007 01:02 PM
Comment #211723

Clay,

I hate to burst your bubble, but once a “gas” falls into solution it is no longer a “gas”.

Posted by: Rocky at March 13, 2007 01:17 PM
Comment #211726

Can we call it vapor?

Posted by: Clay Barham at March 13, 2007 01:32 PM
Comment #211728

Clay:

Can we call it vapor?

No, you cannot.

Posted by: Allen at March 13, 2007 01:44 PM
Comment #211730

Geez, Clay. I think you need to be digging a little deeper into your own personal intellectual well. You’ve posted three times and written a couple of hundred words that, in sum, promote the hypothesis that public education is driving children to kill themselves, that John Edwards (and by the way, all Democrats) are elitists and that global warming is fiction. If you’re going to cover that amount of ground with so few words you need to be very, very good.
Try longer next time; and while you’re at it, try better. your thoughts leave the reader little to respond to.

Posted by: charles Ross at March 13, 2007 01:54 PM
Comment #211732

This whole Global Warming is a crock; it’s nothing but a religion to the left.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 13, 2007 02:03 PM
Comment #211735

rahdigly,
You should read these studies too

http://www.nationalacademies.org/
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Posted by: Steve K at March 13, 2007 02:22 PM
Comment #211736

rahdigly,
You should read these studies too

http://www.nationalacademies.org/
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Posted by: Steve K at March 13, 2007 02:24 PM
Comment #211737

rahdigly,
You should read these studies too

http://www.nationalacademies.org/
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Posted by: Steve K at March 13, 2007 02:24 PM
Comment #211738

Clay,

From wikipedia;

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

“Water is unusual in that it is a liquid under normal conditions, when relationships between other analogous hydrides of oxygen’s column in the periodic table suggest it should be a gas, as is hydrogen sulfide. If the periodic table is examined, it will be noted that the elements surrounding oxygen are nitrogen, fluorine, phosphorus, sulfur and chlorine. All of these elements combine with hydrogen to produce gases at normal temperature and pressure. The reason that oxygen forms a liquid is that it is more electronegative than all of these elements (other than fluorine). Oxygen pulls on electrons much more strongly than hydrogen, leaving a net positive charge on the hydrogen atoms, and a net negative charge on the oxygen atom. The presence of a charge on each of these atoms gives each water molecule a net dipole moment. Electrical attraction between water molecules due to this dipole pulls individual molecules closer together, making it more difficult to separate the molecules and therefore raising the boiling point. This attraction is known as hydrogen bonding.”

Water vapor is still water.

Posted by: Rocky at March 13, 2007 02:26 PM
Comment #211743

Ignorance is bliss — for the ignorant. For the rest of us, it’s simply a giant pain in the tuchus.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 13, 2007 02:32 PM
Comment #211745

Clay,

” … so why are people alarmed about climate change and willing to kill our economy …”

I have often heard this assertion [from the right] that doing something about global warming will destroy our economy. Where does this notion come from? Please, someone, educate me. Is it generally understood that increased spending on R&D, new technological development, fresh spending by corporations, governments [municipal, county, state, federal] and citizens alike [to comply with new regulation], and the creation of new jobs [research, development, manufacturing, enforcement, management] is damaging to an economy?

Posted by: jrb at March 13, 2007 02:43 PM
Comment #211747

Rocky:
In order for water to “fall” out of the atmosphere, it must condense and in doing so achieve its bonding, otherwise it remains in the atmosphere to the extent the atmosphere is able to absorb it. It has weight, and once beyond the dew point will condense on solids on the earth itself. Regardless of all that mumbo-jumbo, as a “vapor” or a “gas,” it forms a heat-sealing blanket which prevents heat formed on the earth from the radiation of the sun from escaping, and that is the major cause of global warming…and it takes place all the time in different places on the earth and has been doing it for a long time. So, what’s new?

Posted by: Clay Barham at March 13, 2007 02:48 PM
Comment #211749
“Ignorance is bliss — for the ignorant. For the rest of us, its simply a giant pain in the tuchus.”


I like Ronald Regan’s line better: “It’s not that liberals are ignorant; it’s just that what they know is wrong.”


Steve K, ok, I got your websites; don’t need it three times, just once will suffice.


JRB, here’s how the Global warming scare can destroy our economy.


“Kyoto Treaty:

To meet such drastically-reduced energy standards will, in the short run, cost the United States over one million jobs. Some estimate it will cost over seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it will cost even more jobs. It will cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 dollars per year in increased energy costs. The cost of food will skyrocket. It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such a goal the U.S. gross domestic product will be reduced by $200 billion -annually. To force down energy use the Federal government will have to enforce a massive energy tax that will drive up the cost of heating your home by as much as 30 to 40 percent. In all likelihood there will be a tax on gasoline - as high as 60 cents per gallon. There will be consumption taxes and carbon taxes.

