Kook Lies About ‘Lies’

Environment • Views: 11,729

Several people have emailed this article to me today, and it’s been posted in our spinoff links twice already: Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’.

The Telegraph’s Christopher Booker cites a Swedish “physicist,” Nils-Axel Mörner, who claims that every scientist and climate expert in the world is wrong, and that sea levels have not risen for 50 years.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, “the sea is not rising,” he says. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” If there is any rise this century it will “not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm”. And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on “going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world”.

So who is Nils-Axel Mörner, and how is he able to see these things that every other scientist in the world can’t?

Well, in addition to his activities “debunking” climate change, Mörner is also an enthusiast of dowsing and water witching.

And he has some very weird ideas about archaeology. See here, here, here, and here.

And he is associated with fringe wacko/antisemite/conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche. Here’s an interview (PDF) he did with the LaRouche publication Executive Intelligence Review.

And he is an “allied expert” with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a group that is controlled by energy industry lobbyists.

Verdict: there may be credible scientists raising valid objections to anthropogenic climate change theory, but Nils-Axel Mörner is not one of them. He’s a raving kook.

UPDATE at 3/30/09 6:03:03 pm:

And it gets worse; in 2004 Mörner misrepresented his professional position in a presentation to the Russian Academy of Sciences:

Dear Dr. Osipov:

It has come to my attention that Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner gave presentations at the seminar on climate change organized by the Russian Academy of Sciences at the request of President Vladimir Putin earlier this month. Dr. Mörner attacked the science of climate change, while claiming that he is President of the Commission on Sea Level Change of INQUA.

I am writing to inform you that Dr. Mörner has misrepresented his position with INQUA. Dr. Mörner was President of the Commission on Sea Level Change until July 2003, but the commission was terminated at that time during a reorganization of the commission structure of INQUA. Dr. Mörner currently has no formal position in INQUA, and I am distressed that he continues to represent himself in his former capacity. Further, INQUA, which is an umbrella organization for hundreds of researchers knowledgeable about past climate, does not subscribe to Mörner’s position on climate change. Nearly all of these researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth’s climate, a position diametrically opposed to Dr. Mörner’s point of view.

Sincerely,
John J. Clague
President, INQUA

Jump to bottom

569 comments
1 Kragar  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:52:55am

Sigh, you would think if the end end of the world was so bloody nie, we could get a better class of kooks

2 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:54:00am

re: #1 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Sigh, you would think if the end end of the world was so bloody nie, we could get a better class of kooks

Monty Python had much better ones in Life of Brian.
"And he shall wield a nine-bladed sword! Not six, or seven, but nine! Which he shall wield on all wretched sinners such as you !"

3 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:54:30am
4 Leonidas Hoplite  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:55:31am

Anyone know where I can get volcano insurance?

5 LGoPs  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:55:40am

Apparently he's all wet.

6 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:55:46am

Sadly, it seems people are not interested in the truth- they want propaganda to confirm their pre-existing opinions, and if that means turning to kooks, then that is what they will do. Very, very sad.

7 Last Mohican  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:55:48am

Excellent work as always, Charles. Thanks for helping to keep the debate rational, on both sides.

8 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:55:59am

re: #5 LGoPs

Apparently he's all wet.

I think he's all washed up.

9 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:56:49am

If we dumped all of these climatologists into the ocean would that make the seas rise precipitously?

/

10 JohnAdams  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:56:53am

Climate Change theories are like assholes.

11 Sheila Broflovski  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:57:01am

I should be cleaning my kitchen. I just cleaned out my car and the freezer. Why am I procrastinating? I was at the supermarket and saw everybody else with carts piled full of Passover food.

I'm probably going to end up spending like about a thousand dollars before the holiday is over. I NEED STIMULUS MONEY! PASSOVER BAILOUT!

Please buy stuff at the Zionist Mall.

12 Erik The Red  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:57:26am

re: #10 JohnAdams

Climate Change theories are like assholes.

We all have one////

13 itellu3times  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:57:29am

I am lying.

14 wrenchwench  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:58:00am

I appreciate your taking the time to sort out the kooks and back up your sorting, because some of us lack the time and patience to do that, Charles. And I hope goddessoftheclassroom will be along later o rewrite this post for me. Back to work.

15 badger1970  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:58:02am

re: #10 JohnAdams

...everyone has one.

Why do all the outer space cadets get the attention? Dousing, for real?

16 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:58:05am

Dowsing? James Randi would have a field day with this guy.

17 rightymouse  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:58:09am

re: #3 buzzsawmonkey

So essentially, whether or not he's correct about sea levels, he himself represents a level to which one would not wish to sink.

Anyone with half a brine knows this.

18 Macker  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:58:22am

re: #2 Kosh's Shadow

Monty Python had much better ones in Life of Brian.
"And he shall wield a nine-bladed sword! Not six, or seven, but nine! Which he shall wield on all wretched sinners such as you !"

DAMN! That's gotta provide one hell of a shave!

19 JohnAdams  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:58:39am

re: #11 Alouette

I should be cleaning my kitchen. I just cleaned out my car and the freezer. Why am I procrastinating? I was at the supermarket and saw everybody else with carts piled full of Passover food.

I'm probably going to end up spending like about a thousand dollars before the holiday is over. I NEED STIMULUS MONEY! PASSOVER BAILOUT!

Please buy stuff at the Zionist Mall.

When is Passover this year? Isn't it usually the same weekend as Easter (having to do with moon cycles or something)?

20 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:58:42am

re: #16 Ward Cleaver

Dowsing? James Randi would have a field day with this guy.

He already did! The link for "dowsing" is to Randi's site...

21 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:59:05am

I just don't sea what he seas.

22 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:59:22am

re: #20 Charles

He already did! The link for "dowsing" is to Randi's site...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

23 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:59:23am

The following statement is true.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The preceding statement is false.

24 rightymouse  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:59:31am

re: #6 Sharmuta

Sadly, it seems people are not interested in the truth- they want propaganda to confirm their pre-existing opinions, and if that means turning to kooks, then that is what they will do. Very, very sad.

OT - did you hear that the Florida tea party is back on? I believe they got bailed out by Gingrich's group?

25 Catttt  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:59:58am

re: #21 Ward Cleaver

I just don't sea what he seas.

He's in over his head!

26 Catttt  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:00:27am

re: #23 Ford_Prefect

The following statement is true.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The preceding statement is false.

I always lie. I am lying about that.

27 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:00:28am

re: #25 Catttt

He's in over his head!

Are you a-salt-ing his theories?

28 albusteve  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:00:31am

a crock is right twice a day...

29 raven1  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:00:53am

I will believe the seas are rising when all the properties set back from the beaches skyrocket in value. Follow the money.

30 badger1970  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:00:57am

For you punsters... Bawdiness and the Pun

31 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:00:58am

"Aliens? Bio-duplication? Nude conspiracies? My god, Lyndon LaRouche was right!"
Homer Simpson

32 SasquatchOnSteroids  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:01:04am

re: #4 Leonidas Hoplite

Anyone know where I can get volcano insurance?

AIG

33 Erik The Red  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:01:08am

For every report/study that proves man made climate change/earth doom, there are equal or more that dis-spell it.
Why can't we find/report the credible ones?

34 avanti  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:01:22am

I agree about the rational debate, but it's not that popular with some. Here's a comment about Charles from a reader of the Washington Times:

"Unless you're on Little Green Footballs - Charles Johnson only allows the echo-chamber posters on his site. But he's not a conservative, but rather a leftist plant designed to split fiscal conservatives from social conservatives, water down the GOP vote. Good scam tho...

Stick with Powerline, or here at the WaTimes."

Times
The link was posted because someone must think I'm on the Obama payroll.

35 jorline  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:01:43am

Nils-Axel Mörner is living proof that lightning does strike more than once in the same spot.

Clue...leave the tinfoil hat off during thunder storms.

36 MandyManners  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:02:01am

re: #13 itellu3times

I am lying.

I met a man from Crete who said all Cretans are liars.

37 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:02:33am

These rising seas have not evolved over time, they were created!

*ducks and runs

38 Erik The Red  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:02:40am

re: #33 Erik The Red

For every report/study that proves man made climate change/earth doom, there are equal or more that dis-spell it.
Why can't we find/report the credible ones?

Disprove.

PIMF

39 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:02:48am

re: #32 SasquatchOnSteroids

AIG

In Baton Rouge, contact agent Bobby Jindal.

40 midwestgak  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:04:26am

re: #35 jorline


{jorline} You've got mail. :)

41 MJ  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:05:31am

"And he is associated with fringe wacko/antisemite/conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche."

The LaRouchites are getting around. Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation’ss national security correspondent was/is their Middle East editor of Lyndon LaRouche’s newspaper.

[Link: www.commentarymagazine.com...]

42 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:06:01am

re: #34 avanti

I dinged you down because this is not about you.

43 zombie  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:06:19am
Verdict: there may be credible scientists raising valid objections to anthropogenic climate change theory, but Nils-Axel Mörner is not one of them. He’s a raving kook.

Just because this one guy (whom I've never heard of) is kooky, does not mean that this particular thesis (that the sea levels are not rising) is false.

I've actually done a bunch of research on this topic, and in this particular case, he's right:

The sea levels are not rising, or are rising a very tiny amount at most.

This is obvious at any location along the California coast, especially places like here in San Francisco area, where shoreline structures built in the 19th century are at the exact same position in relation to the water line that they were 140 years ago.

The sea level may indeed be going up a few inches per century, but it is nothing that any individual person would ever be able to notice in his lifetime. And ALL of the "doomsday scenarios" promoted by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth are completely laughable: he shows millions of third worlders streaming inland, fleeing from the onrushing waves. Gimme a break. If the sea levels do rise, even anywhere near what Gore is saying, it will literally be centimeter by centimeter, over decades.

Don't discredit a theory just because a kook believes in it. I'm quite sure that Charles Manson accepts the fact the sun rises in the east every morning -- but his acceptance of it doesn't make it untrue.

44 LGoPs  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:06:25am

re: #13 itellu3times

I am lying.

How do we know you're not lying about lying? Hunh?

45 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:06:46am

Mark Twain on lies:

"The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers if a man only tells them with all his might."

"Carlyle said "a lie cannot live." It shows that he did not know how to tell them."

"Lie--an abomination before the Lord and an ever present help in time of trouble."

46 SasquatchOnSteroids  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:07:12am

I should take this guy golfing, he could save me a fortune.

47 Erik The Red  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:07:16am

re: #42 Sharmuta

I dinged you down because this is not about you.

I dinged him down just because he is who he is.

48 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:09:01am

re: #47 Erik The Red

I'm tired of him derailing threads so we can all discuss him. This is the last I'm going to say on the subject too, because in even saying this, the discussion has yet again reverted to discussing avanti. Let us instead discuss the topic.

49 JohnAdams  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:09:20am

re: #43 zombie

My neighbor is bat-shit crazy but he keeps a nice lawn.

50 Racer X  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:09:29am

Global Warmening™ is real.

But then again, so is Global Cooling™

Its a cycle.

51 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:09:30am

re: #42 Sharmuta

I dinged you down because this is not about you.

It's not? WAAAAAAAAH!

52 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:09:37am

re: #34 avanti

I agree about the rational debate, but it's not that popular with some. Here's a comment about Charles from a reader of the Washington Times:

"Unless you're on Little Green Footballs - Charles Johnson only allows the echo-chamber posters on his site. But he's not a conservative, but rather a leftist plant designed to split fiscal conservatives from social conservatives, water down the GOP vote. Good scam tho...

Stick with Powerline, or here at the WaTimes."

Times
The link was posted because someone must think I'm on the Obama payroll.

That's what you get when you try to be responsible these days. I'm now being smeared by both the left and the right.

53 jamgarr  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:09:40am

OT - Sorry for the early OT, but it's my only chance to post for awhile

Chris Cillizza (D - Washington Post) was just on Andrea Mitchells' MSNBC show. He gave his insight into one of the important issues in what he called "the first four years of the Obama administration".

LOL!

