Three squares a day

Sheryl Crow and Laurie David, on their Global Warming hysteria tour, have helpfully proved the adage that it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than open it and dispell any doubt.

In other words, this is your brain on liberalism.

First they attacked Karl Rove at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, which begins to look more like a well planned publicity stunt rather than a sincere effort to pursuade Karl Rove that Global Warming is real, then Crow announced that your use of toilet paper should be policed in some manner.

If you didn't already know Crow and David are on tour to 'raise awareness' about global warming. What better way to garner attention for your awareness tour than to attack Karl Rove as a rude evil bastard? It's nothing more than politics as a marketing vehicle.

Still, it is Crow's proposed solutions to global warming that I find most instructive.

Crow has suggested using "only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required".

The 45-year-old, who made the comments on her website, has just toured the US on a biodiesel-powered bus to raise awareness about climate change. ~news.bbc.co.uk


Smelly hands?One, two, or three squares? Is that even sanitary? I can't imagine using only a single square of toilet paper. What kind of 'paper' is she using? A single square of normal everyday tiolet paper, at least the kind available to us proletariat types, is utterly useless for the job, unless you don't mind getting expletive deleted all over your hand.

Which makes me think that the picture that accompanies this BBC story is more than coincidence and says something about Crow's use, or lack thereof, of tiolet paper. It also says a great deal about both the use, or lack thereof, of Crow's reasoning abilities. Exactly how does Crow think that such a proposal is to be enforced?

"Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating.

"I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting." ~news.bbc.co.uk


Shall we dare ponder how the toilet paper police will monitor your TP usage? Perhaps the least intrusive way might be to simply place cameras in every bathroom everywhere. I can't imagine the number of new officers it would take for there to be an officer there in-person to monitor your TP usage, unless they would also just happen to be monitoring an all-encompassing range of other lifestyle choices as well. Such as your eating habits, sexual practices, manners, word choice, travel arrangements... but perhaps that is the ultimate goal here. What part of life should not be limited in order to save the planet?

The sad truth is that this is what Global Warming is truly about. It's not about saving the planet at all. It's about advancing the liberal and leftist agenda. Just as climate change convert Catherine Lerza of the Tides Foundation explains:

Global warming is not simply an environmental issue. It is an economic issue, a social justice issue, a lifestyle issue. It's about race, class and democratic participation. It's about globalization and global democracy. It's about national security and global security. ~alternet.org

Global warming is the penultimate liberal boogeyman, (second only to Bush perhaps), precisely because without a crisis of some sort liberal policies don't make any sense. In what reality does regulating toilet paper usage to a single square "per sitting" make any sense whatsoever? None. And yet this is where liberal ideology and absolute self-absorbtion can take you.

Global Warming is a means to an end. It is a propaganda vehicle for progressives worldwide.

The social engineers have not put away their plans or tabled their intense desire to remake the world in the image of their idoelogy. They have merely had to camoflage and retool their rhetoric. Where once they would have fomented revolution in the name of the working class against capital they now foment revolution in the name of the environment against capital.

The goal is nevertheless to control society completely, extensively, and 'holistically'.

What you are describing is a profound overhaul of American economics and culture. In this sense, addressing the problem of climate change gives us an opportunity to build a lifestyle that's more in accordance with our values, right? ~alternet.org

The movement for 'sustainable living' and combating urban sprawl is nothing more than an excuse to remodel society according to liberal values.

Posted by Eric Simonson at April 24, 2007 4:45 PM
Comments
Comment #218286

Well, I happen to buy Crow’s explanation that it was a joke. I’m pretty sure it was.

The problem with making such a joke, however, is it seems entirely believable that a member of the entertainment industry would actually say something so stupid and be serious, since that’s what they do all the time.

Especially when it comes to the global warming issue. These people are not scientists and yet they run around pronouncing on issues they know nothing about, even going so far as to attack the credentials of scientists or politicians who disagree but in are far better positions to actually know what they’re talking abot.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 24, 2007 5:23 PM
Comment #218288

Crow is displaying some ignorance on the stump. When she talks about global climate and reducing toilet paper use to save trees in the same breath, she does the cause no good turn. She isn’t aware the Amazon Rain Forest is not being destroyed to make toilet paper.

The bulk of her message is well motivated and on target, but, she clearly has not checked some of her facts through folks who are informed and have authoritative resources at their disposal. Thankfully, however, folks are becoming aware of the true data and the crisis looming and we may actually see America act preemptively in an appropriate fashion for a change.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 24, 2007 5:39 PM
Comment #218289
First they attacked Karl Rove

Oh really? Did they? Funny, not even a quote to support that silly notion.

Oh well.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 24, 2007 5:41 PM
Comment #218291

Lawnboy,

From Crow’s blog

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david-and-sheryl-crow/karl-rove-gets-thrown-und_b_46501.html

“We asked Mr. Rove if he would consider taking a fresh look at the science of global warming. Much to our dismay, he immediately got combative. And it went downhill from there.
We reminded the senior White House advisor that the US leads the world in global warming pollution and we are doing the least about it. Anger flaring, Mr. Rove immediately regurgitated the official Administration position on global warming which is that the US spends more on researching the causes than any other country.”

Posted by: Rocky at April 24, 2007 6:25 PM
Comment #218294

Remer -
I’ll believe global warming is real when I see 2 things happen…

1) Those proclaiming it stop using so much fuel to jet and bus themselves all around the country. With today’s technology, they only need to go as far as the nearest TV station.

2) Those proclaiming that mankind is the CAUSE of global warming begin to insist upon global birth control. You can’t be serious if you refuse to deal with the actual CAUSE.

I expect to see the second long before the first.

Posted by: Don at April 24, 2007 6:29 PM
Comment #218295

Hey now….come on…..you gotta lighten up on these lightweights. The “information” absorption rate among Hollywood elitists leads to a 6 - 12 month lag compared to the rest of us.

It’ll be the end of the year when they finally realize that 2006 was the coldest year over the last five (and even colder than 1998).

Gosh dang, Cheryl - watcha gonna do to heat up the world? Advise us to burn our TP one sheet at a time?

We must be on some cataclysmic runaway train to a frozen Tampa Bay harbor. The horrors!

CG

Posted by: curiousgeorge at April 24, 2007 6:43 PM
Comment #218296

Don-
They’ve examined temperature records for half a century back and done proxies even further into history to back the notion, and they’ve found that most of the new carbon is poor in Carbon-14, which most natural sources would have in more abundance, but which fossil fuels woul be lacking because the biomatter involved is millions of years old.

Additionally, just doing things over the internet and the Television won’t necessarily help things. Cars and jets burn up fossile fuels, but so do the power plants that provide the juice for the TVs and computers.

As for the last, The problem isn’t population, it’s relying on technologies that rely on fossil fuels. We need better choices than that. There are some new Scientific Americans and other magazines that lay out some of these options, and some of them are ridiculously simple.

Most of the Republican resistance to anti-global warming measures is not born of experience, but ideology. I suggest before these people say these things don’t work that they at least TRY some things first.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 24, 2007 6:47 PM
Comment #218297

curious,

Were you aware that the last 3 Januarys have been the warmest on record?

Just curious.

Posted by: Rocky at April 24, 2007 6:48 PM
Comment #218299

CG-
A little bit of relativism, eh? Let’s not forget the last decade’s been one of the warmest on record. Question is, what is today’s cold in comparison to yesterday’s?

As for Hollywood Elitists? I didn’t learn these things by listening to actors and singers. I read about the subject from a lot of different sources, different books and magazines.

The least you could do is look at an actual graph of global temperature averages, or any temperature averages. Just because a day got unseasonably cold in August doesn’t mean’s the summer’s off. Weather in the real world fluctuates. Nobody ever said that Global warming meant Temperatures would always be warmer one year than they were the next. Global warming means that over time, these natural fluctuations will tend to be warmer than they’d otherwise be.

Additionally, ask yourself: what did 2006’s El Nino event have to do with temperatures. Global warming doesn’t mean Earth’s in an oven, with everybody backing. It means that our planet’s atmosphere is retaining more heat, heat whose energy will be distributed in varied ways by the atmospheric circulation and the ocean currents.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 24, 2007 6:54 PM
Comment #218300

Global warming is not just about everything gettig warmer it is about large swings in the weather from too hot too cold too much rain too little but I don’t expect small minds to grasp the problem.

Posted by: Jeff at April 24, 2007 7:09 PM
Comment #218301

Eric,

The explanation I’ve heard of that TP comment is that Crow was referring to a “womans” use of TP to deal with #1. It was a simple statement made with the intent of making people think about “waste” on a personal level.

I’ve always been frugal anyway, regardless of my means. Unfortunately some people tend to be wasteful. We now know waste is not only a “sin” but that it contributes to the demise of our species. I’m sure that Sheryl Crow was simply trying to point out the need to eliminate wasteful practices.

It’s kind of like the $400.00 hair cut. Well, duh! I’m sure if my barber had to come to me rather than me make an appointment it would cost considerably more.

Anything to distract from our REAL problems, eh?

Posted by: KansasDem at April 24, 2007 7:29 PM
Comment #218302

The great strength of conservatism is that it tempers the head long rush into dubious changes.
The great weakness of conservatism is that it slows the necessary responses to crises.

Global warming is not a religion. Because Crow is an airhead or Gore uses too much electricity will not make it go away. The solutions are not very painful,mostly common sense and most likely a benefit for the economy. But on the other hand one can be in denial,soon to be as laughable as those that believe the moon landing was staged. To bad. We need all hands on this.