The purpose of these punitive costs is to drive up the cost of modern living in order to force you to drastically change your lifestyle. That is the diabolical plan behind this restructuring scheme. Every single product that is produced with the use of energy will increase in price. Including items like aspirin, contact lenses and tooth paste.”

Posted by: rahdigly at March 13, 2007 03:00 PM
Comment #211751

Clay-
Natural dusts suffice as nuclei to condense clouds and rain on. Rain is not a human invention!

As for CO2, the problem is the excess of greenhouse gases, not their presence. The necessity of greenhouse gases is in the fact that oxygen and nitrogen are very poor at absorbing heat. What’s happened is that we’re putting more into the air than natural processes can absorb and pull out.

The presence of more CO2 traps more heat. The uncertainty is in what the retained energy does to different natural processes, and what they do in turn to Earth’s overall tendencies to reflect back or retain heat.

What makes the whole thing so complicated is that Earth is not heated evenly, and that heat does not stay in one place. That movement of heat creates additional natural variations on top of those that are forced by changes in season and changes in atmospheric composition, such as our carbon emissions and nature’s volcanic sulfate aerosols.

Conservatives have turned uncertainties that are due to natural sensitivities to unforseeable or unobservable differences into uncertainties in terms of the validity of global climate science.

The telling fact that people should notice is that as technology and experience have improved the quality of atmospheric models, the outcome of global warming has become better supported, not less. Were the science not that good on global warming in the beginning, results would diverge with improvement in the models.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 13, 2007 03:01 PM
Comment #211754

Here’s something on global warming that I really don’t think is human caused but there could just be something that is in common between the two.
Global warming

Posted by: papioscarw at March 13, 2007 03:16 PM
Comment #211755

rahdigly,
Sorry about that. I did not intent to post the same three times.

But I am glad I got your attention and look forward to you and Clay reporting back on the SCIENCE.

Posted by: Steve K at March 13, 2007 03:18 PM
Comment #211756

Here’s ONE:

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

a href=”http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm”>www.canadafreepress.com
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Posted by: scott at March 13, 2007 03:22 PM
Comment #211757

rahdigly,

The website you point to contains the following unsigned assertion:

You can’t find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but…say ‘yes, global warming is with us.’

Actually, you can find that, on both the websites I point you to: http://www.nationalacademies.org/
http://www.ipcc.ch/

And not just one scientist, all of em.

Posted by: Steve K at March 13, 2007 03:23 PM
Comment #211759

scott,
Interesting thing about that link you provide. The authory, Timothy Ball doesn’t provide any scientific research, just his personal opinions.

Posted by: Steve K at March 13, 2007 03:29 PM
Comment #211761

BTW rahdigly, to find out who is behind the source you quote, you have to go to an outside place:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Policy_Center#Board_of_Directors

AFAIK, not a scientist in the lot.

Posted by: Steve K at March 13, 2007 03:33 PM
Comment #211762

“I like Ronald Regan’s line better: “It’s not that liberals are ignorant; it’s just that what they know is wrong.”

But then in reality, it turned out that Reagan himself “didn’t know” much, and “could not recall” anything — because he was suffering from the beginning stages of Altzheimers.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 13, 2007 03:39 PM
Comment #211764

Rahdigly,

I kind of like it when people cite sources for their assertions. It allows one to discern where the numbers are coming from, what considerations are under analysis, and potential political agenda conflicts.

By the way, you say here, “To force down energy use the Federal government will have to …” Who says we should force down energy use? That whole arguement to me is a red herring. We should develop other methods of energy production and ween ourself from fossil fuels. The premise of your arguement is flawed from the start.

Regardless, while I wholly dispute your contention and your numbers, I still can’t seem to fathom how if, as you point out, “It will cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 dollars per year in increased energy costs.” you don’t see that as an increase in our GDP. Since each dollar spent here by someone is a dollar earned here by someone.

Yes, it will cost money to battle this problem. However, if costing a lot of money is justification enough to not do anything about a potentially catasrophic problem then we shouldn’t prosecute a war on drugs because it costs too much. We shouldn’t battle aids, cancer, or malaria because it costs too much. And we shouldn’t bother with fighting a war on terror because it too, costs too much.

Additionally, your assertions above are bassed on the assumtion that global warming does not exist [as read in the linked article you provided]. Your article claims that no scientist can difinitively say that global warming is a fact. Yet, I could just as easily argue that no scientist could difinitively say that it is not a fact. The defect produced if I am wrong is we spent a little bit of money that we didn’t need to. Think of it as a good weekend bender. The issue that arises, however, if you are wrong is … oh yeah, we’re all dead!

Finally, I would point out to you that in the midst of a discussion on global warming you supplied documentation specific to a discussion on Kyoto. Really, these are very different issues [the issue of global warming vs. a question of the proper methods to dealing with global warming].