54 Digital Display  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:09:57am

re: #34 avanti

You're out of line.. Have you ever come here and not tried to stir up shit?
Ever? So you run around the blogs to find something or someone to insult our Host? Then you run over here and post it..
My advise to you is to go over to LGF2 and get to know the posters over there because that blog is your destiny Luke.

55 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:10:11am

re: #50 Racer X

Global Warmening™ is real.

But then again, so is Global Cooling™

Its a cycle.

We used to call it "the weather."

56 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:10:20am

re: #48 Sharmuta

I'm tired of him derailing threads so we can all discuss him. This is the last I'm going to say on the subject too, because in even saying this, the discussion has yet again reverted to discussing avanti. Let us instead discuss the topic.

Indeed.

57 Macker  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:10:33am

re: #52 Charles

That's what you get when you try to be responsible these days. I'm now being smeared by both the left and the right.

Then you MUST be doing something which is right, because you've (rightfully) pissed off the extremists on both sides of the aisle!

58 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:10:42am

re: #55 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

We used to call it "the weather."

That's not technical enough.

59 Dianna  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:10:47am

re: #24 rightymouse

OT - did you hear that the Florida tea party is back on? I believe they got bailed out by Gingrich's group?

Unfortunately, it was the Paul-bots.

60 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:10:55am

re: #52 Charles

That's what you get when you try to be responsible these days. I'm now being smeared by both the left and the right.

That means you are telling the truth.

61 jcm  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:11:02am

Maybe a dowser would have more luck finding sanity inside the beltway than any method used to date.

//////////

62 seekeroftruth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:11:22am

re: #34 avanti

Whether you are or are not who they are talking about in this article, you use the same derailing of the discussion that the article talks about.
Who give a damn about some dumb comment left at the bottom of the article. It is not necessary nor does it serve a purpose to post something insulting about the host of this blog.

63 Russkilitlover  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:11:37am

re: #52 Charles

That's what you get when you try to be responsible these days. I'm now being smeared by both the left and the right.

After publishing Peasants, Chekhov was hammered by both the left and the right. He said that's when you know you hit the mark.

64 LGoPs  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:11:40am

re: #55 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

We used to call it "the weather."

Leave it to the left to politicize everything. Sheesh.

65 Dianna  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:11:47am

re: #52 Charles

That's what you get when you try to be responsible these days. I'm now being smeared by both the left and the right.

I'm so sorry. This is revolting.

66 scottishbuzzsaw  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:12:21am

re: #52 Charles

That's what you get when you try to be responsible these days. I'm now being smeared by both the left and the right.

It's time for the Anti-idiotarian Party.

Please.

67 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:13:00am

re: #56 Ward Cleaver

The politicization of science is very troubling. It needs less kooks, not more.

68 Raven1  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:13:35am

re: #49 JohnAdams

My neighbor is bat-shit crazy but he keeps a nice lawn.

Must be the guano.

69 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:13:49am

re: #67 Sharmuta

The politicization of science is very troubling. It needs less kooks, not more.

You might say there are too many kooks in the kitchen.

70 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:13:59am

re: #63 Russkilitlover

After publishing Peasants, Chekhov was hammered by both the left and the right. He said that's when you know you hit the mark.

It's true. I don't think the socialist republicans like having the spotlight turned on them.

71 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:14:15am

re: #69 Ford_Prefect

Upding- very clever.

72 HDrepub  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:14:22am

If all the ice floating in the Arctic Sea should melt, the sea level wouldn't rise a wit, since this ice is already displacing the water it's floating in, just like the ice in your tea or whatever doesn't make your drink flow over the top when it melts. If all the land based ice should melt it could make some difference, but how much of this ice is there?

73 Racer X  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:14:28am

Clowns to the left, Jokers to the right.

74 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:14:42am

BTW- we have a sexist kook on the Horowitz thread.

75 JohnAdams  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:14:57am

re: #55 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

We used to call it "the weather."

It shall heretofore be called the "Outside Regulated Irreversible Climate Arrangment Contingency." Please note.

76 LGoPs  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:15:23am

re: #67 Sharmuta

The politicization of science is very troubling. It needs less kooks, not more.

The politicization of everything is troubling. It makes one start doubting everything they hear......which is probably one of the hidden agendas behind the left's obsession to do just that.

77 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:15:23am

If you have an account at the Washington Times, please go use their feature to mark that comment as offensive. It's here: Washington Times - BREITBART: Online activists on the right, unite!

By: smallgovt
We call them Mobys on line, pretty easy to spot. What's different on the right is that other conseravtives bash them, not join them as happens on the left.

Unless you're on Little Green Footballs - Charles Johnson only allows the echo-chamber posters on his site. But he's not a conservative, but rather a leftist plant designed to split fiscal conservatives from social conservatives, water down the GOP vote. Good scam tho...

Stick with Powerline, or here at the WaTimes.

March 30, 2009 at 1:46 p.m. %P% Mark as Offensive

78 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:15:37am

re: #63 Russkilitlover

After publishing Peasants, Chekhov was hammered by both the left and the right. He said that's when you know you hit the mark.

Was that the one with "nuclear wessels?"
/

79 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:16:14am

re: #52 Charles

You have to know you're doing something right when extremists of every stripe hate you. Keep it up Charles!

Good catch on this Mörner kook.

80 seekeroftruth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:16:30am

re: #52 Charles

That's what you get when you try to be responsible these days. I'm now being smeared by both the left and the right.

Charles - I did not read the comments when I post the link this morning. I posted because of the context of the article. I do apologize to you for posting something that is hurtful to you within the comments.
And as for Avanti , it was not necessary at all for that or any other comment in that article to have been posted. I resent his turning an interesting article into an excuse to insult you.

81 Last Mohican  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:16:33am

re: #52 Charles

That's what you get when you try to be responsible these days. I'm now being smeared by both the left and the right.

I'm not exactly sure when this started happening. I could swear that, back in my childhood, the general sense in America was that the more highly valued political views were the ones that sounded sensible, rational, considered, intelligent, balanced, and untainted by extremism. Now, participating in American politics is like being a fan at a college basketball game. The more you paint your face and bare chest in your side's colors, put on a crazy wig, jump up and down, and scream unintelligible stuff as loud as you can, the more respected you are.

82 ArchangelMichael  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:16:37am

re: #72 HDrepub

If all the ice floating in the Arctic Sea should melt, the sea level wouldn't rise a wit, since this ice is already displacing the water it's floating in, just like the ice in your tea or whatever doesn't make your drink flow over the top when it melts. If all the land based ice should melt it could make some difference, but how much of this ice is there?

To be fair, those who advance the sea level raising concerns who aren't kneejerk moonbats or teh Goracle, are concerned with Antarctica's and Greenland's ice melting and flowing into the sea, not the northern polar ice cap.

83 Taqiyyotomist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:16:46am

Charles was designed? LOL!

84 MandyManners  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:16:47am

re: #61 jcm

Maybe a dowser would have more luck finding sanity inside the beltway than any method used to date.

//////////

I'm close to giving it a whirl.

85 lawhawk  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:17:36am

re: #73 Racer X

Clowns to the left, Jokers to the right.

I'll hold on to your ear, thank you very much though. /Mr. Blonde

86 Dianna  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:17:36am

re: #74 Sharmuta

BTW- we have a sexist kook on the Horowitz thread.

*Moan*

I can't bear it!

87 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:18:00am

re: #73 Racer X

Stuck in the middle with you...

88 jcm  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:18:07am

re: #84 MandyManners

I'm close to giving it a whirl.

As long as you don't twirl, my heart can't take it......
;-P

89 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:18:09am

re: #86 Dianna

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

90 jcm  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:19:24am

re: #74 Sharmuta

BTW- we have a sexist kook on the Horowitz thread.

And Stinky hits another one out of the park... going.. going.. gone!

91 Ojoe  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:19:58am

The Monterey Cypress tree has only a small native grove which is the upper remnant of a much bigger range which is now under the sea.

Nature changes a lot, we should expect it.

92 doppelganglander  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:20:18am

re: #77 Charles

I tried to, but there is no "Mark as Offensive" link on that post. There's one on all the other posts, though.

93 avanti  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:20:45am

re: #54 HoosierHoops

You're out of line.. Have you ever come here and not tried to stir up shit?
Ever? So you run around the blogs to find something or someone to insult our Host? Then you run over here and post it..
My advise to you is to go over to LGF2 and get to know the posters over there because that blog is your destiny Luke.

I was not insulting Charles, I was praising him. He sticks to the facts, and get flack from all sides for doing it. Charles is the poster boy for rational politics IMHO.

94 rightymouse  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:20:45am

re: #59 Dianna

Unfortunately, it was the Paul-bots.

Sorry about that. Gingrich's outfit is Americansolutions. Didn't know that Freedomworks was made up of Paul-bots.

95 HDrepub  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:21:14am

re: #82 ArchangelMichael

To be fair, those who advance the sea level raising concerns who aren't kneejerk moonbats or teh Goracle, are concerned with Antarctica's and Greenland's ice melting and flowing into the sea, not the northern polar ice cap.

Which is why I made the differentation between the two. But if you'll notice the kneejerkers always want to talk about the Arctic ice diminishing, and Al Gore has used this as you say. Greenland has a history of climate change, and was colonized somewhat by Nordic peoples when the climate was more mild there than today, but left as the climate became more severe.

96 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:21:20am

re: #42 Sharmuta

I dinged you up because that was funny.

97 LGoPs  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:21:28am

re: #81 Last Mohican

I'm not exactly sure when this started happening. I could swear that, back in my childhood, the general sense in America was that the more highly valued political views were the ones that sounded sensible, rational, considered, intelligent, balanced, and untainted by extremism. Now, participating in American politics is like being a fan at a college basketball game. The more you paint your face and bare chest in your side's colors, put on a crazy wig, jump up and down, and scream unintelligible stuff as loud as you can, the more respected you are.

I wonder if it's not an inevitable by-product of the increasing complexity of life, fuede by the revolutionary access to information we have. Acces to information is good, but the ability to digest it is finite and thus perhaps people become susceptible to the loudest, most obnoxious voice in the room, as well as to the simplest distillation of those voices as represented by the left's penchant for style over substance and bumper sticker sized slogans........

98 Taqiyyotomist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:21:49am

re: #89 Sharmuta

Wow. I really hate it when people misuse 1500's English. Idiots, you don't just put "eth" after every other word. It makes you sound as if you have had no education, have never read the Bible (KJV, NASB95, et al.), or Shakespeare. Pisses me off almost as much as "could care less".

99 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:21:54am

re: #74 Sharmuta

BTW- we have a sexist kook on the Horowitz thread.

Not any more.

100 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:22:09am

re: #99 Charles

Thanks.

101 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:22:43am

Lyndon LaRouche says it all, he's famous for pseudo-science lies (going all the way back to the 80's)

102 Russkilitlover  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:22:51am

re: #89 Sharmuta

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

I wonder what such blatent proof of Neanderthals living among us will do to our evolution/creation threads.

103 LGoPs  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:23:05am

re: #97 LGoPs

I wonder if it's not an inevitable by-product of the increasing complexity of life, fuede fueled by the revolutionary access to information we have. Acces to information is good, but the ability to digest it is finite and thus perhaps people become susceptible to the loudest, most obnoxious voice in the room, as well as to the simplest distillation of those voices as represented by the left's penchant for style over substance and bumper sticker sized slogans........

PIMF

104 Ojoe  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:23:24am

re: #102 Russkilitlover

Not to mention all the Sasquatches.

105 avanti  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:23:26am

re: #42 Sharmuta

I dinged you down because this is not about you.

No need to explain the downding, but let me be clear, I was praising Charles.

106 Wishing  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:23:34am

Way to go, Stinky!

107 Lincolntf  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:23:40am

Ughhhh, I just got off the phone with a friend up in MA. His family business (a landscaping/nursery operation) has been in business since around WWII. By far the most popular/successful company of it's type in the area. Anyway, the patriarch of the family passed away not too long ago and the family was dead set on keeping it running. They just announced that they are closing down for good.
The reason? The estate taxes levied on my friend's dead grandfather (who started the company and kept it in business throughout the intervening 60 years) made it impossible for them to stay solvent. Some days I really hate the Government.