Then again.We do not need to worry because caron dioxide is heavier so it will drip off the edges of the flat earth anyway.

Posted by: BillS at April 24, 2007 7:42 PM
Comment #218305

“Global warming is not just about everything gettig warmer it is about large swings in the weather from too hot too cold too much rain too little but I don’t expect small minds to grasp the problem.

Posted by: Jeff at April 24, 2007 07:09 PM”


First the earth was cooling. We were going to have another ice age. Then the earth is warming. The glaciers are melting.
Now global warming isn’t the earth getting warmer, but getting warmer and cooler.

We are the cause of most of it, but you can’t tell us how much of it we have caused.

Is there any wonder why we are skeptic?

Posted by: tomd at April 24, 2007 7:56 PM
Comment #218306

Eric

The movement for ‘sustainable living’ and combating urban sprawl is nothing more than an excuse to remodel society according to liberal values.

In light of what we know about global warming this has to be the most ridiculous view on the issue I have read to date. Leave it to republicans to demonize liberals for having a concience and caring about the future of this planet.

To be honest I do not put much stock in what Cheryl Crow or any other celebrity has to say on any matter. They are merely high profile vehicles to get a message out. A message that allready exists but for whatever reasons goes unnoticed by some until a person of recognition proclaims it to be. I can understand Roves flare up. All the controversy surrounding the administration nowdays has probably made him just a bit testy.

Posted by: ILdem at April 24, 2007 7:57 PM
Comment #218310

re: Crow and TP. I forgot who said it, but somebody wise cracked that we would have to wash out that one sheet and use it again.

Posted by: tomh at April 24, 2007 8:12 PM
Comment #218317

Don, I couldn’t agree with you more. I have been railing about population for years. Most people just don’t know how to discuss population numbers and growth rationally - but then it is a very complicated topic with vast consequences of every shape, kind, and import.

I heard a Republican trustee of the Soc. Sec. Admin on C-Span this morning. He has a Ph.D. Remember that. He said immigration helps resolve the SS and Medicare situation we face by bringing more payers into the system. Unbelievable. He is advocating the source of our Soc. Sec. and Medicare problems as the solution - more population growth.

He obviously chooses to ignore the implications of turning the U.S. into an overpopulated nation like China. For that is the obvious outcome of his solution. Create ever larger retiring populations requiring ever larger work forces to support them. Amazingly stupid for a venerated Ph.D. But you have to remember he is a Republican economist, and his ideology limits his scope and capacity to see economic numbers for what they really mean.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 24, 2007 8:57 PM
Comment #218323

tomd-
If you want the straight answer, here it is: This is less about heat than it is about energy, and how the atmosphere reacts to it. CO2 just keeps more energy bouncing around in the atmosphere, energy which would radiate back into space quicker, otherwise.

The Global Cooling thing was mostly hype by the media, based on misunderstandings of cyclical phenomena like the Milankovitch Cycles, and discoveries about the metastability of climate. Some people bring it up as if it were the equivalent of modern findings regarding Global Warming.

It’s annoying, frankly. People abuse the paradigmatic nature of science to essentially fill in their favorite theory into the blank. Trouble is, the evidence for Global Warming is pretty solid, and the case that our CO2 contributions are driving it are pretty strong, too. Moreover, any scientific claim has to be evaluated in its own right. Too many take a quibbling approach where they make all these little exceptions that more reading and study on their part could resolve.

Asking how much climate change is due to our activities is like asking how much of an avalanche you’re responsible for, if you shout and that gets it going. If it weren’t for what we’re doing, nature would be taking an altogether different course.

You have to understand weather and climate in terms of iteration. Even if you could get an initial percentage on what we’re responsible for, it would become meaningless, because the consequences of the new CO2 in the atmosphere would have their own secondary consequences that would be indistinguishable in the long run.

This is especially true if we’re talking about a metastable system. It’s like having a ball balance on the top of the hill. If you leave it there, it might not ever move. Push on it a little, and it might roll back to where you had it. Push on it hard enough, and it will roll downhill, and seek a new spot of stability.

That is what we don’t want to happen. We don’t want to push the system, whatever our percentage could be defined as, to the point where the change takes over for itself, and the hard work becomes stopping it.

We must also prepare ourselves for the fact that such changes have a tendency to be sudden rather than gradual, violent rather than peaceful. We want to stop this ball from rolling before nature starts really reinforcing things.

Percentages don’t matter: Tipping points do. Regardless of what our share is, if we push things past a certain point, we’ll be helpless to stop it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 24, 2007 10:05 PM
Comment #218325

As time goes by we’ll see more and more of the true nature of the ideology driving the global warming hoax come to light. It isn’t something that can be kept hidden forever.
World socialism is the goal, global warming is vehicle.
The lemmings get dumber and dumberer.

Posted by: traveller at April 24, 2007 10:08 PM
Comment #218334

traveller-
It’s the easiest thing in the world to call something a conspiracy. If people don’t agree with your sentiments, they’ve been brainwashed. If they point out there’s no evidence, you can claim that the evidence is being hidden or destroyed by the conspiracy

It’s easier to believe that people are gullible lemmings than your point is unpersuasive.

It’s easier to believe that it’s World Socialism than a threat that might actually require that you compromise with Liberals and Democrats.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 24, 2007 10:32 PM
Comment #218347

Rocky you make me giggle.

Last three January’s??? Uhhh, gee, what about the last three Febs, Marchs, Aprils, etc. etc. etc.

Why stop at the last 3?

What about the last 3, 11, 7, 26? Whats the trend there? Do you want to conveniently pick a “cool” point to start your “trend”.

Get real.

Mass industrialization causes global warming? So, exactly why was the earth warmer many, many, many, many years ago when CO2 was simply belching from the arses of living organisms?

Given the massive CO2 that’s been pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution why aren’t things much worse?

Answer. Because there are many other factors that impact the earths temperature - in fact CO2 is but a trace element impact in the grand scheme of things.

I’m driving 30 minutes to work tomorrow from the burbs, alone, in my SUV. I’ll have the sunroof open to catch some beautiful rays and enjoy the warmer weather - shoot I saved fuel oil this winter because it wasn’t so cold.

CG

Posted by: curiousgeorge at April 24, 2007 11:24 PM
Comment #218356

curious,

So you don’t find it interesting at all that in the midst of all this cold winter storm action, America has had three record setting warm Januarys in a row?

I think you need to change your name.

Posted by: Rocky at April 25, 2007 12:44 AM
Comment #218366

tomd: The scientific, objective fact that Jeff offered is correct. The concern about a “new ice age” over thirty years ago was and is still a valid concern as the cycling between extreme warmth and extreme cold is part of the same system. What scientists learned in the late 1970s and early 1980s is that new “ice age” periods are the natural reaction to periods of global warming.

I am not puzzled by your skepticism as it is predicated on your lack of scientific knowledge of climatic systems and your blatant energy greed and your inability to think long term. You are representive of all conservatives: an aboslute disregard for the long term impact of decisions made today. It is no different than Bush43’s willingness to burden future generations with monsterous debt. It’s nothing more than a fantasy predicated on ideological delusion. God forbid you might have to curtail your greedy ways so that future generations might be merely able to live.

This might be instructive: Major corporations, such as Walmart (the GOP’s biggest corporate supporter), understand that global warming is a threat to their bottom lines. Even a majority or GOPers understand that global warming is a threat and that it is caused my human activity.

To test your claimed authority in climate science, please (1) name the 4 layers of the atmosphere and the changes in temperature in those 4 layers relative to each other over the past 45 years and their implication for climate systems; (2) explain the difference between encapsulated and non-encapsulated carbon and the impact of each on climate systems; (3) explain the implications of O, H, N, He, S, & C ratios in the atmosphere to climate systems; (4) explain the possible implications of a 1” sea level rise on climate systems; and (5) explain the effect of a rise in the average global temperature of .24 degrees Celsius on the functioning of the Gulf Stream. The answers to these questions are basic to the knowledge of any undergraduate science major

And if you really want to demonstrate a high school level of authorty, (1) explain the role of electron sharing in O, H, He, & N in the atmosphere, and (2) explain the role of the Law of Conservation of Energy as it applies to climate systems.

We all wait for you to demonstrate your scientific expertise as opposed to your political ideology.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at April 25, 2007 4:36 AM
Comment #218367

As for the 3 or 4 sheets of TP: If you are eating a balanced diet, 3 or 4 sheets is more than enough for #2. Anyone who has participated in the clinical nutrition study will tell you that there’s nothing to wipe when one is eating properly.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at April 25, 2007 4:43 AM
Comment #218370

Winston Churchill (a conservative) noted that the legitimate role of conservatives in a government is as the loyal opposition (he’d witnessed the results of unbridled conservatism in Italy, Germany, and Spain. After further thought, it seems apparent from American history that the legitimate role of conservatives (the risk adverse) in a government is not unlike that of TP: they are the cleaning crew for the folks who are actually taking the risks, actually trying to address the people’s needs, and actually doing all the work while maintaining a constitutional democratic republic. This is the fundamental flaw of the DeLay/Bush crowd: they think they are important when, in fact, they were and are nothing more than used TP…. admittedly utilitarian, but not historically nor morally important….

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at April 25, 2007 6:47 AM
Comment #218378

CG-

Mass industrialization causes global warming? So, exactly why was the earth warmer many, many, many, many years ago when CO2 was simply belching from the arses of living organisms?