Posted by: jrb at March 13, 2007 03:55 PM
Comment #211765

Rahdigly-
If science is so important to you, why not concede the point in favor of what scientists are actually saying. You can’t accuse us of being irrational about climate science, and then turn around and reject the broad scientific consensus with such vehemence.

As for Kyoto?

The funny thing is, China and India, two of the big offenders, are passing laws to reduce their emissions even beyond ours. That’s kind of shameful, since these folks are often cited as reasons why its pointless to reduce emissions.

Truth is, folks trying to predict economic impacts like this are often neglecting the economic boons that come from the development of green technology, and fail to factor in two other consequences of failing to take proactive measures: first we fail to profit from the development of green technology. If our economy and our public opinion brings us in that direction, we profit less from it. Secondly, we continue to contribute to a problem which will disproportionately effect us.

America is a country where most people live on the coasts, and derive their jobs from them in one form or another. We rely on ocean transport to keep our economy going. Global Warming will create especially profound problems for the coasts, in the form of storms and flooding.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 13, 2007 03:55 PM
Comment #211774

Clay, you’ve spammed the blog enough with your website. Are you going to start a new article with every one of the things on your website? Just wondering.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 13, 2007 04:57 PM
Comment #211801

scott
gee scott why can’t you convince the other climate scientists? Could it be because you are wrong? I have a good friend with a PhD. He spends most of his time doing dry-wall work. My sister-in-law, with a doctorate, just tried to water a fake plant. You have a PhD. You know how the process works. Put up your theory, provide the evidence, provide research. Don’t tell us we should believe you because you have letters after your name. I do too. Put up or shut up.

Posted by: 037 at March 13, 2007 08:20 PM
Comment #211807

The notion that wise energy use,conservation ,alternates to fossil fuels will hurt the economy is nonsense. It will hurt the oil plutocrats. Thats why they are spending so much to cast doubt on climate change. Sad it is working on the less cerebral. For the rest of us there is every reason to expect an economic boom from alternate developement and increased personal freedom. Freedom from having to pay so damned much for energy because the solar panels on the roof cover most of it and I can charge my car to get around town,and the diodes in the street lights mean the city has more money for parks,and on a nice day I can hang my cloths to dry and they smell better,and The extra insulation I put in means the house stays nice without much heating or AC and MY SONS AND DAUGHTERS ARE NOT BEING SENT AWAY TO DIE IN ANOTHER STUPID OIL WAR!.I think Americans can live with that.

Posted by: BillS at March 13, 2007 08:47 PM
Comment #211812

S.D. and Bills,

Hey thanks guys for putting in your two cents.
I’ll take this opportunity to update my handy “economic impact of doing something about global warming scorecard.”

Let’s see,

Economic Boom - 3
Economic Bust - 1

Please, keep the comments coming. ;^)

Posted by: jrb at March 13, 2007 09:01 PM
Comment #211818

Adrienne:
I surmise, from your and other’s comments, that any of us who share Ronald Reagan’s ideals are all “tetched in the haid” in some way. It is apparent that we are not supposed to think unless it is in lockstep with all the geniuses on the left. So, where is the tyranny? It has to be with those in lockstep who deny, through insult, anyone who can think free of the lock, which equates then to a mental disease?

Posted by: Clay Barham at March 13, 2007 09:29 PM
Comment #211822

Clay — you’re back! Did you read those scientific studies yet?

Posted by: Steve K at March 13, 2007 09:34 PM
Comment #211829

I’m no scientist, but I’ve felt for a long time that this whole global warming hysteria was just a bunch of neurotics getting a dose of the vapours. As I understand it, there is no definitive evidence for global warming caused by human intervention. All that there is is computer modelling. As one of the sites above quoted above says, the most sophisticated weather computer systems can’t predict with predictible accuracy what the weather is going to do over the next five days, so how can it do so over the next 100 years?

I watched a TV programme of Britains Channel 4 last week. Channel 4 is a well respected organisation, with its news and documentary programmes especially well regarded. Anyways, this programme, which was entitled; “The Great Global Warming Swindle” presented many scientists, eminent in their fields, who dispute and indeed rubbish the very idea of such warming due to human activity.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html?intcmp=docpage_box2

I’ll tell you, I feel a whole lot more threatened by the Dr. Strangeloves around the world with their “nucular” arsenals, not least the US with its insane stock of overkill weapons, and massive and scandalously wasteful of scarce resourses reinvestment in weapons of mass destruction. If we allow these megalomaniacs full rein, we won’t have to worry about the climate in 50 or 100 years time.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at March 13, 2007 09:45 PM
Comment #211843

I can only point to my lifetime as reference to what the weather has been and is doing now. My opinion is that over the last 40 years there have been extremes but the trend would have to reflect a rise in temprature. But I should also point out that local weather varies consistantly and reflects extreme differences consistantly within 20 miles of my location. My local television station will predict 12 inches of snowfall over and over again each year yet my town will receive a sprinkle, hardly any accumulation, over and over as well. Yet 20 miles north, snowfall of 12 inches is closing schools and working snow plow crews overtime. This phenomenon is called “Lake Effect”, and it’s patterns fluctuate over the years just as global tempuratures and weather patterns fluctuate. Do I obsess about it? I don’t make it the premise for drastic change. Lake effect will fluctuate, the climate will fluctuate, the stock market will fluctuate. And no matter what we do global warming is unavoidable if it is a reality.