Sorry for the OT, but I had to vent a bit.

108 zombie  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:23:51am

Charles:

Verdict: there may be credible scientists raising valid objections to anthropogenic climate change theory...

re: #50 Racer X

Global Warmening™ is real.

But then again, so is Global Cooling™

Its a cycle.

As I posted a while ago, I had to write what was essentially a research "position paper" a few months back about various environmental issues, and for the first time I really looked at the anthropogenic climate change theory. With an open mind.

I came to the inescapable conclusion that at least 95% of the published material on human-caused climate change is itself just as kooky and ridiculous as Mörner, but because it toes the "Global Warming" line, it doesn't get challenged. The REAL truth is that we simply don't have anywhere near enough data to draw ANY valid conclusions. Global warming and global cooling happens on geologic time scales, and we are basically dealing with about 50 years of reliable temperature measurements. We need hundreds of years of solid data before we can really start thinking about drawing conclusions and making projections. Because that's what this is all about -- projections. As of this moment, the sea levels have not risen and the globe has not gotten significantly warmer (less that ONE DEGREE over the last CENTURY). We don't know if CO2 levels rise AS A CONSEQUENCE of global warming, or if (as Gore posits) CO2 is a major CAUSE of global warming. Solar cycles, ice caps, yadda yadda, you've all heard it before.

Anyway, I wrote a very skeptical analysis about the whole current state of knowledge, and got in hot water for it. A moonbat organization deleted that section from the report. Not because they coiuld prove me wrong, but because it was simply un-PC to say what I was saying.

I experienced first-hand the lockstep Orwellian groupthink that has taken ahold of our society when it comes to this topic. Honest unbiased views are forbidden. If you doubt, you are a "Denier."

109 MandyManners  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:23:51am

re: #77 Charles

If you have an account at the Washington Times, please go use their feature to mark that comment as offensive. It's here: Washington Times - BREITBART: Online activists on the right, unite!

I guarantee you that is from someone you've banned.

110 Raven1  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:23:59am

re: #97 LGoPs

I wonder if it's not an inevitable by-product of the increasing complexity of life, fuede by the revolutionary access to information we have. Acces to information is good, but the ability to digest it is finite and thus perhaps people become susceptible to the loudest, most obnoxious voice in the room, as well as to the simplest distillation of those voices as represented by the left's penchant for style over substance and bumper sticker sized slogans........

Yeah, like the squeaky wheel getting the oil.

111 sattv4u2  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:24:04am

OT ,, and yet anothre PARAGON OF VIRTUE nominted by Obama for a gov't post

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s nominee for secretary of the Navy was involved in a divorce that drew national attention for his secret taping of a conversation between his wife and his family priest that he used against her in court proceedings.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

112 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:24:13am

re: #105 avanti

Had you left yourself out of that comment, I might have given you an upding.

113 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:24:13am

re: #101 Thanos

Lyndon LaRouche says it all, he's famous for pseudo-science lies (going all the way back to the 80's)

His street corner nutters are always good for a larf.

114 Ojoe  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:24:42am

re: #107 Lincolntf

The "death tax" is so wrong.

115 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:24:57am

re: #92 doppelganglander

I tried to, but there is no "Mark as Offensive" link on that post. There's one on all the other posts, though.

Hmm. They must remove that link once someone uses it to report a comment. Weird way to do it.

116 Taqiyyotomist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:25:17am

re: #105 avanti

No need to explain the downding, but let me be clear, I was praising Charles.

1. Clarity should have been a priority in the original comment, especially given the reputation you enjoy here.

2. Let me be clear: doesn't Obama say that a lot?

117 KenJen  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:25:26am

If Al Gore can win the Nobel so could this guy. Dont be suprised.

118 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:25:28am

re: #34 avanti

I up-dinged you for posting that link. I understand that you were not endorsing the content of the comment at Wash-times.

Folks might want to reverse their down-dings on Avanti for this.

119 Russkilitlover  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:25:58am

re: #111 sattv4u2

OT ,, and yet anothre PARAGON OF VIRTUE nominted by Obama for a gov't post

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s nominee for secretary of the Navy was involved in a divorce that drew national attention for his secret taping of a conversation between his wife and his family priest that he used against her in court proceedings.


[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Oh, brother. What a disgusting piece of slime. (I'll leave you all to figure out if I'm referring to Obama or his nominee ;} )

120 jcm  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:26:20am

re: #114 Ojoe

The "death tax" is so wrong.


The dead don't complain.....

It's the living that cause the problem.....

121 Last Mohican  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:26:54am

re: #72 HDrepub

If all the ice floating in the Arctic Sea should melt, the sea level wouldn't rise a wit, since this ice is already displacing the water it's floating in, just like the ice in your tea or whatever doesn't make your drink flow over the top when it melts. If all the land based ice should melt it could make some difference, but how much of this ice is there?

That's an interesting point. Interesting enough that I decided to go and read about it.

Apparently, the sea level indeed does not rise when floating icebergs melt. The problem with the icebergs, supposedly, is not that they might melt, but rather that more of them might be created.

As temperatures rise, pieces of ice that now cover the land masses of Greenland and Antartica could be weakened enough that they break off and become floating icebergs. As such, they'd start displacing some water, and make the sea level rise. So to continue the analogy, if you were sitting out on your porch in early Springtime, and the ice cubes in your lemonade started melting, it wouldn't make your cup overflow. But if the warming temperature caused an icicle to break off of your roof and fall into your cup, then you would end up spilling. So goes the theory.

122 Raven1  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:27:02am

re: #107 Lincolntf

Ughhhh, I just got off the phone with a friend up in MA. His family business (a landscaping/nursery operation) has been in business since around WWII. By far the most popular/successful company of it's type in the area. Anyway, the patriarch of the family passed away not too long ago and the family was dead set on keeping it running. They just announced that they are closing down for good.
The reason? The estate taxes levied on my friend's dead grandfather (who started the company and kept it in business throughout the intervening 60 years) made it impossible for them to stay solvent. Some days I really hate the Government.

Sorry for the OT, but I had to vent a bit.

re: #107 Lincolntf

Ughhhh, I just got off the phone with a friend up in MA. His family business (a landscaping/nursery operation) has been in business since around WWII. By far the most popular/successful company of it's type in the area. Anyway, the patriarch of the family passed away not too long ago and the family was dead set on keeping it running. They just announced that they are closing down for good.
The reason? The estate taxes levied on my friend's dead grandfather (who started the company and kept it in business throughout the intervening 60 years) made it impossible for them to stay solvent. Some days I really hate the Government.

Sorry for the OT, but I had to vent a bit.

That would be Shrewsbury Nursery you are talking about. Another success story down the drain in our coward new world.

123 Lincolntf  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:27:07am

re: #114 Ojoe

I know. I'm half-pissed and half-depressed about it.
The only thing the old guy wanted was to pass the business onto his family. In some way, I suppose it's fortunate that he died not knowing that the State would destroy his company.

124 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:27:11am

re: #114 Ojoe

The "death tax" is so wrong.

My advice to those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm The Taxman
-George Harrison

125 sattv4u2  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:27:13am

re: #120 jcm

The dead don't complain.....

It's the living that cause the problem.....

They're working on fixing that !

126 Dianna  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:27:37am

re: #89 Sharmuta

Oh, no. Another person who fails to remember his Kipling.

127 Ojoe  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:27:53am

re: #108 zombie

We are perhaps temporarily staving off the next ice age with our Co2 belching, but even that would be hard to prove.

I have not seen any study that shown that the earth has left behind its recent glacial - interglacial phase, which is a new thing from the geologic perspective.

128 Lincolntf  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:28:11am

re: #122 Raven1

Yes, it's Shrewsbury Nurseries. You from up there?

129 Last Mohican  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:28:24am

re: #107 Lincolntf

What a shame.

Personally, I've never understood why there should be an estate tax at all. When someone dies, every penny they have was already taxed when they earned it. Why does it need to be taxed again?

130 avanti  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:28:25am

re: #80 seekeroftruth


And as for Avanti , it was not necessary at all for that or any other comment in that article to have been posted. I resent his turning an interesting article into an excuse to insult you.


GET A FRIGGIN GRIP, I was not insulting Charles, he posts the loonie rights attacks on him just as I did. Don't assume that because I'm on the left I don't admire the way Charles thinks. Even if I did not, I'd have to be pretty stupid to crap on Charles living room carpet with my reputation on here.

131 Raven1  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:29:00am

re: #128 Lincolntf

Yes, it's Shrewsbury Nurseries. You from up there?

Yes sir, Worcester.

132 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:29:08am

re: #118 Kenneth

I up-dinged you for posting that link. I understand that you were not endorsing the content of the comment at Wash-times.

Folks might want to reverse their down-dings on Avanti for this.

I would except he tried to make it about himself as well. It's not about him. If he wants to have Charles' back, I support that, but that's not an open invitation to make it about himself too.

133 doppelganglander  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:29:08am

re: #115 Charles

Hmm. They must remove that link once someone uses it to report a comment. Weird way to do it.

I registered and posted (under a different nic, as I don't want to be stalked).

134 Dianna  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:29:25am

re: #113 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

His street corner nutters are always good for a larf.

I once had one tell me that if I were interested in souls - I was reading Lois McMaster Bujold's Paladin of Souls - I should be following LaRouche.

I didn't quite fall off the curb. But it was close.

135 sattv4u2  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:30:10am

re: #133 doppelganglander

I registered and posted (under a different nic, as I don't want to be stalked).

Too late,,,, i'm sitting in an unmarked van outside your house right now!

//

136 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:30:30am

re: #134 Dianna

I once had one tell me that if I were interested in souls - I was reading Lois McMaster Bujold's Paladin of Souls - I should be following LaRouche.

I didn't quite fall off the curb. But it was close.

I politely refused a flyer from one of them & he started screaming at me - "It must be nice to live in your dream world!"

137 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:30:34am

re: #130 avanti

Here's a bit of advice- next time, don't bring yourself into it.

138 Dianna  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:30:35am

re: #129 Last Mohican

What a shame.

Personally, I've never understood why there should be an estate tax at all. When someone dies, every penny they have was already taxed when they earned it. Why does it need to be taxed again?

Because there is nothing hated as much as the very notion of inherited wealth.

139 Wishing  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:30:42am

re: #135 sattv4u2

Too late,,,, i'm sitting in an unmarked van outside your house right now!

//

LOL

140 Lincolntf  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:30:48am

re: #131 Raven1

Me too. Tatnuck Square.

141 avanti  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:30:57am

re: #112 Sharmuta

Had you left yourself out of that comment, I might have given you an upding.

I get that, but I put it in to try and show how I'd found the link. I didn't want anyone to think I was looking for nasty crap about Charles.

142 albusteve  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:31:29am

when is Charles gonna put up a thread about albusteve?

143 Raven1  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:31:41am

re: #128 Lincolntf

Yes, it's Shrewsbury Nurseries. You from up there?

What is very sad, a young male descendant has his photo on the front page of the Worcester Telegram asking anyone for a job.

144 Wishing  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:32:03am

re: #142 albusteve

when is Charles gonna put up a thread about albusteve?

You have to learn how to swipe one: watch avanti.

145 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:32:11am

re: #137 Sharmuta

Here's a bit of advice- next time, don't bring yourself into it.

pssst. I thought we weren't talking about 'you know who' anymore?

146 doppelganglander  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:32:15am

re: #135 sattv4u2

Too late,,,, i'm sitting in an unmarked van outside your house right now!

//

I did not look out the window. No, really, I didn't.

147 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:32:42am

re: #141 avanti

There are better ways to show you're exposing BS about Charles while demonstrating you're not endorsing the attack. Many of us here do it, and no one thinks less of them for it.

148 midwestgak  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:32:59am

re: #135 sattv4u2

Too late,,,, i'm sitting in an unmarked van outside your house right now!

//

Is it the blue van down by the river?

--Chris Farley classic salesman spiel.