The quantum physics of CO2 and how it absorbs infra-red radiation are have been known for quite some time. It’s not in dispute. Whether or not it comes from us, it acts the same.

It’s not the only part of the system, and this is part of what demonstrates its effects. In the distant past, the Sun put out a lot less energy. Without the greater amounts of CO2, Earth would have reflected so much of its radiation back that Earth would have become an iceball, like one of the Outer planet moons.

Nitrogen and Oxygen are the main constituents of the atmosphere. They are not what absorbs most of the heat. The sky is blue, and not raining hard radiation down on us, because of Nitrogen and Oxygen’s ability to absorb and scatter higher frequency EM radiation. But they absorb infrared poorly. It’s the trace gases that keep the atmosphere warm: CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor. Without these, our atmosphere would be forty or fifty degrees colder.

We should be glad we have a trace amount. Venus doesn’t. Venus, Despite kicking three quarters of its sunlight away with it’s beautiful clouds(we by comparison absorb about that much), and getting only dim illumination from the surface, our sister planet bakes at the hottest temperatures in the solar system.

Regardless of its trace presence in terms of concentration, CO2 has a profound effect on climate. It isn’t the only part of things, though. The reason the change has been greater is the absorption of heat and CO2 by the oceans. Temperatures in the oceans have risen considerably, and so much CO2 has been absorbed into the oceans that it’s changing the pH towards the more acidic.

If you want real, try evidence. Try science. Global Warming is not a myth. It’s an observed fact, measured in the air and the water of this planet.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 25, 2007 8:38 AM
Comment #218379

Additionally-
Sheryl Crow has come out and said this was a joke. That the Right Wing has taken this joke so seriously, and so quickly struck back without consulting the facts or waiting for them indicates how eager they are to assume that Liberals are irrational eco-nuts.

My advice? Lighten up. Stop assuming liberals are unable to function without the help of an attending conservative. We don’t need Republicans to counsel us on how to properly wipe our own asses.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 25, 2007 8:48 AM
Comment #218386

Stephen Daughterty,
Climate isn’t a stable system, it never has been. As long as the sun shines and the earth turns it never will be. Climate changes.
Climate change is a well documented phenomenon.
The infant science of climatology can’t even reliably predict the weather next week. Politically driven predictions of the weather 50 or 100 years from now are as credible as tales of alien abduction.
Global warming IS a myth. As Jeff wrote in post #218300 EVERYTHING concerning the weather is caused by global warming. And you really expect your cult to be taken seriously? None of the science shows that we’re causing the climate to change. That’s nothing more than speculation, at best. Some writer or sometimes a scientist (usually not a climatologist) supposes that something “might”, “could” or “may ” happen in the future and the chicken littles seize on it with a “told ya so”, the media sensationalize it and the lemmings panic. It’s being propagated by organizations dedicated to the spread of world socialism. Just look at the solutions being proposed for this “problem”. They are all socialist or authoritarian, something the left is quite comfortable with. It also has the characteristics of a religion or, more precisely, a cult. It offers a path to salvation, it’s pursued with religious fervor and dissent isn’t tolerated. Scientists who dare part from the gospel are discredited or have their funding cut off and their careers ended.
It’s amusing to watch you lemmings twist yourselves up with bombast to try to justify your faith.

Posted by: traveller at April 25, 2007 9:39 AM
Comment #218399

Traveller-
The science is solid. The politics are yours. The models from the previous IPCC conference successfuly anticipated the climate change in this last decade.

Everything in the weather will be affected by global warming. Variations that cool the earth can emerge from processes that warm it. Global warming just means that the CO2 makes increases predominate over decreases.

You call it a cult, but what evidence do you present to us lemmings to prove this political conspiracy?

As for the solutions to this problem, many of them are simply technological. Things like carbon sequestration, hybrid engines, hydrogen economies, updating the electric grid to reduce inefficiency. Things like that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 25, 2007 11:45 AM
Comment #218406

Dr. Poshek,

I’m printing and framing your post #218370.

Posted by: KansasDem at April 25, 2007 12:16 PM
Comment #218413

Eric,

Thank you for your post! I am always glad to see posts on the red side of Watchblog bring more press, coverage, and support for global warming. Jack is normally the only one who writes about the subject (though in support of instead of against).

Don’t worry, you haven’t scared me yet, but you can certainly keep tryin!

-Dutch_expat

PS - Didn’t you see that episode of Seinfeld, it’s practically famous?

PPS - I can NEVER remember what I had eaten that has led to those elusive (and smile inducing) “one-wipe-poo’s”

Posted by: Dutch_expat at April 25, 2007 2:15 PM
Comment #218418

Yeah…..OK Stephen.

Gosh, golly. Your intellect is amazing - so broad, so deep. So myopically focused on “fact”s. You don’t get it do you.

You say, “If you want real, try evidence. Try science. Global Warming is not a myth. It’s an observed fact, measured in the air and the water of this planet.”

Duhhhh, like I said. 2006 was the coldest of the last five years and colder than 1998. Ahh, facts….wonderful tools don’t you think?


The point Einstein, is that the extrapolation of the “facts” is WIDELY disputed. Yet the least wise of the population (read Hollywooders) runs their mouth off as if they know something and speak with such authority. Laughable really. These are the people who were probably BUYING stocks as the bubble ballooned - after all the trajectory was “yeehee we’re gonna get rich!”. The behavior of the environmentalists follows the same behavioral missteps as those investors.

Frankly, I’m surprised all of us haven’t melted away from acid rain by now. Oh yeah, that problem seemed to go away without much intervention (or did it??).

Posted by: curiousgeorge at April 25, 2007 2:37 PM
Comment #218420

Curious
Do you deny that man could have any effect on the climate?

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2007 3:11 PM
Comment #218424

CG said:
“…Yet the least wise of the population (read Hollywooders) runs their mouth off as if they know something and speak with such authority…”

Can you defend yourself against the suggestion that you are, in fact, doing the same thing that you criticize others of doing?

If you can, then could you offer an argument supporting the suggestion that global warming does not exist?

Thanks (for the entertainment),

-Dutch_expat

PS - I am pretty sure that an argument suggesting that something is (essentially) a “conspriracy theory” does not hold up in a court of law.

Posted by: Dutch_expat at April 25, 2007 3:52 PM
Comment #218428

“On February 8, 2007, climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) announced that 2006 was the fifth-warmest year in the past century. GISS scientists estimated that the five warmest years on record were, in descending order, 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2006.”

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17553

2006 was the warmest year on record for the US. January 2007 set the new record for the warmest January. While temperatures in the US were normal, temperatures in the northernmost latitudes were very high. This matches climate model predictions, that northern latitudes would see the most warming, and see it sooner.

The link shows a chart of temperature trends since 1850.

The wikipedia article on Global Warming also includes some excellent charts:

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

Traveller
“Weather” and “climate” are not the same.

Curious,
The extrapolation of the facts is not widely disputed. That is simply wrong. The consensus among the scientific community is overwhelming.

“We have to deal with greenhouse gases. From Shell’s point of view, the debate is over. When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, ‘Let’s debate the science’?”

John Hofmeister, President of Shell Oil

Posted by: phx8 at April 25, 2007 4:13 PM
Comment #218431

CG-
Climate is chaotic enough that you’ll get up years and down years in any trend. You take one cool year and say, “Oops, that’s it for Global Warming!” Well, that’s not exactly good science.

Natural variations in climate will still occur. Show me a decadal cooling trend, instead of the warming one we’ve seen, and then we can talk about Global Warming having problems.

The data is there. The models are there. The models they used last time to forecast the climate trends for the next few years accurately predicted the trends.

But of course, people can believe what they want. Trouble is, not many people appreciate just how little the real world cares for what we want, and what we want to believe.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 25, 2007 4:29 PM
Comment #218433

Ooooohhh, I hate those people who are rich, talented, pretty and not conservative. As soon as they give me the slightest reason, I will rag on them, ignoring any indication that they are joking or being ironic. I will pound on it as my talking point masters desire and won’t stop even after they have admitted they were wrong. It’s my life; what else can I do?

Posted by: mental wimp at April 25, 2007 4:43 PM
Comment #218435

“tomd: The scientific, objective fact that Jeff offered is correct. The concern about a “new ice age” over thirty years ago was and is still a valid concern as the cycling between extreme warmth and extreme cold is part of the same system. What scientists learned in the late 1970s and early 1980s is that new “ice age” periods are the natural reaction to periods of global warming.”

So I guess in the next decade we will forget global warming and look for an ice age again.

“I am not puzzled by your skepticism as it is predicated on your lack of scientific knowledge of climatic systems and your blatant energy greed and your inability to think long term.”

Wow, You don’t like me much do you?

“You are representive of all conservatives: an aboslute disregard for the long term impact of decisions made today.”

That is kind of laughable with some of the decisions the Dems have made recently.

“It is no different than Bush43’s willingness to burden future generations with monsterous debt. It’s nothing more than a fantasy predicated on ideological delusion.

Because I ask one simple question that you can’t answer. Wait till I get to question 6 or 7.

“God forbid you might have to curtail your greedy ways so that future generations might be merely able to live.”

You were talking about “ideological delusions”?

“This might be instructive: Major corporations, such as Walmart (the GOP’s biggest corporate supporter), understand that global warming is a threat to their bottom lines.”

And STILL they are hated and feared by the left.

“Even a majority or GOPers understand that global warming is a threat and that it is caused my human activity.”

I generally don’t read polls, so I don’t know. I’m not a Republican. I think for myself.