How can we be sure that the increase in temprature isn’t needed to facilitate our evolution? How can we be sure that an increase in temprature will be our demise?

What is the real problem? The current diagnosis to the Global warming debate is to discontinue using fossil fuels, and I agree. The use of fossil fuels are the tie that binds us to the current position in our evolution. The steam engine was concieved before the dark ages but still the dark ages stunted human evolution. The thing about us humans is that we learn from our mistakes. What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. That’s true of any living creature on this planet.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 13, 2007 10:46 PM
Comment #211849

There is absolutely no doubt that the global climate is changing. There is 90% certainty that the change is significantly effected by human activities. We can be fatalistic, like catas… but to not act against such substantial evidence seems to be like playing russian roulette with 9 of 10 chambers loaded.


BTW: The Danish Space Center study is very limited. I’m a fan of the gaia model but every stable system can be disturbed.

This work does not mean that there is no human influence on climate, Svensmark told LiveScience. “But it might be necessary to revaluate the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide.‎

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 13, 2007 11:13 PM
Comment #211850

Did I hear that Al Gore was quoted saying that global warming wasn’t a scientific issue but a moral issue? Sounds like someone a little scared because some skeptics are starting to surface, an old ploy used by people of his ilke (ie liberals) to paint people as heartless and evil if they don’t mindlessly lap up their garbage. I’m only 33 years old and I’m just wondering how many idiotic liberal doomsday scenarios I still have to look forward to in my lifetime. I’ve got the over/under at 8, any takers.

Posted by: andy at March 13, 2007 11:13 PM
Comment #211853

No, Clay did not read the scientific studies. The studies would burst his ideological bubble… and we must not let that happen. If we do that, the entire GOP facade collapses along with Clay’s efforst to call up as down and down as up. We are witnessing here the realization of Orwell’s 1984.

Posted by: Randall at March 13, 2007 11:36 PM
Comment #211856

Andy, I would not worry about liberals, I’d worry about the paranoid conservatives (and conservatives are, by definition, paranoid). If they have their way (read, the so-called Patriot Act), you will not be permitted to post here for Albert Bandito (the “torture is OK” guy”) is watching you. Right now, the only protection you have is Congressman Waxman.

Posted by: Allen at March 13, 2007 11:42 PM
Comment #211858

Waxman! Ha, if the moustache man was my only hope I would be more than a little frightened.

Posted by: andy at March 13, 2007 11:50 PM
Comment #211859

Those who don’t think there is some creedence to this whole global warming thing might like to do a little search to see what those whacko-lefty risk-management and insurance types have to say on the issue. You know, since what they do is calculate risk of financial loss for a living. Or, even better, check out the financial statements of almost any major corporation to see in what capacity global climate change is mentioned.

Posted by: jrb at March 13, 2007 11:51 PM
Comment #211861

jrb: One cannot expect so-called conservatives to do research…. we must not permit scientific facts to stand in the way of ideology… remember the non-existent WMDs in Iraq? Unfortunately, it has taken 4 years for the American people to realize that we have ideological idiots in the WH. Fortunately, history will record their direct involvement in the demise of the United States. Fortunately, I won’t have to live to see it. Thank God, I had the wisdom to use condoms.

Posted by: Randall at March 13, 2007 11:58 PM
Comment #211868

Waxman is our only hope…The demise of the United States…two down six more to go.

Posted by: andy at March 14, 2007 12:20 AM
Comment #211870

I can’t wait until we hear about the “New” Hillary, or the “New” Obama. I can’t wait until the “New” Democratics come out to proclaim the “new” comeback kid in the middle of the election next year.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 14, 2007 12:26 AM
Comment #211872

Andy,
11/12 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past twelve years. Even skeptics like Timothy Ball, quoted earlier in this thread, acknowledge that Global Warming is occurring. So when you see numbers showing the historical record of C02 in the atmosphere has ranged between 180 ppm & 280 ppm over the past 600,000 years, with the ebb & flow of C02 matching ice ages and periods of warmth, and you see that C02 is now at 383 ppm and steadily rising, the highest in more than 600,000 years, and you know C02 is a greenhouse gas, well…

What goes through your mind?