149 HDrepub  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:33:04am

re: #138 Dianna

Because there is nothing hated as much as the very notion of inherited wealth.

"Taxman"

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me

150 LGoPs  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:33:04am

re: #108 zombie

The REAL truth is that we simply don't have anywhere near enough data to draw ANY valid conclusions. Global warming and global cooling happens on geologic time scales, and we are basically dealing with about 50 years of reliable temperature measurements. We need hundreds of years of solid data before we can really start thinking about drawing conclusions and making projections.

I think that is the salient point. The fact that we are looking at a tiny subset of measurements and yet proposing draconian measures to redress them. Al Gore's rant that "the debate is over" is what particularly sticks in my craw. Hell, the debate hasn't even started yet. The PC nazi reaction to your paper sums up all anyone needs to know about the dangers of unthinkingly going down this GW road. People of good intent on both sides of the argument should acknowledge this point.

151 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:33:11am
152 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:33:30am

re: #145 Ford_Prefect

pssst. I thought we weren't talking about 'you know who' anymore?

I know. I think I'll go make a cup of coffee or something.

153 godfrey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:33:41am

Dowsing?!

154 Raven1  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:33:42am

re: #140 Lincolntf

Me too. Tatnuck Square.

Tatnuck Square! My brother delivers mail there, and I do a lot of hiking up the road on Asnebumskit Hill.

155 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:33:50am

re: #132 Sharmuta

I don't think Obama is any more or less self-centered than any other commenter here. I have down-dinged the guy plenty myself as I disagree with his political views. But as far as I can tell, he's an honest debater and respectful to everybody. Far better than the likes of nodrog.

156 Taqiyyotomist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:34:01am

re: #149 HDrepub

It's almost hard to believe the Beatles wrote that.

157 avanti  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:34:08am

re: #132 Sharmuta

I would except he tried to make it about himself as well. It's not about him. If he wants to have Charles' back, I support that, but that's not an open invitation to make it about himself too.

OK, I apologize to Charles and all the lizards for the unintended comment about me contained in the post.

158 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:34:26am

re: #152 Sharmuta

I know. I think I'll go make a cup of coffee or something.

Gees, it's always about you isn't it?

/////

159 Wishing  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:34:47am

re: #155 Kenneth

I don't think Obama is any more or less self-centered than any other commenter here. I have down-dinged the guy plenty myself as I disagree with his political views. But as far as I can tell, he's an honest debater and respectful to everybody. Far better than the likes of nodrog.

Interesting Freudian slip there...

160 Lincolntf  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:34:55am

re: #143 Raven1

Oh jeez. I'll have to go look at that. But not now. I'm already nauseated by what my buddy told me, I can't take any more at the moment.

161 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:35:01am

re: #89 Sharmuta

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

All of 5 posts at the stick, and he takes on Charles and you. We used to get a better class of troll around here.
/

162 godfrey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:35:09am

I'd like to know more about Booker. He's written a pretty well-researched book on the origins of the EU.

163 albusteve  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:35:16am

re: #156 Taqiyyotomist

It's almost hard to believe the Beatles wrote that.

why?...the Rolling Stones simply left England for years as did many others...they were taxed at like 90%

164 KenJen  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:36:16am

I was listening to the Weather Channel last night. They have a series called It Could Happen Tomorrow. I swear I heard them blaming lawn watering on an earthquake that may happen in Las Vegas that would kill 80% of the population.

165 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:36:17am
166 Dianna  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:36:20am

re: #151 buzzsawmonkey

I'm not particularly hepped on the notion of inherited poverty, myself. I would think that most parents would not be, either, but would want their children to inherit whatever substance, great or small, that they had been able to accumulate.

I couldn't agree more.

It's lovely when parents can afford to educate their children and send them out into life debt-free; or when a kid can make his way on his own. But neither case is all that common, and it sets my teeth on edge to see the populist mob crying against "inherited wealth!"

A little inherited wealth would go a very long way to decreasing some burdens on both parents and graduates.

167 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:36:20am

re: #159 Wishing

Wow! I meant to write "Avanti"... thanks for the catch. My fingers type all by themselves some days.

168 Taqiyyotomist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:36:39am

re: #163 albusteve

Hard to believe that they wrote that, and then became complete and utter communists. I guess LSD could cause one to forget basic principles in favor of dreamworlds.

169 Wishing  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:36:45am

See that avanti? Kiss your King often enough and you get promoted!

170 Erik The Red  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:37:03am

re: #152 Sharmuta

I know. I think I'll go make a cup of coffee or something.

I just poured a good 12 year old scotch. Want one?

171 Wishing  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:37:10am

re: #167 Kenneth

Wow! I meant to write "Avanti"... thanks for the catch. My fingers type all by themselves some days.

Was quite amusing, actually.

172 Dianna  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:37:12am

re: #157 avanti

Thank you.

173 albusteve  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:37:19am

re: #165 buzzsawmonkey

In other words, they rolled so that they could gather moss--or something green, anyway.

yes...after all they were more influential than even Robert Johnson
/

174 HDrepub  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:37:32am

re: #156 Taqiyyotomist

It's almost hard to believe the Beatles wrote that.

I like Stevie Ray Vaughan's version the best.

175 albusteve  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:37:58am

re: #168 Taqiyyotomist

Hard to believe that they wrote that, and then became complete and utter communists. I guess LSD could cause one to forget basic principles in favor of dreamworlds.

that's ridiculous...communists?

176 Wishing  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:38:13am

oops, now Rush is quoting this *Morner* article.

177 Taqiyyotomist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:38:14am

re: #174 HDrepub

Orly? I gotta look for that!

178 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:38:38am

re: #159 Wishing

Interesting Freudian slip there...

Avanti is trying to cause trouble. He posted that TWO threads ago, got dumped all over for commenting on the COMMENT left about the article, and didn't comment on the article itself, which read like a bio about Avanti.

179 Taqiyyotomist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:39:00am

re: #175 albusteve

Have you read the words to Imagine?

180 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:39:07am

re: #158 Ford_Prefect

Gees, it's always about you isn't it?

/////

Yeah... But enough about me. What about you? What do you think of me? :p

181 Wishing  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:39:20am

re: #178 Walter L. Newton

Avanti is trying to cause trouble. He posted that TWO threads ago, got dumped all over for commenting on the COMMENT left about the article, and didn't comment on the article itself, which read like a bio about Avanti.

Go into GAZE mode...

182 Dianna  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:39:26am

re: #176 Wishing

oops, now Rush is quoting this *Morner* article.

That's a big "oops!"

183 LGoPs  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:40:42am

re: #129 Last Mohican

What a shame.

Personally, I've never understood why there should be an estate tax at all. When someone dies, every penny they have was already taxed when they earned it. Why does it need to be taxed again?

My children have a far more legitimate claim on whatever wealth I may have accumulated (and paid tax on) than Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi or any of those redistributionist bastards in the Congress.

184 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:40:57am

re: #168 Taqiyyotomist

Hard to believe that they wrote that, and then became complete and utter communists. I guess LSD could cause one to forget basic principles in favor of dreamworlds.

Well it was George Harrison who wrote Taxman. Let's not forget that the also wrote "Revolution," which has classic lines like :
"You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow"

185 ConservativeAtheist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:41:01am

"... there may be credible scientists raising valid objections to catastrophic anthropogenic climate change theory ..."

Just trying to fix that up a bit.

From what I've been able to glean, there is credible data that global temperatures have increased slightly in the past century or so. There is credible data that CO2 levels have increased in the past century. There is credible data that a portion of those increased CO2 levels are likely caused by man. There is a reasonable hypothosis that those increased CO2 levels might be causing a portion of the slight increase in temperatures. But there is very little credible evidence that any of this is in the least bit catastrophic or will be so in the future.

I've noticed the recent meme from the climate armageddonists is that we are seeing unprecedented, rapid warming. This is so patently false that it's absurd. Global temperatures have not increased for the past decade, and global ice extent levels are back to the average levels of the previous two decades.

186 Digital Display  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:41:20am

re: #118 Kenneth

I up-dinged you for posting that link. I understand that you were not endorsing the content of the comment at Wash-times.

Folks might want to reverse their down-dings on Avanti for this.

I didn't down ding him.. But it wasn't clear that he was praising Charles..He virtually posted the link going ' check this out'
Avanti..you are a pretty old guy that has a bad rep for stirring shit..
Next time try to be a little more mature and send Charles an email privately alerting him to a smear...You are like a freshman in high school..Look what I found on the net! Weeeee! until you attempt to repair some of your relationships here and act like you are..what 66? please tone it down..develope some relationships, Discuss issues as a respectful lizard..listen to both sides and grow and learn, teach and share, Try a pun thread or something...Nobody here has to have the same opinions..But we respect lizards that show decorum and respect..Be honest and give honest answers..don't try to make LGF about you...
/Gawd I don't believe I have to give advice to a 66 yr old dude on respect and cred on a blog...
Straighten up and fly right

187 albusteve  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:41:37am

re: #179 Taqiyyotomist

Have you read the words to Imagine?

yes...it's a long stretch from there to communism....anyway Lennon wrote that himelf and recorded it, not the Beatles...who were merciless capitalistas

188 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:42:31am
189 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:42:38am

re: #180 Sharmuta

Yeah... But enough about me. What about you? What do you think of me? :p

Actually your avatar is quite appropriate to this discussion.

190 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:42:50am

re: #163 albusteve

why?...the Rolling Stones simply left England for years as did many others...they were taxed at like 90%

So where will all the Hollywood celebrities go when the Democrats and the 0 gives them a 90% tax?

191 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:43:14am

re: #188 buzzsawmonkey

So is everybody kissing and making up with avanti, or what?

I have to agree with his plaint from a thread or two back that the repeated "used condom" epithet is pretty gratuitously insulting. But in fairness, I have to observe that he did tell us some time back that he used to be a seaman.

Didn't we all?

192 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:43:29am

re: #187 albusteve

yes...it's a long stretch from there to communism....anyway Lennon wrote that himelf and recorded it, not the Beatles...who were merciless capitalistas

I like the scene in Forrest Gump when Forrest is describing life in Communist China & Lennon starts writing the words to "Imagine" based on that.

193 albusteve  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:43:29am

re: #188 buzzsawmonkey

So is everybody kissing and making up with avanti, or what?

I have to agree with his plaint from a thread or two back that the repeated "used condom" epithet is pretty gratuitously insulting. But in fairness, I have to observe that he did tell us some time back that he used to be a seaman.

you had me...I fell for that one

194 zombie  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:43:40am

re: #185 ConservativeAtheist

"... there may be credible scientists raising valid objections to catastrophic anthropogenic climate change theory ..."

Just trying to fix that up a bit.

From what I've been able to glean, there is credible data that global temperatures have increased slightly in the past century or so. There is credible data that CO2 levels have increased in the past century. There is credible data that a portion of those increased CO2 levels are likely caused by man. There is a reasonable hypothosis that those increased CO2 levels might be causing a portion of the slight increase in temperatures. But there is very little credible evidence that any of this is in the least bit catastrophic or will be so in the future.

I've noticed the recent meme from the climate armageddonists is that we are seeing unprecedented, rapid warming. This is so patently false that it's absurd. Global temperatures have not increased for the past decade, and global ice extent levels are back to the average levels of the previous two decades.

Best comment of the thread so far!

That was exactly that point that I made in my deleted research paper.

195 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:43:54am
196 LGoPs  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:44:04am

re: #188 buzzsawmonkey

So is everybody kissing and making up with avanti, or what?

I have to agree with his plaint from a thread or two back that the repeated "used condom" epithet is pretty gratuitously insulting. But in fairness, I have to observe that he did tell us some time back that he used to be a seaman.

After looking at your comment long and hard, I have to agree......

197 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:44:22am

re: #157 avanti

Thank you for the apology, and additionally, thanks for looking out for Charles and LGF. I do hope you take my advice and find a better way to point these things out in the future.

198 rightymouse  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:44:28am

re: #188 buzzsawmonkey

So is everybody kissing and making up with avanti, or what?