“To test your claimed authority in climate science, please (1) name the 4 layers of the atmosphere and the changes in temperature in those 4 layers relative to each other over the past 45 years and their implication for climate systems; (2) explain the difference between encapsulated and non-encapsulated carbon and the impact of each on climate systems; (3) explain the implications of O, H, N, He, S, & C ratios in the atmosphere to climate systems; (4) explain the possible implications of a 1” sea level rise on climate systems; and (5) explain the effect of a rise in the average global temperature of .24 degrees Celsius on the functioning of the Gulf Stream. The answers to these questions are basic to the knowledge of any undergraduate science major

And if you really want to demonstrate a high school level of authorty, (1) explain the role of electron sharing in O, H, He, & N in the atmosphere, and (2) explain the role of the Law of Conservation of Energy as it applies to climate systems.

We all wait for you to demonstrate your scientific expertise as opposed to your political ideology.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at April 25, 2007 04:36 AM”

Where did I claim any authority in climate science? The fact is I’m a layman. A technician who has nothing whatsoever to do with climate. The same as 99.999% of the rest of the population that you and your scientists have to convience. You haven’t done it yet. I see an agenda from the left and that keeps me skeptical. Want to convince me, answer my simple questions.


Posted by: tomd at April 25, 2007 4:51 PM
Comment #218436

kctim,

Do you deny the existence of the law of unintended consequences?

For example (shoot I have to go dig up that old link) there have been studies that have shown that “reforestation” has had the unintended consequence of warming certain regions that were cooler historically. Oops, I thought trees were good for the environment. Now they may be contributing to warming?

Posted by: curiousgeorge at April 25, 2007 5:02 PM
Comment #218437

CG-
It might not hurt to do a little research before you start making such claims

…[O]ur discovery led to intense speculation that methane emissions by plants could diminish or even outweigh the carbon storage effect of reforestation programs with important implications for the Kyoto protocol, where such programs are to be used in national carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction strategies. We first stress that our findings are preliminary with regard to the methane emission strength. Emissions most certainly depend on plant type and environmental conditions and more experiments are certainly necessary to quantify the process under natural conditions. As a first rough estimate of the order of magnitude we have taken the global average methane emissions as representative to provide a rough estimate of its potential effect on climate. These estimates (for details, see below) show that methane emissions by plants may slightly diminish the effect of reforestation programs. However, the climatic benefits gained through carbon sequestration by reforestation far exceed the relatively small negative effect, which may reduce the carbon uptake effect by up to 4 per cent. Thus, the potential for reduction of global warming by planting trees is most definitely positive. The fundamental problem still remaining is the global large-scale anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels. [emphasis mine]

This is the problem with arguing science by talking point. A lot of the people who spin these points, don’t know what they’re spinning, so naturally they grasp at what sounds good. Sounding like good information and being good information can be two different things.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 25, 2007 5:28 PM
Comment #218439

OK, so basically you are saying I’m stupid. Hmmm, I’ll say it - no the earth is not in a permanent warming trend and no, I don’t think human activity will doom our course. My scientific basis is that I think the sun has the largest role and trumps all. Shoot, the Lord could bless us with a couple monumental volcanoe blasts and give us enough shade to last generations.

But lets move on to the science.

8 Nov 06 –– Research scientists D.J. Wingham et al. analyzed satellite altimeter echoes to determine changes in volume of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2003. This survey, in their words, “covers 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet,” which together comprise “72% of the grounded ice sheet.”

They found that the ice sheet is growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-.” Not only is the ice sheet growing thicker, its volume is increasing. The researchers estimate that “72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt year, sufficient to “lower [my’ italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm year.”

This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham et al., occurs because “mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica.”

Contrary to all the horror stories one hears about rising sea levels that gobble up coastal lowlands worldwide, the real-world data suggests just the opposite effect.

Reference
Wingham, D.J., Shepherd, A., Muir, A. and Marshall, G.J. 2006.
“Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society A, 364: 1627-1635.


So we have some great pictorials that show ice falling off the edges (probably happens every day) - the thickness of the ice cap matters.

- - - - - - - - -

Oh, and also - why are sea levels dropping around the world? Shouldn’t they be already rising? The Indian, Atlantic, Arctic, and Pacific all report that sea levels have dropped.

- 15 Jun 06 - Arctic sea level has been falling more than 2mm a year - a movement that [supposedly] sets the region against the global trend of rising waters. A Dutch-UK team made the discovery after analyzing radar altimetry data gathered by Europe ‘s ERS-2 satellite.

“We have high confidence in the results; it’s now down to the geophysics community to explain them,” said Dr Remko Scharroo, from consultants Altimetrics LLC, who led the study.

The European Space Agency’s (Esa) ERS-2 satellite has been making observations of the Earth from its 800km-high polar orbit for over 10 years.

Correcting the data to take account of ocean tides, wave heights, air pressure, and atmospheric effects that might bias the signal, Dr Scharroo and colleagues established seasonal and yearly sea-level trends in the Arctic (from 60 to 82 degrees latitude) for the period 1995 to 2003. The analysis reveals an average 2.17mm fall per annum.

- - - - - —

What was that again about the glaciers falling apart? hmmmm… one of the glaciers in Gore’s movie was the Perito Moreno Glacier in So. Argentina as an example of the result of global warming. In fact it is growing. It is visibly larger and pushing further across Lago Argentina over the past 20 years. The Perito Moreno glacier is the largest glacier in Patagonia, and the last time I checked, it was advancing at the rate of about 7 feet per day. Oh yeah, Perito is simply the worlds third largest reserve of fresh water. The 3rd largest is getting bigger!!!

Must be trick photography or something.

- - - - - - - -


Lastly, maybe your “inconvenient truth” is that you have forgotten that in April 1998, more than 17,000 scientists, two-thirds of whom hold advanced academic degrees, signed a Petition against the Kyoto climate accord.

IS 17,000 enough for you? Not “widely disputed”? I must be silly to think that 17,000 scientists mean anything.


By the way, the Petition urged the US government to reject the Accord, which would force drastic cuts in energy use on the United States .

In signing the Petition, the 17,000 basic and applied scientists — an unprecedented number for this kind of document — expressed their profound skepticism about the science underlying the Kyoto Accord. The atmospheric data simply do not support the elaborate computer-driven climate models that are being cited by the United Nations and other promoters of the Accord as “proof” of a major future warming. The covering letter enclosed with the Petition, signed by Dr. Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and a past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, states it well:

“The treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.”

“The ‘silent majority’ of the scientific community has at last spoken out against the hype emanating from politicians and much of the media about a ‘warming catastrophe.’ The Petition reflects the frustration and disgust felt by working scientists, few of whom have been previously involved in the ongoing climate debate, about the misuse of science to promote a political agenda,” said Dr. Seitz.

The Petition drive was organized by Dr. Arthur Robinson, director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (Cave Junction, OR) and a vocal critic of the shaky science used to support the Kyoto Accord. It was staffed by volunteers and supported entirely by private donations, with no contributions from industry.

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto , Japan , in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.


Do you want me to go on? I can cite astrophysicists, climatologists, etc, etc. from Europe, US, China, Japan, Canada, Israel, etc. that think this is bunk.

Exactly why is “your” expert better than mine?

And oh, by the way. I don’t think my experts are better. Its just that there IS disagreement duhh.

And whoever that is who keeps posting about the temperatures….stop using only US temperatures. We’re talking about the whole earth.

Hows that for entertainment??

CG

Posted by: curiousgeorge at April 25, 2007 5:42 PM
Comment #218440

Stephen -

You are no doubt a lawyer. After all, when the facts are for you - you pound the facts. When the law is for you - you pound the law.


You were the one who said to stay factual - “the data is the data - those areas are warmer” period. Explain the data, explain the data, explain the data!! Those are the simple facts.

Shoot, right in your “copy/paste” it says, “We first stress that our findings are preliminary”

Great job… . you live in your ivory tower and hypothesize - why bother with the facts, hey??

CG

Posted by: curiousgeorge at April 25, 2007 5:46 PM
Comment #218441

Curious
Nope, I don’t deny it.
But, do you or do you not believe, that it is possible for some of man’s actions to contribute to climate change?

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2007 5:52 PM
Comment #218442

kctim,

hmmmm, you changed your question to “some of man’s actions contribute”. Your first question was more strident.

Two your follow up - Well, sure we could.

But,
1) only at the margins where it is irrelevant - as it is likely that, while some of our actions may scientifically lead to warmer temperatures for a period of time, other behaviors are just as likely to lower temperatures. We just don’t know right now what those may be.

2) A slightly warmer earth may be a good thing.

3) We are not currently setting a course that imperils the earth.

CG

PS - Is it a good thing to conserve? use less? Be wise with natural resources? Absolutely. I’m a firm believer in less is more. I’m a firm believer in respecting this ball of dirt God has blessed us with.

But I will not be held hostage to fear mongering when there is legitimate dispute.

And by the way, neither will the citizens of emerging markets/third world countries. They will “want theirs” - who is going to restrict their energy usage as they come online (or onto the grid)?

Posted by: curiousgeorge at April 25, 2007 6:04 PM
Comment #218446

CG-
First, on the subject of the ice sheets, A satellite survey using gravitational mapping methods indicated the mass is being reduced. This method has the advantage of having looked at the entire ice sheet, rather than just the small percentages.