Posted by: phx8 at March 14, 2007 12:44 AM
Comment #211874

No information is available prior to the last melting of the polar icecaps.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 14, 2007 12:53 AM
Comment #211875

Don’t succumb to the media hype that were all about to die tomorrow. Nothing in history supports the theory that we will all kill ourselves. History has demonstrated that, albiet possible, it is not probable that we will die in a caticlismic episode tomorrow. It’s called paranoia. And we are suffering from paranoia. Not from loosing our rights, not from forfieting our liberties, not from HBR. We’re suffering from paranoia.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 14, 2007 01:06 AM
Comment #211876

“Adrienne:
I surmise, from your and other’s comments, that any of us who share Ronald Reagan’s ideals are all “tetched in the haid‎ in some way.”

Neocons? Yes indeed. Stark staring mad, every last one in my view. And I can tell you exactly why: Because they treat our Constitution like it’s a goddamn piece of (toilet)paper, violate our rights, and break the law at will. They aren’t interested in the good of the entire nation, only with their wealthy base and the corporations. They call themselves conservative, but are anything but, because they spend money like water and run up insane amounts of debt that they leave for future generations to pay off. They want to create war without end on behalf of the military industrial complex, yet obviously don’t know the first damn thing about how to plan for or wage any war successfully. Moreover, they clearly don’t give a rat’s ass about the people in the military who fight their imperialist wars for them, despite all their flag waving rhetoric to the contrary. They are chronic liars. And to top all that off, they are in league with the radical Christian evangelicals and dominionists who want to destroy the wall of separation between church and state, legislate morality, and turn our democracy into a theocracy. Yes indeed. I believe that Neocons are dangerous madmen.

“It is apparent that we are not supposed to think unless it is in lockstep with all the geniuses on the left.”

The problem with people like you is not that you won’t listen to the wisdom of the left, it’s that you have utterly abandoned the wisdom of the right. You have forgotten everything your own former Republicans ever did, said, and stood for. As a result, you now have more in common with fascists than you do Lincoln, or Theodore Roosevelt, or Barry Goldwater.

“So, where is the tyranny?”

With Bushco it is everywhere. Unfortunately you all refuse to look.

“It has to be with those in lockstep who deny, through insult, anyone who can think free of the lock, which equates then to a mental disease?”

In my opinion, neocons are free of no locks, nor are any of you thinking for yourselves. You have been propagandized to the unth degree by the GOP and it’s ever-cranking slime machine. You treat every one on the left like dirt, or worse, like your enemies. When you write, your writings lack logic, clarity, and facts, and as a result are often extremely silly, snide, and simplistic.

I have no problems talking to, or reading the writings of people who are true conservatives, however. In fact, I count several of them as friends.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 14, 2007 01:11 AM
Comment #211878

You say Lockstep. I say Lockerbee.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 14, 2007 01:16 AM
Comment #211880

my apologies for the miss-spelling.
Lockerbie

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 14, 2007 01:26 AM
Comment #211881

C.I.P.-

Huh? … blink … blink, blink …

WTF??

Posted by: jrb at March 14, 2007 01:30 AM
Comment #211883

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

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 14, 2007 01:43 AM
Comment #211884

Catastrophyinprogress,

“No information is available prior to the last melting of the polar icecaps.”

Perhaps you believe the world is 6,000 years old? Perhaps you believe the various ice core and sediment core drillings, providing an atmospheric record going back over 600,000 years, are an elaborate ruse to test the beliefs of the faithful? Please explain.


Posted by: phx8 at March 14, 2007 01:47 AM
Comment #211886

You cannot say a rise in tempurature would be the end of civilization. You cannot verify the lack of frozen polar regions would result in the extinction of man. An agenda that includes population control, curtailing economic groath, and a zero-sum phylosophy has control of the NewDemocraticProgressive mentality that drives the Global warming emergency.
You have a hard time watching a movie that doesn’t have some kind of doomsday phylosophy behind it. Even if the Clintonesque president saves the day it still has a premice that we are all going to die sooner or later. Drama insists it be sooner and it all, as a whole, results in paranoia.

Posted by: Catastrophyinprogress at March 14, 2007 02:05 AM
Comment #211887

11 of 12 on record, those records go back what 100 or 200 years, and how through were those records kept (Actually, I thought they found a tempature spike somewhere in the 1800’s before evil man had the technology it needed to really put a hurtin on that bastard of an atmosphere). Other areas on earth have become cooler. I thought it to be common knowledge that the earth’s tempature has always flucuated, on that were not in disagreement.
Something smells real funny about this hard sell over the past year or so to cram this “man is capable of affecting the tempature” down our throats as fact before the other side can have credibility. Even Gore said we have 50 or so years (so he doesn’t have accountibility) so whats the big rush, we have enemies with and trying to get nukes as we speak, you know factual things in present times. If the earth’s tempature naturally rises to points where life cannot live I have faith that a solution will have been found by then, just not something I ever think about. I can’t belive I am actually wasting my time writing about this bs of an issue.