I have to agree with his plaint from a thread or two back that the repeated "used condom" epithet is pretty gratuitously insulting. But in fairness, I have to observe that he did tell us some time back that he used to be a seaman.

And familiar with navel warfare no doubt.

199 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:44:38am

re: #115 Charles

Hmm. They must remove that link once someone uses it to report a comment. Weird way to do it.

Perhaps you caused a lizard-lanche and it overheated.

200 albusteve  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:45:12am

re: #192 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

I like the scene in Forrest Gump when Forrest is describing life in Communist China & Lennon starts writing the words to "Imagine" based on that.

yeah...great moviere: #190 Kosh's Shadow

So where will all the Hollywood celebrities go when the Democrats and the 0 gives them a 90% tax?

not France anymore I don't think....Haiti is nice they say

201 avanti  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:45:43am

re: #178 Walter L. Newton

and didn't comment on the article itself, which read like a bio about Avanti.

So it is all about me then ? :)

202 Taqiyyotomist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:47:04am

"the song ... is virtually a communist manifesto, even though I am not particularly a communist and I don't belong to any movement. You see, 'Imagine' was exactly the same message, but sugar- coated. Now 'Imagine' is a big hit almost everywhere--anti-religious, anti-nationalistic, anti-conventional, anti-capitalistic song, but because it is sugar coated it is accepted. Now I understand what you have to do.
Put your political message across with a little honey." - John Lennon

No, he was not a card-carrying Communist. But he was a communist.

203 jvic  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:47:14am
Verdict: there may be credible scientists raising valid objections to anthropogenic climate change theory...

Freeman Dyson.

204 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:48:05am

Speaking of kooks, "Earth Hour" was observed by environmentalists around the world on Saturday night. The idea is to fight Global Warming through the symbolic act of turning off all electrical devices. Gee whiz, isn't that special!

Ironically, many of the moonbats then lit candles, which are made from petroleum and burn hydrocarbons thereby producing carbon dioxide, the dreaded greenhouse gas held responsible for Global Warming.

205 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:48:09am

re: #182 Dianna

That's a big "oops!"

I am familiar with most of the "scientist" mentioned in the various article above. They are all kooks, and have been haunting the science community for years (almost like Avanti).

Can you say Von Daniken? Really, take my word for it. I'm an armchair archeologist and these jerks have been ruining science on a regular basis.

The popular media, right or left, are on a feeding frenzy, leaving any journalistic integrity in the toilet.

It's all about proving points, ratings, and most of all EGO, popularity, who's bigger than the other, Beck, Hannity, Rush, the whole bunch of them, a race to fame and fortune, all at the expense of TRUTH.

Truth doesn't matter to them, any of them, any more. And what happens when you throw truth into their faces like Charles does?

You get slammed, by the likes of commenters like "Mister," or Avanti and the other jerks that drop in here and suggest that winning is the only thing that matters.

People have NO problem with lying now a days to get their ways. It doesn't matter who they are, politician or talk show host, preacher or a patron sitting in my theatre.

I had patrons this weekend out right LIE to my face that the seats they were "saving" were for people IN THE BUILDING. Forty five minutes later, their party arrives. We have a general admission policy and you cannot save seat for non-existent people not in the theatre.

But it doesn't matter any more. Why should a theatre patron not lie to get a better seat when people they look up to do it every day?

It's going to hell in a hand basket.

206 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:48:35am

How about if some coastal lizards go down to their respective beaches and measure with a ruler to see if there's been any change in the sea level.
That should clear this up.

207 jcm  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:48:46am

re: #185 ConservativeAtheist

"... there may be credible scientists raising valid objections to catastrophic anthropogenic climate change theory ..."

Just trying to fix that up a bit.

From what I've been able to glean, there is credible data that global temperatures have increased slightly in the past century or so. There is credible data that CO2 levels have increased in the past century. There is credible data that a portion of those increased CO2 levels are likely caused by man. There is a reasonable hypothosis that those increased CO2 levels might be causing a portion of the slight increase in temperatures. But there is very little credible evidence that any of this is in the least bit catastrophic or will be so in the future.

I've noticed the recent meme from the climate armageddonists is that we are seeing unprecedented, rapid warming. This is so patently false that it's absurd. Global temperatures have not increased for the past decade, and global ice extent levels are back to the average levels of the previous two decades.

Algore just dropped you from his mailing list!

Great post!

208 avanti  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:48:59am

re: #191 Ford_Prefect

Didn't we all?

Ah, got you. Never a seaman, first tour I was a FR. FA, then Fireman, then 3rd class Engineman before switching to ET.

209 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:49:29am

re: #204 Kenneth

Speaking of kooks, "Earth Hour" was observed by environmentalists around the world on Saturday night. The idea is to fight Global Warming through the symbolic act of turning off all electrical devices. Gee whiz, isn't that special!

Ironically, many of the moonbats then lit candles, which are made from petroleum and burn hydrocarbons thereby producing carbon dioxide, the dreaded greenhouse gas held responsible for Global Warming.

They should have stayed in the dark, because that is symbolic of their knowledge as well.

210 sattv4u2  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:50:06am

re: #206 Spare O'Lake

How about if some coastal lizards go down to their respective beaches and measure with a ruler to see if there's been any change in the sea level.
That should clear this up.

I'll be going to my place on Pawlyes island South Carolina in a few weeks. I'll dip my wick in the ocen and get back to you!

211 avanti  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:50:11am

re: #205 Walter L. Newton

I am familiar with most of the "scientist" mentioned in the various article above. They are all kooks, and have been haunting the science community for years (almost like Avanti).

Does it always have to be about me ?

212 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:50:27am

re: #208 avanti

Ah, got you. Never a seaman, first tour I was a FR. FA, then Fireman, then 3rd class Engineman before switching to ET.

I can't resist. You became an ET? An alien! So when do you go home?

213 doppelganglander  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:50:31am

OT: Angie Harmon, formerly of "Law & Order," is not an Obama fan. Debra Messing, however, is not quite so perceptive.

"He is thoughtful and considerate and he gets all the information before he speaks which I think is a wonderful quality for the ruler of the free world to have," she explained.

214 albusteve  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:50:48am

hogwash...Lennon has been used for that over and over....he despised repression and had great faith in the human character...he was a pacifist and loved making alot of money so he could give it away....that whole line is just BS....

we'll talk...gotta scoot now

215 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:51:00am

re: #201 avanti

So it is all about me then ? :)

The article in the Washington Times. Yes. Double yes. All they are missing is your real name and picture. The only they I missed is that you are not as good as the examples in the article.

216 Erik The Red  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:51:04am

re: #212 Kosh's Shadow

I can't resist. You became an ET? An alien! So when do you go home?

ROTFLMAO

217 Kragar  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:51:08am

re: #204 Kenneth

Speaking of kooks, "Earth Hour" was observed by environmentalists around the world on Saturday night. The idea is to fight Global Warming through the symbolic act of turning off all electrical devices. Gee whiz, isn't that special!

Ironically, many of the moonbats then lit candles, which are made from petroleum and burn hydrocarbons thereby producing carbon dioxide, the dreaded greenhouse gas held responsible for Global Warming.

I commemorated Earth Hour by my wife and I both logging in and playing World of Warcraft in separate rooms with the lights and heater on, while one daughter watched Batman on the TV and the other daughter played on her computer

218 MrSilverDragon  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:51:32am

re: #213 doppelganglander

OT: Angie Harmon, formerly of "Law & Order," is not an Obama fan. Debra Messing, however, is not quite so perceptive.

"He is thoughtful and considerate and he gets all the information before he speaks which I think is a wonderful quality for the ruler of the free world to have," she explained.

Just say no to drugs, Deb.

219 TheConservator  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:51:34am

Most understandable analysis of global warming issue I have seen:

[Link: home.comcast.net...]

220 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:51:49am

re: #180 Sharmuta

Yeah... But enough about me. What about you? What do you think of me? :p

Beautiful, smart, witty, sexy....and smart. Did I leave anything out? ;)

221 sattv4u2  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:52:19am

re: #220 FurryOldGuyJeans

Beautiful, smart, witty, sexy....and smart. Did I leave anything out? ;)

blue!

222 Taqiyyotomist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:52:22am

re: #184 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

I am somewhat conflicted, I admit, on the subject of Lennon. Yes he did write that, and the whole Lennon-woshipping Hippie movement still and to this day carry pictures of Mao, and Che, and Castro. Too much LSD, I guess. Maybe I'm not conflicted, but Lennon was.

223 avanti  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:52:50am

re: #212 Kosh's Shadow

I can't resist. You became an ET? An alien! So when do you go home?

ET/ Entertaining Troll

224 Erik The Red  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:52:58am

DOW down over 350 points. Blood in the streets this week.

Cash out your 401 Avanti. 44 is speaking economy this week.

225 jamgarr  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:53:09am

re: #210 sattv4u2

I'll be going to my place on Pawlyes island South Carolina in a few weeks. I'll dip my wick in the ocen and get back to you!


Is that where Flo's is? Cool place.

226 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:53:34am
227 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:53:37am

re: #150 LGoPs

I think that is the salient point. The fact that we are looking at a tiny subset of measurements and yet proposing draconian measures to redress them. Al Gore's rant that "the debate is over" is what particularly sticks in my craw. Hell, the debate hasn't even started yet. The PC nazi reaction to your paper sums up all anyone needs to know about the dangers of unthinkingly going down this GW road. People of good intent on both sides of the argument should acknowledge this point.

When I comment on AGW stories on sites like New Scientist (they have drunk so much of the kool aid that when you yell "Hey, Kool Aid" he comes running from their offices), I usually finish with "More study needed."

228 Kragar  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:53:41am

re: #213 doppelganglander

OT: Angie Harmon, formerly of "Law & Order," is not an Obama fan. Debra Messing, however, is not quite so perceptive.

"Ruler of the free world?"

We're supposed to have leaders, not rulers in the free world.

229 funky chicken  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:53:42am

re: #203 jvic

Freeman Dyson.

thanks for linking those articles

230 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:53:42am

re: #213 doppelganglander

OT: Angie Harmon, formerly of "Law & Order," is not an Obama fan. Debra Messing, however, is not quite so perceptive.

"He is thoughtful and considerate and he gets all the information before he speaks which I think is a wonderful quality for the ruler of the free world to have," she explained.

Who wrote that? First, "ruler" and "free world" don't exactly fit together. How about "leader" Ms. Messing. And by the way, to the writer of this article, Ms. Messing didn't "explain" anything. She merely "opined".

231 funky chicken  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:54:43am

re: #217 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I commemorated Earth Hour by my wife and I both logging in and playing World of Warcraft in separate rooms with the lights and heater on, while one daughter watched Batman on the TV and the other daughter played on her computer

what realm/realms do you play?

232 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:54:48am

This post has absolutely nothing to do with avanti.

233 Taqiyyotomist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:54:50am

Half the country will believe, will be made to believe, that the DJIA is down because of RUSH LIMBAUGH. It's the meme, and it's gone viral.

234 sattv4u2  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:54:51am

re: #225 jamgarr

Is that where Flo's is? Cool place.

Flo's is in Murrells Inlet, about 8 miles north of Pawleys, just before you get into Myrtle Beach

235 godfrey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:55:22am

So this Mörner fellow may be a kook, but on the issue of sea level rise, is he wrong? Where are the best studies?

236 avanti  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:55:33am

re: #224 Erik The Red

Most of my IRA is in Studebakers. Thank goodness Johnson did not bail them out or they'd be less collectible.

237 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:55:53am

re: #202 Taqiyyotomist

"the song ... is virtually a communist manifesto, even though I am not particularly a communist and I don't belong to any movement. You see, 'Imagine' was exactly the same message, but sugar- coated. Now 'Imagine' is a big hit almost everywhere--anti-religious, anti-nationalistic, anti-conventional, anti-capitalistic song, but because it is sugar coated it is accepted. Now I understand what you have to do.
Put your political message across with a little honey." - John Lennon

No, he was not a card-carrying Communist. But he was a communist.