Additionally, greater snowfall is not a good sign for contrarians. Antarctica, because of the low level of humidity its cold air can carry, gets very little rainfall. increased precipitation would be a sign of warming. As a matter of fact, here’s another finding within the linked article:

A study spearheaded by CIRES researchers at CU-Boulder and published in September 2004 concluded that glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula - which juts north from the West Antarctic ice sheet toward South America — sped up dramatically following the collapse of Larsen B ice shelf in 2002. Ice shelves on the peninsula — which has warmed by an average of 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 60 years — have decreased by more than 5,200 square miles in the past three decades.

Regarding Perito Moreno, you have to congratulate yourself. You found one of the few glaciers anywhere in the world that is in equilibrium. Trouble is, that’s because of some special circumstances:

Field studies of mass fluxes, complemented by satellite radar, record 5.5 metres of precipitation falling on the accumulation zone a year, equivalent to about 15 metres of consolidated snow. “It is also a very deep glacier. Eight kilometres up from the glacier front we measured the ice thickness at 750 metres, whereas at the calving front it is only 160 metres thick.

“This feature of subglacial topography, as well as the comparatively high elevation of the accumulation area, means that is it less vulnerable to changing conditions, such as warmer climate that has led most glaciers in the region to recede significantly during the last 30 years.

In short, this is a big, in fact massively big glacier which accumulates ice much higher up in the mountains than most other glaciers, getting around the warming occuring at lower altitudes.

As for the 17,000 scientists, maybe 200 of them are actual climate scientists who know what they signed onto, and still agree with it. That matters. The others aren’t even in the field. So yes, our experts are better than yours, because most of the experts you’re citing are experts in the wrong field

For your information, an astrophysicist is a scientist whose expertise deals in stars and the nuclear fusion processes within them. I might trust them to talk about solar flares, but not to analyze climate change.

As for my profession? Nope, I’m not a lawyer. I’m just very good at running down sources. I know the science, I know what to look for.

As for the preliminary findings, he was talking about the amount of methane being output, right after saying that it was just four percent of what would be sequestered by the plants over their lifetime, which is still a net reduction in greenhouse emissions. He provides the fricking math right underneath that paragraph.

So far, you’ve gone for 2006 as a cool year, despite it being the fifth warmest year in the records. You’ve told us that trees were this big threat, despite the fact that the methane emissions constitute only a four percent reduction in the effectiveness of greenhouse reduction, and you happen to pick one of the few non-receding glaciers in the world as your example, without taking acount for all the glaciers in the area that are receding.

Oh, yes, and the Antarctic Ice Sheet thing- the temperatures rising in that area significantly, and that another ice sheet has collapsed, recently.

And to answer your question, no you’re not stupid. You’re just using bad information coming from people who have a conflict of interest in terms of giving you the right one.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 25, 2007 6:40 PM
Comment #218451

Curious, a well reasoned response to my question. I was just trying to get an understanding of where you line of thought.
Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

Posted by: kctim at April 25, 2007 7:10 PM
Comment #218454

Stephen,
“So yes, our experts are better than yours”

Oh yeah, and my dad can beat up your dad. Compelling, really.

Says who, by the way… oh yeah, according to you smarty pants.

What I can’t help but chuckle over is that this conversation is still going on. The very fact that it is continuing and both of us are providing information (no mater how wrong headed either of us thinks it is) means there is disagreement among the scientific community!

And I’m sure your “majority” of scientists are all from pristine backgrounds with no “backing” or self interest…..hehehehe.

Its like the person who cited the Shell chairman….give me a break. Shell would print money in a “controlled” enviro-fascist regime. Do you think he’s thinking about the world or his shareholders? I think both, to be honest, but using his statements as support is laughable.

The facts right now run the warming way. Soon enough they will run the other way. We aren’t headed to doomsday now and we won’t be heading to ice age doom a couple years from now.

I’ve spoken with no authority on weather temperatures are abnormal now or not. I merely cite there are people who dispute the implications.

I’m glad you are so sure you are right.

When New York powers down, when China and India tell their people that “we’re sorry, but we have to restrict your consumption of energy for the good of the world”, and when Al Gore does all his speaking from his “eco-dome” home via webcast rather than consume more oil in one day than I do in a year….well, then maybe I’ll think its a problem, maybe.


Tag, you’re it…..and if you post you further validate my point that it is in dispute.

As Stephen says to know one in particular, “I’m disputing that there’s a dispute.” Sounds like something Yogi Berra would say and we all can agree on what a sharp tack he was :)

Posted by: curiousgeorge at April 25, 2007 8:01 PM
Comment #218456

Stephen D -
“Most of the Republican resistance to anti-global warming measures is not born of experience, but ideology.”

1. Nobody has experience. This is new (in the last 10-15 years), not too long ago the scientists were insisting we were moving into an ice age.

2. It is not Republican resistance. Go to any country in the world and you will find people who are resistant to this “information” not based upon “Republican ideology” but upon the problems with the science behind this “information.” This is not a Republican/Democrat divide. In fact, there are many Republicans who have taken it up as a cause as well.

3. I have no problem giving new technology a “try.” First, much of it makes life better and easier. Second, some of it I have to accept because the government mandates it. Third, some of it costs less to own and operate. What I do have a problem with is that most of the world will not be changed, nor will benefit from the new technology. China is increasing its pollution per capita every day. So, whatever I do to reduce my “footprint” is cancelled out by someone in China who is right now increasing his “footprint”. If the US reduced its footprint by 10% in the next 10 years, China’s increased footprint would eliminate any gain.

It is the same argument (you are assuming that what we do will make all the difference). That idea has a huge hole in it. The parts of the world where the population is growing the fastest are also the areas where the per capita “footprints” are also growing the fastest. In the US we have begun to reduce the per capita “footprint.” Sure we can do more! But it won’t matter. That is, it won’t matter if we don’t take action on global populations as well (assuming that humans are causing global warming).

Posted by: Don at April 25, 2007 8:11 PM
Comment #218470

CG-
Our experts would be better than yours if more of them have their specialty in the actual field of concern. You list 17,000. Why aren’t most of these guys scientists specializing in study in question? That’s not a quibble. Every scientist has to keep current on the literature in their field. If they don’t, they fall behind on the issues that matter in them. For the disputes in question to be well-founded the people having them have to know that of which they’re arguing.

The Shell Chairman is obligated not to do anything that might harm the profitability of his company, unless he’s obligated by law. If he’s admitting that stuff in public, he must believe that his backside is well-covered on that count.

I’d like to know what you know that you can say, with the facts running our way, why things would suddenly run yours. If the facts are running our way, then you have to admit that we’ve got some pretty good models of things. If so, what would suddenly throw them?

On the subject of an ice age, aside from a regional reduction in the warming, there’s not much to hope for there. The last time an interruption in the North Atlantic Drift caused an ice age, you had an ice sheet covering much of Canada dumping the melt water into the system.

I’ve spoken with no authority on weather temperatures are abnormal now or not. I merely cite there are people who dispute the implications.

Good heavens. Why would you want to do that? I’m not fully authoritative on the subject, but I try to have some familiarity so I at least can spot some of the serious BS ahead of time.

You talk about me validating your notion that this is all in dispute. Well, the trick in science is not dispute for the sake of dispute, which seems to be your position. The trick is that the dispute has to be on substantive grounds. If you don’t care about that, why should the dispute be given any credibility?

As for other subjects:
New York Power down? That’s lazy thinking, and a strawman argument. If we get New York on green power, there’ll be no need for that at all.

China and India conserving? Aren’t we responsible for our own behavior? It seems pretty chickens*** for an energy hungry nation like ours to say that the developing nations have to do something about it first before we’ll do something. After all, we’re the ones they’re trying to catch up to.

Al Gore Eco Dome? Netcasts? Here’s your problem: computers, servers, fiber optics and everything else consume a hell of a lot of energy. In fact, if we’re talking coal-fired plants, typical in this country, then it gets worse the larger his audience gets. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

What I want to know from you guys how you want us to suddenly invent the entire panoply of green technology all at once. I mean, this stuff doesn’t just drop from the sky courtesy of Spock and the Vulcans. The whole point of all this fuss is to get that stuff in motion, to make the push past the Self-Interested Corporations. I mean, God forbid Business have to compete on their own rather than get the policy tailor-made for the sake of their bottom line.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 25, 2007 11:22 PM
Comment #218482

From science.nasa.gov

January 20, 1998:

Space-based measurements of the temperature of the Earth’s lower stratosphere - a layer of the atmosphere from about 17 km to 22 km (approx 10 to 14 miles) - indicate that December 1997 was the coldest month on record since measurements of this type were begun in 1979.

Dr. Roy Spencer (NASA) and Dr. John Christy (University of Alabama at Huntsville), scientists from the Global Hydrology and Climate Center, a cooperative laboratory involving NASA, the Alabama Space Science and Technology Alliance, and private industry, obtain temperature measurements of layers within the entire atmosphere of the Earth from space, using microwave sensors aboard the TIROS-N series of polar-orbiting weather satellites.

Despite significant warming of the stratosphere seen following the eruptions of El Chichon in Mexico in 1982 and Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines in 1991, the entire stratospheric dataset indicates a cooling trend over the past 15 years. This is thought to be consistent with the depletion of ozone in the lower stratosphere.


So that was you back then blogging about what to do about cooling. Well, congrats, looks like whatever we did worked as things have warmed since then.


Prior to the most recent years warming, what were the warmest years on record as of 1998?

What were the coldest years on record as of 1998?

As you stood in January 1998 what would you have projected the “trend” to be.

Its always a moving target and none of these dudes or their computer models have any idea what could happen. A large natural occurring event could change everything.