Posted by: andy at March 14, 2007 02:14 AM
Comment #211888

When my state was debating the need for manditory automobile insurance I made the arguement for insuring yourself. The rebuttal was that someone would immediately run into you when you entered the thouroughfare.
Paranoia trumps self-reliance.
A huge debate about dwi is ongoing and ongoing yet a person who causes damages dwi will have it paid for by manditory insurance.

And we’re worried about the sun blowing up and what we can do to stop it?

Get real.

Posted by: catastophyinprogress at March 14, 2007 02:19 AM
Comment #211889

Sometime in the 80’s there was some hollywood guy running around telling everyone that within 20 years life in the ocean would not be able to exist…what’s going on with that. Where is that ice age we were promised in the 60’s or 70’s. Is it liberals non belief in God that makes them feel so important that they can affect and control soo much?

Posted by: andy at March 14, 2007 02:29 AM
Comment #211892

every knowledgeable man, woman, and child knows that climate change is a reality.

this is not at all a liberal issue - it is in fact a conservative one. let us conserve the earth we have, rather than try to invent wild and baseless reasons that what we now witness daily is “natural.”

let us stop arguing with those who would deny the existence of science and reason, and start agreeing upon that which is plainly visible to all who would open their eyes and look out their windows.

there will be no economy at all, if we have no conducive environment to sustain it.

…by the by, if you would stop touting gore as our sole savior, you might find a bit more reason among the (reasoned and reasonable) right.

… and let the fanatics be. you will never convince them…


Posted by: Diogenes at March 14, 2007 04:10 AM
Comment #211901

No one denies science and reason, just that it is not being used. Look at what we discovered about climate change in the past 20 years. The effects of a 1 to 2 degree centigrade change in water temperature off the west coast of Peru markedly alters weather in the United States. We just had an El Nino winter and in February, we started back onto La Nina, and the patterns shifted. Now, one could say global warming made the water cooler off Peru, and legions of frightened Democrats will cry out that the world is ending.

Posted by: Clay Barham at March 14, 2007 09:27 AM
Comment #211903
No one denies science and reason…Posted by: Clay Barham at March 14, 2007 09:27 AM
Yet, your article, your last post, your other posts, and those of your supporters do exactly that. I would have to send my kids to remedial ed if they used this logic:
The effects of a … change in water temperature off … Peru markedly alters weather in the United States…. in February, we started back onto La Nina… Now, one could say global warming made the water cooler off Peru,

I missed rahrahs “global warming is religion” post before. Despite the obvious flaw in his logic I guess at least he’s acknowledging that religion is mythology and has no part in official decision making. It’s a start.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 14, 2007 09:39 AM
Comment #211904

Catastrophyinprogress,

“You cannot say a rise in tempurature would be the end of civilization. You cannot verify the lack of frozen polar regions would result in the extinction of man.”

30 years ago there wasn’t such a thing as a “personal” computer.
60 years ago Polio paralyzed virtually every human life it touched.
150 years ago it took months to get from New York to San Francisco.
400 years ago men were declared heretics for claiming that the sun didn’t orbit the earth.
500 years ago everybody thought this planet was flat.

Imagine what we will learn tomorrow.


“Sometime in the 80’s there was some hollywood guy running around telling everyone that within 20 years life in the ocean would not be able to exist…what’s going on with that.”

So what you’re saying is the death of the coral reefs is just a myth?


It is thought that man is the only sentient species on this planet.

With some of the responses on this thread alone, I’m beginning to wonder if that too is a gross exaggeration.

Posted by: Rocky at March 14, 2007 09:39 AM
Comment #211939

CIP-
1st Post: You are right that there are natural variations, but wrong about us being unable to do anything about it. The warming trend you perceive is likely the result of CO2’s increasing capture of heat. If we don’t pump as much into the atmosphere, we won’t see as much heat trapped as otherwise.

That is, providing we haven’t passed some crucial point here. That’s where the need for speed is in reacting to this. Cutting CO2 emissions to safer levels is like stopping a car. It won’t happen in an instant. We need time and effort applied as soon as possible if we want any hope of dealing with this problem ahead of that crucial turning point.

It won’t be the end of the world, but it will pose a major challenge to our way of life, and require a substantial degree of change in our society to cope. We are a coastal society, for the most part. Most of our population lives within a few hundred miles of the coast. The degree of liberal concern in dealing with this issue is justified, and a great deal more healthy and productive than the Republican’s state of denial.

We can see this problem coming, and we have a clear goal presented to us in terms of what we need to do. There really isn’t any excuse to fail to take this all seriously, and act now.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 14, 2007 12:41 PM
Comment #211941

Clay-
El Nino and La Nina are part of a natural variation that occurs in the Pacific. The thing with that, though, is that like most such variations, it’s driven by the redistribution of heat in the atmosphere and in the oceans.

They may not be caused by global warming, but they can be affected by it, made more frequent or stronger.