I totally disagree.
John Lennon was a capitalist extraordinaire.
And "Imagine" was a utopian call for humanity to reject all religions, political organizations and social structures in order that people can all live in peace and harmony.
Not a commie bone in his body, IMHO.

238 jamgarr  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:55:57am

re: #234 sattv4u2

Flo's is in Murrells Inlet, about 8 miles north of Pawleys, just before you get into Myrtle Beach


Thanks. Had me a bucket of good sea stuff there once.

239 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:56:20am

re: #188 buzzsawmonkey

So is everybody kissing and making up with avanti, or what?

I have to agree with his plaint from a thread or two back that the repeated "used condom" epithet is pretty gratuitously insulting. But in fairness, I have to observe that he did tell us some time back that he used to be a seaman.

*Sigh* I don't want to discuss this, but I never called him that. It's not my fault he selected the name of a condom brand to be his user name, and when he continually wants to spin 0bama's BS, then I do think he's providing cover for a dick. Honestly- I never would have been able to come up with that had avanti not chosen such a nic. And him saying that I called him that is a complete mischaracterization of my comments.

240 godfrey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:56:31am

Avanti is a card-carrying something-or-other.

241 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:56:32am

I was going to write up a big long post about the Chief Lelooska/estate tax fiasco, but I'll summarize:

There's a fantastic living history program in Southwest Washington. One man, Chief Lelooska, who was an artist, built a great program from nothing. Thousands of schoolchildren (including me) attended and learned about Northwestern Indians.

He died suddenly. He had no estate planning--these are not wealthy people, and it never occurred to anyone that his art, which was part of the program, could endanger the program.

It took a huge effort, and the formation of a foundation, but the foundation has been able to pay off the taxes, and keep the program running. They buy the art from the heirs, because the heirs really are not wealthy people. The heirs (better known as family) still run this valuable program.

This is my take on estate taxes. There needs to be common sense.

242 Kragar  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:56:46am

re: #231 funky chicken

what realm/realms do you play?

Baelgun, Horde side

243 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:57:25am

re: #213 doppelganglander

OT: Angie Harmon, formerly of "Law & Order," is not an Obama fan. Debra Messing, however, is not quite so perceptive.

More opinion from shallow actors who's only expertise is reading words others have written. I would find it easier to ignore if I weren't constantly being bombarded with ill-informed opinions being foisted as news.

244 doppelganglander  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:57:29am

re: #228 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

"Ruler of the free world?"

We're supposed to have leaders, not rulers in the free world.

That jumped out at me too.

245 sattv4u2  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:57:37am

re: #238 jamgarr

Thanks. Had me a bucket of good sea stuff there once.

Lots of great places around there. Good seafood, although I still prefer seafood from up North (Boston ,, Maine)

246 Taqiyyotomist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:57:44am

re: #227 CyanSnowHawk

When I comment on AGW stories on sites like New Scientist (they have drunk so much of the kool aid that when you yell "Hey, Kool Aid" he comes running from their offices), I usually finish with "More study needed."

1. More Study Needed. That's what this is, and always has been, all about. "More Study Needed" is how every single study concludes (Read: more money for our "science" departments needed, desparately.)

2. They have drunk so much of the kool aid that when you yell "Hey, Kool Aid" he comes running from their offices. ROTFL! updings

247 rawmuse  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:57:49am

re: #4 Leonidas Hoplite

Anyone know where I can get volcano insurance?

AIG.

248 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:57:49am

re: #235 godfrey

Sea level rise

249 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:57:56am

re: #233 Taqiyyotomist

Half the country will believe, will be made to believe, that the DJIA is down because of RUSH LIMBAUGH. It's the meme, and it's gone viral.

You have a link for that, please?

250 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:58:01am

Avanti spelled backwards is itnava.

251 Raven1  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:58:01am

re: #222 Taqiyyotomist

I am somewhat conflicted, I admit, on the subject of Lennon. Yes he did write that, and the whole Lennon-woshipping Hippie movement still and to this day carry pictures of Mao, and Che, and Castro. Too much LSD, I guess. Maybe I'm not conflicted, but Lennon was.

Paul McCartney and John Lennon both hold and held left leaning views. Same with Joe Strummer of The Clash. The lesson is, liberals are for entertainment only.

252 sattv4u2  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:58:31am

re: #250 Ford_Prefect

Avanti spelled backwards is itnava.

makes little sense either way!

253 Taqiyyotomist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:58:42am

re: #237 Spare O'Lake

So Lennon did not say the words I quoted? Is this quote an "urban legend"?

254 funky chicken  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:58:42am
The words "global warming" provoke a sharp retort from Colorado State University meteorology professor emeritus William Gray: "It's a big scam."

And the name of climate researcher Kevin Trenberth elicits a sputtered "opportunist."

At the National Center for Atmospheric Research, where Trenberth works, Gray's name prompts dismay. "Bill Gray is completely unreasonable," Trenberth says. "He has a mind block on this."

Only 55 miles separate NCAR's headquarters, nestled in the Front Range foothills, from CSU in Fort Collins. But when it comes to climate change, the gap is as big as any in the scientific community.

At Boulder-based NCAR, researchers project a world with warmer temperatures, fiercer storms and higher seas.

From CSU, Gray and Roger Pielke Sr., another climate professor emeritus, question the data used to make those projections and their application to regional climate change.

Science by its nature is disputatious - with every idea challenged, tested and retested. It's always been that way.

[Link: www.denverpost.com...]

not kooks

255 Aye Pod  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:58:45am

Archaeology, astronomy, climate science...this guy has a lot of idiotic stuff on a whole range of subjects. What is the opposite of a polymath anyway? A polykook?

256 Digital Display  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:59:08am

re: #250 Ford_Prefect

Avanti spelled backwards is itnava.

Paul is dead?
LOL

257 godfrey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:59:12am

re: #248 Kenneth

The very first sentence looks tendentious and is footnoted to something published by a working group of the IPCC.

258 Racer X  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:59:22am

re: #219 TheConservator

Most understandable analysis of global warming issue I have seen:

[Link: home.comcast.net...]

Excellent summation.

259 ConservativeAtheist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 11:59:42am

re: #219 TheConservator

Nice analysis.

260 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:00:39pm

re: #4 Leonidas Hoplite

Anyone know where I can get volcano insurance?

Why bother with insurance when the government is so intent on nationalizing all commerce. Buying insurance is just taking away what the government feels is rightly theirs, your money.

261 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:00:43pm
262 Taqiyyotomist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:01:21pm

re: #249 FurryOldGuyJeans

I don't have a link for things said to me by folks who only listen to NPR and watch the TV news every morning and evening. It's what they think, and its what they tell me.

263 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:02:07pm

re: #257 godfrey

The very first sentence looks tendentious and is footnoted to something published by a working group of the IPCC.

Well, all I can say is I have a bias against anyone who would make me go look up a word like "tendentious".

;-)

264 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:02:23pm

re: #261 buzzsawmonkey

I understand. My issue is that avanti lied about what I said and now the lie has gained traction. I never said that, and avanti is lying.

265 avanti  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:02:45pm

re: #239 Sharmuta

*Sigh* I don't want to discuss this, but I never called him that. It's not my fault he selected the name of a condom brand to be his user name, and when he continually wants to spin 0bama's BS, then I do think he's providing cover for a dick. Honestly- I never would have been able to come up with that had avanti not chosen such a nic. And him saying that I called him that is a complete mischaracterization of my comments.

Sorry if it was not you, someone called me a condom, then edited it to a used condom. I see where you got condom from the nick, but it's 'forward" in Italian and is the model of a car I collect.

266 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:02:47pm

re: #257 godfrey

I linked to wikipedia as a starting point. Yes, the author of that page leads with a conclusion.

267 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:03:31pm

re: #262 Taqiyyotomist

I don't have a link for things said to me by folks who only listen to NPR and watch the TV news every morning and evening. It's what they think, and its what they tell me.

Ok, fair enough. I know all too well the urban legend phenomenon spurred on by the biased FMSM.

268 Aye Pod  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:03:32pm
The Telegraph’s Christopher Booker cites a Swedish “physicist,” Nils-Axel Mörner, who claims that every scientist and climate expert in the world is wrong, and that sea levels have not risen for 50 years.

There is no sea level rise. And even if there were, it would be a totally natural and good thing. Large parts of the world are too dry at the moment and it's hurting both people and animals//

269 Dianna  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:03:45pm

re: #206 Spare O'Lake

How about if some coastal lizards go down to their respective beaches and measure with a ruler to see if there's been any change in the sea level.
That should clear this up.

Look for the Oceanography lab students. They do beach measurements at least once a semester, usually in the pouring rain.

270 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:03:54pm

re: #251 Raven1

Paul McCartney and John Lennon both hold and held left leaning views. Same with Joe Strummer of The Clash. The lesson is, liberals are for entertainment only.

Though Joe Strummer did have a "bomb them now" moment after 9/11.

271 Raven1  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:03:57pm

re: #263 subsailor68

Well, all I can say is I have a bias against anyone who would make me go look up a word like "tendentious".

;-)

I have a tendency for the same.

272 Taqiyyotomist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:04:00pm

re: #262 Taqiyyotomist

I should ask THEM for a link, but again, they only get their news and opinion from NPR and the evening and morning news shows. There is a large portion of our population that does not EVER get their news from the internet. In fact, they think (have been convinced by someone, obviously, in those formats), that people who get their news from the internet, and who listen to Rush, are the ones who are brainwashed.

273 godfrey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:04:16pm

re: #263 subsailor68

Just don't make me try to explain the difference between a ship and a boat.

/landlubber

274 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:04:47pm

re: #265 avanti

Thank you for apologizing to me. Here's another bit of advice- around here we fact check asses. If you're going to call someone out for what they said, be sure you have the correct target.

275 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:05:34pm

re: #273 godfrey

Just don't make me try to explain the difference between a ship and a boat.

/landlubber

LOL! I had a Canadian friend who wasted his breath trying to explain to me the difference between a ship and a boot.

276 Raven1  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:05:48pm

re: #270 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

Though Joe Strummer did have a "bomb them now" moment after 9/11.

I saw him with his band The Mescaleros a bit after 9-11. You are right, if he lived, I'm sure his music would have tilted a bit more to the right.

277 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:05:53pm

re: #264 Sharmuta

I understand. My issue is that avanti lied about what I said and now the lie has gained traction. I never said that, and avanti is lying.

"One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives."
-Mark Twain

Has anyone noticed that I like Mark Twain?

278 Digital Display  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:06:40pm

re: #261 buzzsawmonkey

You are such a good person Buzz....I left something on friday nights thread when you left for sabbath.
מאי אלוהים יברך אותך ואת המשפחה שלך ותביא לך שלום gace

279 avanti  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:06:45pm

re: #264 Sharmuta

I understand. My issue is that avanti lied about what I said and now the lie has gained traction. I never said that, and avanti is lying.

OK, time for another apology. I'm sorry you were saddled with the used condom quote, when yours was just a play on my nick and I assume a shiny, new condom. I did not lie, but I get the confusion.

280 Aye Pod  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:06:46pm

re: #261 buzzsawmonkey


I do agree that the "used condom" thing is needlessly meanspirited, for what that's worth.
...
but observations on that bizarreness should be kept as close to the issues and as away from the personal as possible.

Upding for that.

281 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:07:00pm

With all this talk of kooks, why has nobody linked to "Kooks"?

282 father_of_10  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:07:01pm

Still, rising sea levels is hookum in my book.

283 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:07:04pm

re: #266 Kenneth

I linked to wikipedia as a starting point. Yes, the author of that page leads with a conclusion.

Sounds like that is the new standard in journalism, give the results of what you want the readers to believe.

284 Racer X  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:07:17pm

This post has nothing to do with avanti.

Thank you.

285 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:07:22pm
286 saberry0530  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:07:27pm

re: #275 subsailor68

LOL! I had a Canadian friend who wasted his breath trying to explain to me the difference between a ship and a boot.

One has seaman in/on it, the other goes on your foot?
////

287 Fritz_Katz  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:07:49pm

re: #43 zombie

... The sea levels are not rising, or are rising a very tiny amount at most.