And are you telling me that podcasting consumes more energy then flying private jets and having people get in cars to go listen the “inventor of the internet”?

If so, well, shoot I’m happy as a pig in slop. No behavior modification for me - I’m as valuable a human as Al. So the lib mindset is “do what I say not as I do.”

Got it.


Posted by: curiousgeorge at April 26, 2007 12:20 AM
Comment #218486

What is it about environmentalism that so many Conservatives find offensive? Whether or not global warming is man-made (though scientists all seem to agree on this point), we all recognize that it is happening and it is a problem. So why shouldn’t we be doing more to help rather than harm the environment?

It seems to me the only POSSIBLE rationale for doing something that can in no way be bad for the earth, is that — as some misguidedly think — it would “ruin our economy.” But let’s be real here for a moment, how would it ACTUALLY harm our economy? It would probably hurt the fossil fuel industries, right? And these industries just happen to have a lot of political clout, especially within the Republican party. So in other words, the only rationale behind anti-green policies is protectionism of the archaic, dying fossil fuel industries. How very deliciously ironic of you free-market Conservatives!

Now here’s the real flaw with the “ruin the economy” argument: green policies represent a potentially MASSIVE boon to the U.S. economy. Green industry is going to happen, and it’s going to happen soon. Does America want to be at the forefront of emerging technologies, or does it want to fall behind Japan and China in yet another industry? Why would we NOT want to seize this opportunity for innovation? Why would we NOT want to re-affirm our leadership in the world by engaging in this truly noble enterprise? Why would we NOT want to eventually eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, disentangle ourselves from the middle east, and achieve a long term diplomatic solution in the region?

Posted by: Andrew L. at April 26, 2007 1:11 AM
Comment #218497

CG-
If you actually looked at the record on the ground, you would find that the times around those eruptions were colder in the troposphere. It’s a well known effect for climatologists.

What’s happening are two things First, the volcanic aerosols, which get pushed into the stratosphere by the force of the eruption, start reflecting and absorbing solar radiation in the Stratosphere. This means less solar radiation to warm the ground’s surface. In the troposphere, the dominant warming method is convection, with the warmest air generated near the earth, which warms, rises, cools and then descends.

The stratosphere is the opposite. As pressure and distance from the warming ground reduce temperature going up in the troposphere, the stratosphere takes the opposite trend, becoming warmer with altitude. This is because it’s taking the hit from much of the UV and other high energy radiation coming in from space. UV, in particular, helps to warm things up. When you get a lot of volcanic aerosols reflecting absorbing solar radiation, you also get warming there.

But why the cooling in the stratosphere without these things going on?

In the case of the Earth, the solar input (and therefore long wave output) are roughly constant. This implies that there is a level in the atmosphere (called the effective radiating level) that must be at the effective radiating temperature (around 252K). This is around the mid-troposphere ~ 6km. Since increasing GHGs implies an increasing temperature gradient, the temperatures must therefore ‘pivot’ around this (fixed) level. i.e. everything below that level will warm, and everything above that level will cool.

What he’s saying is that the greenhouse gases give the atmosphere a greater ability to absorb and re-radiate heat, but once the temperature of the air goes low enough, it makes the air better at giving up energy than keeping it, which means it cools at a higher rate.

Since the transition occurs in the middle of the Troposphere, and the stratosphere really has no convection to keep warm air replacing the cold (part of what distinguishes that layer from its lower sibling), it cools.

As for your second to last paragraph, I’m just telling you that you’re missing the problem in general: the overall reliance on fossil fuels for energy. Few people are kidding themselves that we can or should survive by doing away with our standards of living, our economic muscle.

No, what we’re looking to do is reduce the carbon footprint that it requires to do all this thing. Doing everything by computer would not necessarily save energy, since computers, servers and other electronics run on electricity, which is mostly generated by fossil fuels. We need a new direction.

Oh, by the way, that whole inventing the internet thing? He never said that. He said that he helped put through the legislation to turn it from the defense related network to the civilian and commercial network it is today. Unfortunately for the authors of certain talking points, accusing Al of helping to privatize the network that would revolutionize Business just doesn’t make him sound foolish or vain enough.

You know, could it be that this Al Gore guy has more sense than the partisans are willing to give him credit for?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 26, 2007 8:32 AM
Comment #218512

It is fascinating to see the shrillness with which (in)curiousgeorge pushes the cherry-picked stories to support the questionable hypothesis his chosen ideology insists on and contrast it with Stephen Daugherty’s breathtaking command of the range of science and its implication for the course the earth is taking. I don’t know either poster, but it sure sounds to me like the former is being fed these cherry-picked factoids, but that the latter is actually versed in the breadth of the field.

Hmmm, who to trust…

Posted by: mental wimp at April 26, 2007 1:06 PM
Comment #218544

Andrew L. -

“What is it about environmentalism that so many Conservatives find offensive? Whether or not global warming is man-made (though scientists all seem to agree on this point), we all recognize that it is happening and it is a problem.”

Several incorrect assumptions here which lead you to a wrong conclusion.

1. Conservatives do not have a problem with environmentalism. What they find offensive are the wacky (can you say “junk science”) environmentalists. I do not know of one Conservative who wants the air, water, or soil polluted. In fact, I cannot think of any Liberals who do either. So, wrong assumption.

2. Not all scientist are in agreement that global warming is man-made; in fact not all scientists are in agreement that we are experiencing global warming at all. Some areas are experiencing warming trends, but some other areas have experienced cooling trends. In fact, the “warming” we have experienced to date falls mostly within “normal” temperature swings (there have been some exceptions). So, wrong assumption.

Scientists don’t agree and Conservatives don’t find environmentalism offensive. Conservatives, I believe, are looking for balance. You can’t have a pure planet AND fly around the world to enjoy the pure planet. (Come to think of it, apparently the wacky environmentalists don’t want to give up flying either.) If you want to enjoy the planet, you may mess it up a little. Find the balance. OR, do as the environmentalists say, but understand that you are messing up the planet just by living and they think you should be eliminated.

Posted by: Don at April 26, 2007 6:31 PM
Comment #218552

Don-
I hate the term junk science. So much of the time, these people are calling other folks’ stuff what their stuff really is. It’s a perjorative.

The real warning sign should be how much sources like those I’ve been debunking with Curious George employ rhetorical, rather than scientific approaches to the matter. The Oregon Petition is a good example. What do they care that most of these scientists aren’t in the field? They’re just using the aura of authority that comes with the term scientist.

It’s not a coincidence that he cites so many anomalous results, or generalizes so much from isolated occurences. The careless generalizations are hardly scientific, but they make for great political theatre, and they work to create doubt. Not a plausible, scientifically valid counter-theory with a strong following, but all the little quibbles that allow people who are already convinced that people are trying to wantonly destroy business and society to dismiss what is essentially the broad scientific consensus.

This is about convincing conservatives and willing moderates that there is a liberal conspiracy to doctor scientific results in the illegitmate pursuite of power. And how can we convince people otherwise, when the Republican leadership has gone to such great lengths to go after the tree-huggers, to discourage the open, active pursuite of environmentalism?

And why? So they can do things that bring in big industrial and energy sector donors, the same people who we know from record are footing the bill on much of this “junk science” movement.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 26, 2007 9:29 PM
Comment #218562

Don,
You write: “Not all scientist are in agreement that global warming is man-made; in fact not all scientists are in agreement that we are experiencing global warming at all.”

While it is true that the concensus surrounding anthropogenic induced Climate Change is not unanimous, the agreement is overwhelming, along the lines of 98% agreement. Even on the 2007 IPCC report, a handful of scientists dissented. However, hundreds agreed.

That warming is occurring is indisputable. You are wrong, and there is virtual unanimity on this point. It is simply a matter of data. Whatever the cause, it is happening.

Climate Change is a more accurate description than Global Warming because the change will not be uniform. Changing air and ocean currents will make a few places cooler, some wetter, others will experience drought, and so on.

Did you ignore my links for data on rising temperatures? Would you prefer links from US government agencies? Hadley, in Britain? The Max Planck Institute in Germany? How about the Lawrence Livermore Labs? Is there any scientific institution whose data would be acceptable?

The kicker is that atmospheric CO2 levels have soared beyond its “normal” range. It broke through its “traditional” range of 180 - 280 ppm, and is now at 383 ppm, and steadily climbing at the rate of @ 2ppm per year. CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a century, and humanity continues to add over 5 gigatonnes to the atmosphere every year. Currently CO2 is at its highest levels in over 600,000 years, and trending to be at its highest levels of concentration in over 20 million years.

It is just data. The politics enters when we attempt to decide what should be done about it.

Posted by: phx8 at April 26, 2007 10:33 PM
Comment #218570

phx8,

climate n. 1 the prevailing weather conditions of an area 2 a region with particular weather conditions
[The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus: American Edition]

I know that weather and climate aren’t the same thing. The GW alarmists like to predict what climate and weather are going to be like in the coming decades and how it will affect life when the real experts can’t even reliably predict what will happen next week.

Stephen Daugherty,
You have a good grasp of atmospheric science or, at least, you’re very good at researching and rephrasing it.
However, none of it demonstrates causation between elevated CO2 levels and atmospheric warming. (it is assumed, not proven) There is also nothing that warrants the dire predictions of calamity and the “we’re all gonna die” fearmongering of your coreligionists.
Indeed, the geologic and historical records refute it.
The adage that “the only constant is change” should be kept in mind in any consideration of climate.