Democrats are concerned about this, and prepared to do something about policies that create excessive carbon emissions. Republicans would like to see this as hysteria, but there are a long list of things that Republicans berated the Democrats for being concerned about that the Democrats turned out to be right about.

Republicans repeated the company line on cigarettes. Turns out those companies were lying about what they knew and what they were doing. Democrats. Clinton told Bush that terrorists were the big national security issue. Bush back-burnered the notion until we got hit. THEN he saw the light. We were concerned about unrest and undermanned missions in Summer of 2003. Now, and only now are the Republicans acknowledging that things are as bad as they are.

Now they’re telling us that being concerned about Global warming is giving into hysteria. The definition of hysteria in these circumstances seems to be acknowledging and confronting problems while they’re still manageable.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 14, 2007 12:54 PM
Comment #211949

Rocky:
Add to those facts, that the average life expectancy 100 years ago was 47, and today it is 77. Should we attribute this to the compassion of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Saddam? Or, could we assume men and women free to think out of the bubble and live out of the box had a hand in it, in America, of course? You are right on.

Posted by: Clay Barham at March 14, 2007 01:56 PM
Comment #211951

Stephen:
Each of us puts out a bit over 2 lb a day of CO2, about what an average internal combustion delivers in an average four hour running. If we abandon our cars, stop hauling things in trucks, trains and planes, then do the Jonestown thing, we will still have all the bears, coyotes, wolves, birds and other endangered species still putting out all that CO2. What will we do then? But, let us not do any of that until the jury is in on CO2, and it is far from agreement with the Gore people that the end is near.

Posted by: Clay Barham at March 14, 2007 02:01 PM
Comment #211954

Clay,
Without human input, C02 levels have ranged between 180 ppm and 280 ppm over the past 600,000 years. Currently, humanity adds over 5 gigatonnes of C02 to the atmosphere. This is enough to increase atmospheric C02 by a steady 3 ppm per year, and we are now up to 383 ppm. The additional 5 gigatonnes actually would add 5 ppm per year, but most of the remainder is absorbed by the oceans, which results in measureable acidification of the seas.

According to your site, you are educated in the sciences. Quite frankly, Clay, your comments do not suggest it. Please feel free to disprove me.

No jury is out when it comes to the increase of atmospheric C02. That is simply data.

But of course, you defend the elites, and like most conservatives, there is a deep down disbelief in the ability of America to innovate. Conservatives fear change. And even when 98% of the scientists agree Climate Change has already happened, and will happen to an even greater degree, it is sad to see conservatives embrace those elites who oppose change and innovation, such as Exxon, GM, and the coal industry, simply because the elites offer the reassurance that conservatives need not change at all.

Posted by: phx8 at March 14, 2007 02:13 PM
Comment #211976

Phx8:
How can a carbonate acidify? Also, change is what motivates conservatives. The term conservative, however, is improper. People of my view were once called Classic Liberals, such as Jefferson, Madison, etc.. In France it was Physiocrat. It is like capitalism, a term coined by its enemies, when we “classic liberals” called it free market. Also, the use of “Right wing” to describe a fascist or national socialist (NAZI) which is really left wing, closer to those from the Paris commune. Ah yes, how we alter terms to suit ourselves.

Posted by: Clay Barham at March 14, 2007 04:30 PM
Comment #211977

Clay,

“Add to those facts, that the average life expectancy 100 years ago was 47, and today it is 77. Should we attribute this to the compassion of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Saddam?”

I have no idea where out of left field you pulled that comment from.
It certainly couldn’t be extrapolated from anything I have written here.

Posted by: Rocky at March 14, 2007 04:38 PM
Comment #211979

Clay,

Also, the use of “Right wing‎ to describe a fascist or national socialist (NAZI) which is really left wing, …

Clearly, you are incorrect on this point. Disagree? Can you produce any documentation to the contrary?

Posted by: jrb at March 14, 2007 04:47 PM
Comment #211980

Clay,

Also, the use of “Right wing‎ to describe a fascist or national socialist (NAZI) which is really left wing, …

Clearly, you are incorrect on this point. Disagree? Can you produce any documentation to the contrary?

Posted by: jrb at March 14, 2007 04:47 PM
Comment #211981

Clay,

Also, the use of “Right wing‎ to describe a fascist or national socialist (NAZI) which is really left wing, …

Clearly, you are incorrect on this point. Disagree? Can you produce any documentation to the contrary?

Posted by: jrb at March 14, 2007 04:47 PM
Comment #211982

Sorry for the triple post. Browser issue.

Posted by: jrb at March 14, 2007 04:48 PM
Comment #211985

Clay,
Here is a article on ocean acidification due to the absorption of C02.

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

If you dislike wikipedia, google the topic, there are a lot of articles.

What makes it a concern is that the changing PH will, at some point, interfere with the ability of very small creatures to form their shells.