This is obvious at any location along the California coast, especially places like here in San Francisco area, where shoreline structures built in the 19th century are at the exact same position in relation to the water line that they were 140 years ago.

The Santa Monica Pier, built in 1909, has not seen the average water level rise in 100 year.


Don't discredit a theory just because a kook believes in it. I'm quite sure that Charles Manson accepts the fact the sun rises in the east every morning -- but his acceptance of it doesn't make it untrue.

Did you know that Isaac Newton was a kook who believed in astrology, occult, alchemy, and (gasp!) young earth creationism. BTW, Newton predicts the world will end in 2060, unless of course, the ancient Maya prediction of 2012 doesn't get us first.

288 Taqiyyotomist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:07:52pm

You can tell that something has become a meme, that folks are being brainwashed, when people who don't even follow news start spouting the same shit. e.g. Rush is racist, I hear that a lot lately, 'on the street'. AIG and "Bankers" caused the economic crisis...is another. These little factoids are spouted by people who don't read, ever. They get it from somewhere.

289 jvic  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:07:57pm

re: #229 funky chicken

thanks for linking those articles

You're welcome. You might find Richard Lindzen of interest too.

290 Erik The Red  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:08:03pm

re: #274 Sharmuta

Why all the "feel sorry for Avanti" shit going on?

291 avanti  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:08:10pm

re: #274 Sharmuta

Thank you for apologizing to me. Here's another bit of advice- around here we fact check asses. If you're going to call someone out for what they said, be sure you have the correct target.

Got it, a careless cut and paste, again, sorry.

292 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:08:41pm

re: #268 Jimmah

There is no sea level rise. And even if there were, it would be a totally natural and good thing. Large parts of the world are too dry at the moment and it's hurting both people and animals//

If the sea level rises, it will give the sea kittens more room.
/

293 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:09:03pm

re: #43 zombie

Extremely good points, Zombie. There's a very bad signal to noise ratio on the subject right now.

294 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:09:19pm
295 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:09:19pm

re: #273 godfrey

Just don't make me try to explain the difference between a ship and a boat.

/landlubber

Ship v. Boat ;)

296 Wishing  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:09:53pm

re: #277 Ford_Prefect

"One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives."
-Mark Twain

Has anyone noticed that I like Mark Twain?

Love him! Innocents Abroad is one of my all time faves!

297 father_of_10  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:10:02pm

re: #284 Racer X

This post has nothing to do with avanti.

Thank you.

That'll be a blow to his ego.

298 Sharmuta  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:10:13pm

re: #284 Racer X

This post has nothing to do with avanti.

Thank you.

Can we get a mulligan?

299 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:10:34pm

re: #287 Fritz_Katz

Did you know that Isaac Newton was a kook who believed in astrology, occult, alchemy, and (gasp!) young earth creationism. BTW, Newton predicts the world will end in 2060, unless of course, the ancient Maya prediction of 2012 doesn't get us first.

Of course, in Newton's day, there was no scientific theory of the formation of the universe.
The evidence for the Big Bang wasn't found until the 20th century.

300 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:10:42pm

re: #292 Kosh's Shadow

teh sea kittehs r pooshing teh Santa Monika pir UP 2 maek a funny on u

301 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:10:49pm

re: #213 doppelganglander

OT: Angie Harmon, formerly of "Law & Order," is not an Obama fan. Debra Messing, however, is not quite so perceptive.

Say it isn't so! How could the actress that brought us the leaking waterbra bit be a moonbat?

The first time I saw that, I was in tears I was laughing so hard.

302 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:11:09pm

re: #295 FurryOldGuyJeans

Ship v. Boat ;)

If you live on the Great Lakes, a ship is merely a type of boat. The term "boat" is used for anything as small as a canoe or as large as a 1,000 foot lake freighter (which would be a ship on the high seas).

303 BlueCanuck  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:11:19pm

re: #297 father_of_10

I like your avatar. It brings back memories.

/ah the good old days, back when my rifle was older then I was.

304 Erik The Red  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:11:23pm

re: #298 Sharmuta

Can we get a mulligan?

Wrong fourball Sharmuta.

305 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:11:39pm

re: #285 buzzsawmonkey

Rightly so.

I'd be curious as to your thoughts on his somewhat moonbatty anti-imperialist rant against the US actions in the Philippine insurrection, "To the Person Sitting in Darkness."

LOL. Ok I said I like Twain, not that I have studied him. I enjoy reading for entertainment and have read several of his novels for entertainment.

306 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:11:45pm

OT, but the object that made the streak of light and explosion over Hampton Roads this weekend was the 2nd stage of the Soyuz that launched the next crew to the Space Station.
Article is here.

307 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:11:55pm

re: #303 BlueCanuck

I like your avatar. It brings back memories.

/ah the good old days, back when my rifle was older then I was.

Buy an older rifle. It has always worked for me!

308 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:12:06pm

re: #261 buzzsawmonkey

I do agree that the "used condom" thing is needlessly meanspirited, for what that's worth

Indeed. It may seem like good-natured ribbing, but it's really a kind of Trojan horse that will cause a reservoir of abusive posts to burst and spill all over LGF.

/whistling innocently

309 Yashmak  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:12:17pm

re: #235 godfrey

So this Mörner fellow may be a kook, but on the issue of sea level rise, is he wrong? Where are the best studies?

My guess is that they're buried under a giant pile of politicizing nonsense.

310 Erik The Red  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:12:18pm

re: #303 BlueCanuck

Hey Blue. Welcome out into the open:)

311 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:12:35pm

re: #299 Kosh's Shadow

Of course, in Newton's day, there was no scientific theory of the formation of the universe.
The evidence for the Big Bang wasn't found until the 20th century.

Even then, it faced a bit of an uphill battle for acceptance. For acceptance, there's also plate tectonics theory. First propsed as early as the 1920s, and not gaining any real aceeptance until the 1960s.

312 jcm  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:12:49pm

re: #275 subsailor68

LOL! I had a Canadian friend who wasted his breath trying to explain to me the difference between a ship and a boot.

We call subs; boats just too keep bubbleheads from getting too big for their dungarees!

////// air force guy runs like hell.........

313 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:12:52pm

re: #306 Kosh's Shadow

OT, but the object that made the streak of light and explosion over Hampton Roads this weekend was the 2nd stage of the Soyuz that launched the next crew to the Space Station.
Article is here.

That's what they want you to believe. We're through the looking-glass here, people!
/

314 Macker  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:13:13pm

Understanding...is a three-edged re: #129 Last Mohican

What a shame.

Personally, I've never understood why there should be an estate tax at all. When someone dies, every penny they have was already taxed when they earned it. Why does it need to be taxed again?

Because the Government wants to make Taxes even more inevitable than Death.

315 Taqiyyotomist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:13:49pm

re: #306 Kosh's Shadow

Nice find, KS.

316 Dianna  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:13:55pm

re: #279 avanti

OK, time for another apology. I'm sorry you were saddled with the used condom quote, when yours was just a play on my nick and I assume a shiny, new condom. I did not lie, but I get the confusion.

Um...

Please note that you have now managed to negate your apology within the same paragraph.

317 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:14:00pm

re: #298 Sharmuta

Can we get a mulligan?

Well, I'm not going to let Avanti off the hook so easily...

You're a condom, You're a condom, You're a condom, You're a condom...

Not put that between your legs and see what bubbles up?

318 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:14:22pm

re: #253 Taqiyyotomist

So Lennon did not say the words I quoted? Is this quote an "urban legend"?

The words of the song are not a virtual communist manifesto, at least not any communism that I have ever read or studied. In this respect, Lennon was probably engaging in some intentional misdirection when he characterized the song in that way.
The song is a utopian anthem, which transcends conventional political structures, and that is its genius.

319 Erik The Red  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:14:53pm

re: #317 Walter L. Newton

Well, I'm not going to let Avanti off the hook so easily...

You're a condom, You're a condom, You're a condom, You're a condom...

Not put that between your legs and see what bubbles up?

New or used Walter?

320 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:15:12pm

re: #311 Honorary Yooper

Even then, it faced a bit of an uphill battle for acceptance. For acceptance, there's also plate tectonics theory. First propsed as early as the 1920s, and not gaining any real aceeptance until the 1960s.

Yes. Even the name "Big Bang" was derogatory, given by Fred Hoyle, a proponent of the steady state theory.

This is how science works. Old theories are not thrown out until the evidence is convincing. And this is something the creationists don't understand.

321 Wendya  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:15:29pm

re: #15 badger1970

...everyone has one.

Why do all the outer space cadets get the attention? Dousing, for real?

I know several people who hired dousers to look for water. Myself, I hired a professional well digging service. Our results were about the same which isn't surprising considering we had to get state permits to take water from the established basins. You'd think that would have been a clue.....

322 doppelganglander  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:15:31pm

re: #287 Fritz_Katz

Did you know that Isaac Newton was a kook who believed in astrology, occult, alchemy, and (gasp!) young earth creationism. BTW, Newton predicts the world will end in 2060, unless of course, the ancient Maya prediction of 2012 doesn't get us first.

I'll be 98 then, so I don't think I'll be too fussed about it. 2012 might be a problem, though.

323 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:16:05pm

I need some help:

He's Swedish, so is it:

køøk
köök
or
kûk

?

324 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:16:19pm
325 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:16:34pm

re: #323 OldLineTexan

I need some help:

He's Swedish, so is it:

køøk
köök
or
kûk

?

A moose bit my sister once.

326 jaunte  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:16:49pm

re: #323 OldLineTexan

I need some help:

He's Swedish, so is it:

køøk
köök
or
kûk

?

All three are on sale at Ikea.

327 FurryOldGuyJeans  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:16:55pm

re: #311 Honorary Yooper

Even then, it faced a bit of an uphill battle for acceptance. For acceptance, there's also plate tectonics theory. First propsed as early as the 1920s, and not gaining any real aceeptance until the 1960s.

Wait for the debates if/when Earth Crustal Displacement (aka as Pole Shift Hypothesis) starts to be championed by some well-known crackpot. AGW/ACC will be but a memory.

328 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:17:01pm

re: #313 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

That's what they want you to believe. We're through the looking-glass here, people!
/

Between you and me, the streak and bang was the UFO that had just given 0bama his next set of instructions leaving; its cloaking device failed for a few seconds.
/DO I NEED TO?

329 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:17:04pm
330 Dianna  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:17:11pm

I need some air. I don't quite believe some of what I'm reading in the Wall Street Journal, somehow.

331 subsailor68  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:17:17pm

re: #325 Ford_Prefect

A moose bit my sister once.

That's why I joined the Elks Club.

;-)

332 Ford_Prefect  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:18:07pm

re: #331 subsailor68

That's why I joined the Elks Club.

;-)

You're such a deer.

333 badger1970  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:18:22pm

re: #321 Wendya

Where there's smoke, usually there's fire. There's too many bad shows/movies out there that show dowsing (dousing) as a mystical method.

334 Erik The Red  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:18:30pm

Avanti, maybe I am being unkind. Sometimes you meet someone and take an instant dislike for them. I have that feeling for you.

GAZE on again.

335 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:18:40pm

re: #237 Spare O'Lake

I totally disagree.
John Lennon was a capitalist extraordinaire.

The fact that he happily reaped his own riches really doesn't prove much.

And "Imagine" was a utopian call for humanity to reject all religions, political organizations and social structures in order that people can all live in peace and harmony.
Not a commie bone in his body, IMHO.

Um... what you just described IS the ultimate communist "utopia", actually. Or so they say.

336 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:18:47pm

re: #326 jaunte

All three are on sale at Ikea.

Those Swedes sure know how to put almost every part you need in the box!

/

337 jaunte  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:19:14pm

re: #336 OldLineTexan

They put a hex on me!

338 father_of_10  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:19:14pm

re: #303 BlueCanuck

I like your avatar. It brings back memories.

/ah the good old days, back when my rifle was older then I was.

You Canadians had the FN-FAL. I qualified with the M-16 . . . once a year.