Today I came across an interesting article in “Liberty” magazine (May 2007) titled “Global Warming, Global Stifling” by Gary Jason.
Mr. Jason makes a distinction between 2 theories of anthropic global warming.
quote:

“The Narrow Theory lies exclusively in the domain of climate science, and holds simply that:
1. The earth’s climate is warming significantly.
2. This warming is exacerbated by the generation
of CO2 and other anthropogenic greenhouse
gases.
3. This warming threatens to induce widescale
ecological changes.

The Grand Theory - as presented on television and in several recent movies - is vastly more than a theory of climate science. It is a multiple-domain metanarrative or integrated worldview, including both moral assumptions and policy prescriptions. In essence it posits twelve theses:
1. The world is warming dramatically.
2. This warming is unlike any other warming or
cooling in the history of the planet.
3. The warming is caused primarily by humans’
burning of fossil fuels.
4. If we keep burning fossil fuels at the present
rate, warming will accelerate and increase
without end.
5. The result of warming will be a huge increase
in the number of ecological and meteorological
disasters, which will be of biblical
proportions.
6. These disasters will not be counterbalanced
by any favorable effects of warming.
7. Both warming and disaster will occur with such
rapidity that mankind will be unable to
adjust.
8. The process can be reversed or controlled by
drastically curtailing the use of fossil
fuels.
9. The ONLY way to do this is by drastically
curtailing the use of fossil fuels.
10. The best plan is to slash the use of fossil
fuels in the United States and other
countries of the developed world, while
leaving the less developed world (including
Brazil, China and India) alone.
11. Use of fossil fuel can best be curtailed by
the exploitation of wind and solar power, and
by massive “conservation”.
12. Whatever this will cost, directly and
indirectly (and estimates range from
trillions of dollars to nothing at all), will
be less than the costs of the damage wrought
by continued warming.”

Regarding consensus:

“The second distinction I want to make is between general agreement, at least among scientists in a given field, and a complete convergence of opinion. When the majority of scientists agree that a theory in their domain is true, there is general agreement. But general agreement means that a significant minority of scientists still dissents. When a theory has survived repeated tests (ie. has predicted with great accuracy phenomena that are then confirmed empirically) and has been tremendously fruitful in guiding research, then virtually all scientists active in its domain agree, and there is complete convergence.”

Another word for convergence is consensus and it does not exist in the climate change debate.

“Nevertheless, it appears that many climatologists give evidence for the Narrow Theory-usually by showing that the carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere has a human stamp-but then essentially assuming that all the other theses of the Grand Theory follow automatically.”

The five types of people who reflexively support the Grand Theory:
1.people with a religious faith that dovetails
with the theory—pagan, neo-Romantic Greens
who worship Mother Earth, and believe that she
is being ravished by Corrupt Mankind.
2.open anticapitalists—socialists, Marxists,
anarchists and assorted other aging
revolutionaries pining for the Great
Communist Heaven that has heretofore eluded
them.
3.global redistributionist, Wilsonian liberals
and one-world bureaucrats. These people want
to end income inequality, even if it comes at
the price of ending global prosperity.
4.modern statist liberals. Modern liberals love
the extensive control of the economy that
taxation and regulation bring them.
5.individuals and corporations who stand to
gain financially from extensive regulation of
the energy industries.
{partial quotes above}

I would add a sixth but it would be perceived as a gratuitous insult by some.

Mr. Jason refutes the 12 theses of the Grand Theory one by one. It’s interesting reading.



Posted by: traveller at April 27, 2007 12:03 AM
Comment #218587

Traveller-
Climate is more generalized. You don’t need the resolution and precision required of a Weather Forecast. A sniper that misses by feet is a poor marksman. A bomber pilot who misses by feet is good at his job.

With a weather forecast, you’re giving specific predictions for specific days in specific places. It takes much higher resolution in both the modelling and the measuring to get those forecasts days in advance. What eventually defeats the weatherman is that weather at that scale is very sensitive to very small differences.

As you feed information into the equations, the results are fed back into the equation. The more you feed the results back, the larger small errors in measurement and interpolation blow up into larger ones.

However, if all you want to know is what the general activity of the system is, the system actually comes together in a pattern of sorts. Even the Butterfly Effect, the worlds most famous example of chaotic behavior has a certain measure of order to it, as exemplified by The Lorenz Attractor, which is based on the same equations.

The key is not to expect the system to make precise predictions. If you’ll note, nobody’s giving exact figures on what the temperature will be. We’re seeing ranges. We’re seeing different models applied. These people, especially in what’s considered to be the scientifically conservative IPCC report, are hedging and caveating all around. They’re not trying to give exact answers where they don’t exist.

As for Narrow Theory/Grand Theory?

That just seems like more rhetoric to me.
1) This warming, if it takes place, will be at least half as great as the warming that which took place between the end of the last ice age, and our present climate. Four or five degrees may not seem like much, but the system is complex enough to create profound changes from that.

2) Damn right it’s unlike most others. No other such warming has been cause by the actions of an intelligent lifeform.

3) This is pretty much the scientific consensus.

4) Straw man. Nobody says it will be without end, but they do say the change will accelerate if we don’t stabilize and reduce our emissions. The key here is defaults. At this point, the system is reinforcing a cooler climate, with the results of CO2 emissions forcing temperatures higher. At some point, scientists believe, the parts of the system will start reinforcing the warming, rather than resisting it. Then we’re in trouble.

5) You put more energy into the system, and it will get more frisky. You might not always see disasters of a biblical proportion, but you’ll get a lot more severe weather.

6) We don’t know what the favorable results might be. It’s a blind gamble that you can’t justify on the science. Sure it might be for the best, but it’s kind of hard to fix this if its mistake, now isn’t it?

7) We’ve been use to this basic climate for centuries. We’ve sited our cities, our agricultural centers, our infrastructure accordingly. It doesn’t benefit us to mess with that. Again, we don’t know what will come out of a warmer Earth, so we can’t plan ahead.

8) Yes, of course.

9) Not merely cutting those sources, but replacing them with others

10) Straw man. What you have to ask yourself is why anybody in the developing countries is going to take on these burdens while we sit on our asses. We lead by example. And if they don’t go along? Our reductions are better than no reductions at all. If we crank out efficient machinery and high technology, though, these people are going to want part of that.

11) That’s part of it. There are any number of things, though, that we haven’t even thought of, yet. That’s the purpose of research

12) A person counting costs for our time in the seventies would be working on assumptions based on the fact that computing involved whole big rooms of machines the size of refrigerators. Folks could not have forseen the development we’re witnessing now, because that development emerges from the nature of our system.

As technology changes the nature of what’s efficient and what’s not, the costs and the profits of how we act will change with them. fear of economic consequences in dealing with Global Warming, I feel underestimates the capacity of the free market to respond to changes in paradigm, and the capacity for directed attention towards technology to increase the efficiency of such approaches.

Regarding consensus, I would say this: it’s never complete. Sometimes its wrong. But rarely do you see such overwhelming consensus unless the results are bearing out the theory. The way contrarians grasp for dissents doesn’t yield itself to consistent countertheories. They’re just trying to inspire doubt where the results mostly inspire confidence.

The grand theory argument he’s using is a work of rhetoric, which paints a narrow picture of what our response to this real threat may be. It’s an argument against profound changes in policy

The fact that he so explicitly links it to political groups he considers to be supremely wrongheaded indicates the tenor of his argument. Rather than say that Global warming is not a problem, he’s going to say that the current policy to mitigate global warming is being produced by leftists and communists. He’s going to say that it’s all a means for them to grab power.

Here’s my take: The Right did not always have a problem with environmentalism. After all, Nixon founded the EPA, and Teddy Roosevelt the National Parks system. As long as the Right chooses to be contrarians on environmental issues, to back such claims, even in the face of the evidence, they will have no political muscle to moderate excess on the left with on these matters. This is just one of many paralyzing dissociations that the Republicans and those on the right have had with the attitudes of most Americans.

For my part, I think Americans are right not to wait for the right-wing to catch up. However, if the right were to step up to the plate, accept the science, and bring their values and wisdom to the table to match the lefts, then it will be best for everybody. That can’t be done, though, unless the Right breaks out of its rhetorical shell.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 27, 2007 8:40 AM
Comment #218604

Stephen D -
“I hate the term junk science…It’s a perjorative.”

There’s nothing wrong with using a perjorative if it fits. I’ll agree that much of the science used to conclude that the earth is warming is good science, but it is not all good science. Back a few years environmentalists gathered about a book “The Silent Stream”. That was junk science which has been proven mostly erroneous. Yet the results of that junk science are still seen and felt. (On the other side, some of those scientists which oppose the idea of global warming are also using junk science.)

“Republican leadership has gone to such great lengths to go after the tree-huggers, to discourage the open, active pursuite of environmentalism?”

I only barely agree with this. The Republican leadership has had to go after the “tree huggers” to such an extent only because the Democrats have not done anything about this wacky group. The tree huggers are way off base and need to be tempered, but no one on the left seems to want to do anything about it. Thus, the Republicans appear to be anti-environmentalists (tho’ they are not).

phx8 -

Notice that I was not saying it was a 50-50 divide between scientists who agree and those who disagree. I was merely responding to Andrew L. who said that “all” scientists say that mankind is causing global warming. I think you agree that not all scientists do agree on this, right?