Posted by: phx8 at March 14, 2007 05:02 PM
Comment #212000

Clay-
How can a carbonate acidify? Easy, it dissolves to become Carbonic acid, maker of caves, fizzer of pop drinks (which use carbonated water).

As for carbon dioxide, it’s like what happens with a storm sewer when there’s too much rain. The normal biological output of CO2 can be handled by systems as they are, but there are millions of cars, and also any number of fossil fuel driven power plants and natural gas burning systems on top of that now.

As for your description of our solution, you’re really kicking at a straw man here. We’re not looking to abandon cars, jets and other modern vehicles, just change their fuel source to something better, make them more efficient. We’re hardly thinking of killing ourselves. As far as the jury being in or out on CO2, it’s been in on the heat trapping abilities of CO2 since early in the last century. As far as its effects, the jury has been in on that for the better part of this decade, and with the latest IPCC panel, is pretty much in without question now. It’s just not what you want to hear.

What we need to do is get more efficient and switch to more beneficial fuel sources. None of that crap you sugggested remotely resembles our actual plan.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 14, 2007 06:11 PM
Comment #212002

Stephen,

You may want to go easy on him. These people aren’t used to having leaders with any kind of plan.

Posted by: jrb at March 14, 2007 06:22 PM
Comment #212003

jrb, jrb, jrb….
Review your history of the French Assembly during the days of the revolution, as to who sat where and why. Anarchists to the right of the speaker, libertarian-types next, moderates in the middle and all the communists and socialists to the left. I believe NAZI stood for national socialists and Hitler considered himself one, and the British Fabians did too, as they liked him, as did some of the old Wooblies from America. However, I got my PhD from a box of crackerjack, it has been suggested, so whatever I say means little, right? (or Left?)

Posted by: Clay Barham at March 14, 2007 06:24 PM
Comment #212016

Clay,

I don’t know why you are so sensitive about your degree. You put that information in the public realm. Some people may not feel that your writing is up to that standard and thus question the veracity of your claim. If you had never mentioned it, no one would have cared. I only have a B.S. in Finance. That doesn’t mean I am not qualified to discuss topics on these blogs I hope.

That said, I want to respond to this:

Review your history of the French Assembly during the days of the revolution, as to who sat where and why. Anarchists to the right of the speaker, libertarian-types next, moderates in the middle and all the communists and socialists to the left. I believe NAZI stood for national socialists and Hitler considered himself one, and the British Fabians did too, as they liked him, as did some of the old Wooblies from America.

From Wikipedia:

In both popular thought and academic scholarship, Nazism is generally considered a form of fascism - with “fascism” defined so as to include any of the authoritarian, nationalist, totalitarian movements that developed in Europe around the same time. The debate focuses mainly on comparisons of fascists movements in general with the Italian prototype, including the fascists in Germany. The idea mentioned above to reject all former ideas and ideologies like democracy, liberalism, and especially marxism (as in Nolte[10]) make it difficult to track down a perfect definition of these two terms. However, Italian Fascists tended to believe that all elements in society should be unified through corporatism to form an “Organic State”; this meant that these Fascists often had no strong opinion on the question of race, as it was only the State and nation that mattered. German Nazism, on the other hand, emphasized the Aryan race or “Volk” principle to the point where the state simply seemed a means through which the Aryan race could realize its “true destiny.” Since a debate among historians (especially Zeev Sternhell) to see each movement, or at least the German, as unique, the issue has been settled in most parts showing that there is a stronger family resemblance between the Italian and the German fascist movement than there is between democracies in Europe or the communist states of the Cold War[11];

Also from Wiki:

Nazism’s populism, anti-Communism and anti-capitalism helped it become more powerful and popular than traditional conservative parties, like the DNVP. For the above reasons, particularly the fact that Nazis and Communists fought each other (often violently) during most of their existence, Nazism and Communism are commonly seen as opposite extremes on the political spectrum.

Thus, I really don’t give a Sh!t who took whose chair in the assembly during the freakin’ french revolution.

There, I have provided documentation. Would you, please?

Posted by: jrb at March 14, 2007 07:34 PM
Comment #212017

Clay:
“I believe NAZI stood for national socialists and Hitler considered himself one,”

They were “socialists” in name only. In reality they were fascists. Indeed they rounded up all the actual socialists and communists in Nazi Germany and either killed them, or allowed them to die in the concentration camps.

“People of my view were once called Classic Liberals, such as Jefferson, Madison, etc.”

Yeah, sure. Jefferson and Madison were laissez-faire because it was appropriate for their time. But then the Industrial Revolution took place and that changed and transformed the whole debate about everything. It is after that time when the real distinctions between modern day liberalism and conservatism appeared. Yet despite that fact, both the Left and the Right claim to be the inheritors of the ideals of Jefferson and Madison. They are both right, but for totally different reasons.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 14, 2007 07:41 PM
Post a comment