Posted by: Don at April 27, 2007 12:07 PM
Comment #218644

Don-
I’m all for correcting bad science, but if you’ve seen some of the corrections on this page, you know why I’m skeptical of many of those claiming junk science. There’s a lot of people simply repeating stuff they’ve heard without making an effort to study the underlying science. To know junk science well, you have to know what real science is, and how it works.

The trouble with the use of the terms tree-hugger or junk science is that they often represent an implicit argument made without real evidence. Rush will call some environmentalists tree-huggers and make the same obnoxious straw-men arguments about shutting down New York, or sending us all back to the stone age to avoid the catastrophe. They’ll imply all kinds of sinister motives behind the science, and when their done, they’ll have thousands of their listeners repeating what they’ve heard without any real understanding of what their ridiculing.

I think what many on the right are missing is that Science is a discipline of making your best, most educated guess. All theories are tentative, have their limitations. The mysteries in science are by no means exhausted.

So why base policy on science that might be proven wrong within a decade?

I’d say first we should pay a good deal of attention to how well accepted a theory is. We should depend most in terms of policy upon those theories that have held up well over time, and which promise to be the most reliable for quite a while more.

But having said that, I think it would be good to remind people that we’re always having to manage business, society, the economy among other things on incomplete and partial information. To wait for certain on many things is to wait to long.

Taken together, we should balance the need for authoritative information with the need to be timely in our response to the world around us. I thing Global Warming Science at this point is good enough that despite the uncertainties we should take action.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 27, 2007 8:55 PM
Comment #218703

Stephen Daugherty,
I’m guessing you didn’t read Gary Jason’s article and your post is a knee jerk reaction to the excerpts I used in my post.
Mr. Jason’s use of the Grand Theory rhetorical device looks accurate to me based on what I’ve seen by reading the posts of the lemmings here on WB (including your own arguments), as well as the writings of the various alarmists that are so common nowadays, and studying the science.


“The fact that he so explicitly links it to political groups he considers to be supremely wrongheaded indicates the tenor of his argument. Rather than say that Global warming is not a problem, he’s going to say that the current policy to mitigate global warming is being produced by leftists and communists. He’s going to say that it’s all a means for them to grab power.”

Yes, that’s exactly what he says, as do I. The main thrust of his article is the way the debate about the theory is proceeding. To wit:

“More troubling still are the concerted efforts now being made to achieve complete convergence by means of political and economic force and mass-oriented propaganda. I call this ‘Global Stifling’, the oppression of the critics of global warming. A common warning sign of pseudoscience is the use of political or emotional coercion, instead of the force of evidence, to silence opponents of a pet theory.”

He discusses the bogus claims made about the funding of the thinktanks critical of the Church of Global Warming, (my phrase, not Mr. Jason’s) the threats of reprisal made by some members of Congress, and other examples.

Manmade global warming is a hoax. (Mr. Jason seems to accept part of it; I don’t) Climate change, however, is real. That’s what all the science you like to impress us with shows. It doesn’t show that man is causing it. That’s a politically driven assumption.
Climate change has caused man all kinds of problems throughout history, even wiping out entire civilizations (the Anasazi come to mind). There is no reason to believe it won’t happen again. We have to do what life has always had to do when environmental conditions change-adapt. To think that we can engineer the weather is the height of arrogance, foolishness and delusion.


It’s funny how the science is so solid, the consensus so thorough that there is no room for dissent (“the dabate is over”), yet the proponents of global warming won’t debate the skeptics. I would expect them to be foaming at the mouth waiting for the opportunity to tear the deniers apart.
Even your high priest, the Goracle, doesn’t seem to believe his own rhetoric. Twenty times the energy usage of the average American home, jetting atound the world in a private jet instead of using commercial air transport (economy of scale-a jet carrying 200 people instead of 1 swollen ego and an entourage of sychophants produces a lot less of the trace gases per unit that scare you so badly) and he buys “carbon offsets” (now there’s a scam to make Ponzi green with envy!)— from HIMSELF! (scam squared) Of course, cutting back and lowering your standard of living is just for the great unwashed masses, not for elite avatars like the Goracle. (Do as I say, not as I do) There’s a word for people like Gore-hypocrite.

btw-Nixon was no conservative (Republican and conservative aren’t the same thing) and TR was a progressive.

Posted by: traveller at April 29, 2007 12:09 AM
Comment #218768

Traveller-
Let me start from the end, and work to your beginning. Gore’s firm does not sell the global warming offsets. It buys them. It’s main business is looking for companies that do their business in eco-friendly ways.

Carbon Dioxide, though a trace gas by concentration, is a known greenhouse gas. People have actually experimentally confirmed CO2’s ability to trap heat. The gases that form most of our atomsphere, Nitrogen and Oxygen, trap heat poorly.

As for Gore’s house, he gets his power from renewables. That’s not hypocrisy. That’s putting his money where his mouth is.

We can’t engineer the weather, but we can affect the landscape and the climate. Read Jared Diamond’s Collapse, if you will. Iceland lost whole layers of productive volcanic soil because they didn’t farm it right.

The Anasazi, in particular, should interest you. Their surroundings were once more forested. They cut down all the forests, and low and behold, their civilization went into collapse. Same thing with the Easter Islanders.

The science on Global Warming has shown us that it’s very likely that the profound increases in Carbon Dioxide are our doing. They have shown us that the models for predicting the course of future climate successfully anticipated the direction of the climate in the last decade or so. They have also demonstrated that the CO2 will have an effect on the climate, and that proof of this lies in such things as the disproportionate heating that’s taking place during nighttime and up in the arctic and antarctic.

You claim its a hoax, but the critics have failed to produce a body of work capable of rebutting it all with a good countertheory.

You call people lemmings. You allege grand political conspiracies and spin the near concensus on the matter as something sinister. You do everything but answer what really matters: the science. You can’t vote on what’s right and what’s wrong in science. It either is or it isn’t. It doesn’t matter what kind of political group backs or doesn’t back the theory. Relativity did not revolutionize the world because the Democrats favored it at the time. It explained things better.

I can impress people with science because I understand what’s going on under the hood. If it’s all a hoax, what’s keeping the story straight? If people were lying, wouldn’t the models and everything be at complete variance? How do you get anything so complicated that it requires a supercomputer to model it to fit some preset result? And how do these hoax results, in these super complicated models happen to so closely resemble the course of climate in the real world? What kind of a hoax is it that actually comes true?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 29, 2007 9:32 PM
Comment #218770

Stephen Daugherty,
As for Gore’s house, he gets power generated by TVA in coal fired powerplants. (TVA also owns several nukes and dams. About 80% of their power is generated from coal)
Before I got my present job I worked the TVA powerplant circuit. (maintenance shutdowns)

“The science on Global Warming has shown us that it’s very likely that the profound increases in Carbon Dioxide are our doing. They have shown us that the models for predicting the course of future climate successfully anticipated the direction of the climate in the last decade or so. They have also demonstrated that the CO2 will have an effect on the climate, and that proof of this lies in such things as the disproportionate heating that’s taking place during nighttime and up in the arctic and antarctic.”

Yes, there is some increase in atmospheric CO2. Since in the past, increased CO2 has often lagged behind warming, sometimes by as much as 800 years, is it correct to assume that increased CO2 causes warming or that warming causes CO2 to increase? Two events occuring at roughly the same time does’t necessarily mean that one causes the other. The models haven’t predicted anything. The actual observed and measured conditions don’t match the predictions. The earth is in a warming trend, as has been well documented. Predicting warming during a warming trend isn’t real impressive. A ten year sample is within the margin of error. There is no “disproportionate” heating at night and at the poles. The science shows that what’s being observed has historical precedent and is expected in a warming trend.

Actually, there is a countertheory to the global warming hoax, but the alarmists are doing their best to suppress it. What we’re observing is a natural warming trend. It’s just that simple. There are many complex factors that determine climate, such as variations in solar radiance, gyroscopic precession of the poles, and variations in cosmic radiation to name just three of the hundreds of factors. The alarmists ignore all that and focus on one minor factor. They ignore geologic history to make panicked claims of catastrophe.

I do answer the science. It just doesn’t support the alarmist claims.

What a computer produces depends on what it’s fed. The data can be manipulated to produce whatever result is desired.
The global warming hoax started with a conclusion. (human activity is causing a runaway greenhouse) The original claim was that it would cause an ice age, since the earth was in a cooling trend at the time. Then reality dashed that claim. When the current warming trend started the alarmists jumped on that. Of course, the solution, and our salvation, is always the surrender of our liberty to an elite group.

“And how do these hoax results, in these super complicated models happen to so closely resemble the course of climate in the real world? What kind of a hoax is it that actually comes true?”

They don’t and it hasn’t.


http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070426/COL05/704260306/1009/EDIT

Posted by: traveller at April 29, 2007 10:53 PM
Comment #218786

TVA’s power generation percentages have changed. Fossil fuel use is now at 60%. With the global warming scare, environmentalists are demanding a reduction in fossil fuel use, prompting the restarting of nuclear units. Ironic, isn’t it?

Posted by: traveller at April 30, 2007 8:22 AM
Comment #218973

“Climate Change is a more accurate description than Global Warming because the change will not be uniform. Changing air and ocean currents will make a few places cooler, some wetter, others will experience drought, and so on.”

And this is different than the way climate has behaved for the past billion years in what way?
Why did they once grow vineyards in Britain during the middle ages but now it is far too cold for grapes in merry ole’ England?
What is causing global warming on Mars? Is the U.S. dumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere that it is now making its way to other planets? Or could it have more to do with the sun?

Posted by: Duane-o at May 1, 2007 8:08 PM
Post a comment