My son is a Marine and he brags about the M-16 A2, but when he shot my FAL, he said he could be a believer in the larger, heavier round.

339 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:19:18pm

re: #323 OldLineTexan

Køøk bites can be very painful.

340 godfrey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:19:32pm

re: #272 Taqiyyotomist

It's a strange situation: not only do people disagree, but many (most?) people simply ignore everyone else's sources.

Charles does a good job of tacking between sources to establish a clear "rational" transmission from all the ambient irrationality, but in the vast scheme of things, he's only got one website.

I get the impression that many people are so focused on getting their information from specific -- and often biased -- sources, that there's no common space to turn to where contradictory 'facts' can get hashed out, and questions decided. Academic journals? Your mileage with those varies -- a lot. Newspapers? The answer is mostly "no." Magazines like The Nation or National Review No, those things are built to spin. Sure, factual information can come from any quarter, and any bias.

But man, it takes an enormous amount of work to separate wheat from chaff.

341 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:19:44pm

re: #329 buzzsawmonkey

Let's just resolve that nobody should be unfairly condom-ed.

Sharmuta's touchy. Some people rubber the wrong way.

/

342 Racer X  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:20:01pm

People get all excited about Global Warming and how it is no longer up for debate.

May I remind everyone that Fred Hoyle was the scientist who mockingly coined the term "Big Bang", and he instead proposed the Infinite Universe Theory (also known as Steady State). It took almost twenty years for his theory to be disproved.

Science is ALWAYS up for debate.

343 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:20:13pm

re: #327 FurryOldGuyJeans

Wait for the debates if/when Earth Crustal Displacement (aka as Pole Shift Hypothesis) starts to be championed by some well-known crackpot. AGW/ACC will be but a memory.

Oh dear God. Now there's a real crackpot hypothesis.

344 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:20:57pm

re: #334 Erik The Red

Avanti, maybe I am being unkind. Sometimes you meet someone and take an instant dislike for them. I have that feeling for you.

GAZE on again.

You certainly are. Up ding for you.

345 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:21:03pm

re: #279 avanti

I'm sorry you were saddled with the used condom quote, when yours was just a play on my nick and I assume a shiny, new condom

saddles? condoms? Is this a Brokeback Mountain thread now?

346 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:21:54pm

re: #327 FurryOldGuyJeans

aka as Pole Shift Hypothesis

Pole Shift can be very embarrassing if it happens while you're getting a massage.

347 BlueCanuck  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:21:58pm

re: #338 father_of_10

I was originally trained on the FAL FNC1-A1, then retrained on the M-16 or C7. I missed the FN.

348 Aye Pod  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:22:21pm

re: #292 Kosh's Shadow

If the sea level rises, it will give the sea kittens more room.
/

Yes - let's not forget that all the under fishing caused by them crazy liberal conservationists has left the oceans in a tragically overcrowded state. /

349 Honorary Yooper  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:22:22pm

re: #321 Wendya

I know several people who hired dousers to look for water. Myself, I hired a professional well digging service. Our results were about the same which isn't surprising considering we had to get state permits to take water from the established basins. You'd think that would have been a clue.....

I'm rather skeptical about dowsing based on how the dowsers claim it works. However, I did have an interesting experience once. I was out on site, and wanted to put in some monitoring wells for a petroleum release into the groundwater. A public works employee shows up with, get this, metal dowsing rods to find the water line through the park. Had to keep from rolling my eyes.

350 CyanSnowHawk  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:22:27pm

re: #299 Kosh's Shadow

Of course, in Newton's day, there was no scientific theory of the formation of the universe.
The evidence for the Big Bang wasn't found until the 20th century.

Have they taken anybody into custody yet?

351 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:22:44pm

re: #346 Occasional Reader

Pole Shift can be very embarrassing if it happens while you're getting a massage.

Well, that point has come up a few times during a massage.

352 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:23:21pm

re: #338 father_of_10


My son is a Marine and he brags about the M-16 A2, but when he shot my FAL, he said he could be a believer in the larger, heavier round.

Help is on the way... maybe? If they ever get around to fully shifting to 6.8mm SPC.

353 Wendya  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:23:31pm

re: #43 zombie

Just because this one guy (whom I've never heard of) is kooky, does not mean that this particular thesis (that the sea levels are not rising) is false.

If he discovered a cure for cancer, people wouldn't care if he fiddled with dousing.

354 Kosh's Shadow  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:23:45pm

re: #350 CyanSnowHawk

Have they taken anybody into custody yet?

Well, they found some bomb making directions at Bill Ayers' house, but he hasn't been arrested.
/

355 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:24:18pm

re: #346 Occasional Reader

Pole Shift can be very embarrassing if it happens while you're getting a massage.

Especially if your masseuse is named "Thor."

356 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:25:21pm

re: #348 Jimmah

Yes - let's not forget that all the under fishing caused by them crazy liberal conservationists has left the oceans in a tragically overcrowded state. /

And all those beached whales will float happily into the sunset.

357 funky chicken  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:25:25pm

re: #43 zombie

Just because this one guy (whom I've never heard of) is kooky, does not mean that this particular thesis (that the sea levels are not rising) is false.

I've actually done a bunch of research on this topic, and in this particular case, he's right:

The sea levels are not rising, or are rising a very tiny amount at most.

This is obvious at any location along the California coast, especially places like here in San Francisco area, where shoreline structures built in the 19th century are at the exact same position in relation to the water line that they were 140 years ago.

The sea level may indeed be going up a few inches per century, but it is nothing that any individual person would ever be able to notice in his lifetime. And ALL of the "doomsday scenarios" promoted by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth are completely laughable: he shows millions of third worlders streaming inland, fleeing from the onrushing waves. Gimme a break. If the sea levels do rise, even anywhere near what Gore is saying, it will literally be centimeter by centimeter, over decades.

Don't discredit a theory just because a kook believes in it. I'm quite sure that Charles Manson accepts the fact the sun rises in the east every morning -- but his acceptance of it doesn't make it untrue.

good stuff

358 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:26:04pm

moving on --->

359 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:26:36pm

re: #355 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey

Especially if your masseuse is named "Thor."

In which case he'd be a masseur*, of course.

Merci beaucoup, in the words of Our Ear Leader.

(Actually, "massage therapist" is the correct term in the case of non... er... "tricky" sort of massage)

360 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:26:58pm

If you know someone who can truly dowse, James Randi has some money they can win....

/just saying....

361 funky chicken  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:27:07pm

re: #242 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

ah, not our realm, sadly

362 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:27:22pm

re: #351 Walter L. Newton

Well, that point has come up a few times during a massage.

Think about baseball.

If that doesn't work, think about Janet Reno, naked, playing baseball.

363 Spare O'Lake  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:27:35pm

re: #341 OldLineTexan

Sharmuta's touchy. Some people rubber the wrong way.

/

It's hard for me to conceive of that.

364 RELOADINGISNOTAHOBBY  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:28:23pm

re: #323 OldLineTexan
OLT.......
Can't tell ya till I hear how pronounce all of them!

365 revobob  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:28:41pm

Actually if my last couple trips to the Socal beaches are any indicator, rising seawater levels probably are anthropogenic- there is an observable linkage to the increasing number of obese people swimming at most times. Perhaps the Gubmint attack on obesity and cheezburgers will have more effect than regulation of CO2?

366 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:28:58pm

re: #363 Spare O'Lake

It's hard for me to conceive of that.

Cialis if you have any questions.

367 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:29:55pm

re: #364 RELOADINGISNOTAHOBBY

OLT.......
Can't tell ya till I hear how pronounce all of them!

HA!

Sorry, I only speak "American English", although I can communicate in "Hick" fairly well.

368 OldLineTexan  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:31:10pm

re: #362 Occasional Reader

Think about baseball.

If that doesn't work, think about Janet Reno, naked, playing baseball.

Great, now all I see is a version of that Robert Maplethorpe "art".

/pardon me while I poke out my mind's eye with a sharp stick

369 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:31:17pm

Photographic evidence that the Big Bang isn't what your think.

370 Taqiyyotomist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:31:46pm

re: #340 godfrey

But man, it takes an enormous amount of work to separate wheat from chaff.


I couldn't agree more. More work and time than most people have, whose time is spent doing things like building houses. So many people assume that the deceived, the non-readers, the conned, are all "f**king idiots". I would gladly punch someone in the face for calling my good friend something like that. I couldn't do the construction math on a calculator that he does in his head. Dude has the work ethic of a freakin' draft horse. He believes moonbat things, most times, because he has been CONNED.

When my grandmother was conned into buying a few cases (!) of Say No To Drugs ink pens by an unscrupulous telemarketer, I didn't say "wow, what a f***ing idiot Grandma was!" No, she was a schoolteacher, an English teacher. She was not senile, she was F***ING CONNED.

Many Americans who have been conned are also not bleeping idiots. They are hardworking Americans who have been conned, and who don't have the time, the inclination, or the expertise involved in sorting the BS from the truth, who don't have the time or the knowledge of computers to even begin to know where to find an article online, let alone how to find 250 versions of the same story.

Too many people who know how to do these things, I see many here, think that the rest are just dumbf**k morons. Say that to my face about my friends, who work like mules and try to live good lives. Go on. Say it.

371 Occasional Reader  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:32:24pm

re: #368 OldLineTexan

Great, now all I see is a version of that Robert Maplethorpe "art".

Did it cause any Pole Shift?

372 IslandLibertarian  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:36:47pm

re: #292 Kosh's Shadow

If the sea level rises, it will give the sea kittens more room.
/


And more Sea Kittens means more protein food source and more source for a replacement of fake fur for cuddly slippers.
You know how much greenhouse gas is produced by the manufacture of fake fur? Shocking, I tell you. Shocking!

373 hazzyday  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:38:16pm

Why does Larouche attract so many college students? They placard the streets in Seattle a lot. They are always obscene to a great degree. I talked to one once and seemed mostly vacant. I attribute it to laziness when someone prefers the easy out of vacant slogans over writing an English term paper.

374 hazzyday  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:45:38pm

In the decades I have lived in Seattle the weather has never really changed much. Having a pollen allergy, every year the same time. three weeks of sunshine after a Feb cold snap and the pollen bursts out. Never fails. Although one or two weathercasters occasionally have thought the sudden clear skies were unique and odd. They're not.

On trips to the ocean, I haven't noticed anything over the years in terms of more erosion. Only that the mussel population has decreased due to people over harvesting.

Further inland: man made construction has effected water run off in new housing developments.

but people are ineffective. Seattle recently wouldn't use salt to clear snow as it would pollute fresh water. But a large part of the main city drains into a salt water bay.

375 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:47:05pm

The incredible Ginger Baker...

376 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 12:49:15pm

Neil Peart

377 Dan G.  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 1:01:30pm

Step one in sorting out a controversy... Sideline the kooks.

While the empirical evidence did demonstrate rising temperatures (i.e. global warming), I'm still not sold on the anthropogenic arguments. I believe the empirical evidence has at very least ruled CO2 out, since its rise lagged instead of led the rise in temperature (hot soda effect). And I'm still not sold on the "green house effect" in total as I've yet to see (still looking though) any discussion about the "hot mirror" effect from heat on the way in.

At any rate, the way this argument has been handled in the popular media is not the right way to proceed, nor is counter shilling from idiots like this guy.

378 docremulac  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 1:02:58pm

Large bridges all over the world are among the most photographed objects on earth. Their pilings are very visible in these photographs and the amount of concrete rising above the waterline is very easy to measure and scale even from a great distance away since the concrete is lighter than the water.

Any evidence of the concrete above the waterline of famous bridge footings growing shorter? I'll hazard a guess. No.

Our local famous bridge, the Golden Gate is only 70 years old but isn't that the period of time during which all this Republican caused climate destruction has taken place? I'm sure we could compare high waterline pics from 70 years ago to now. I'm not interested in doing this myself any more than I'd waste time researching someone's psychic abilities, but it's something to look at if people were interested.

379 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 1:11:17pm
380 gnargtharst  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 1:18:31pm

How do we reconcile this: "there may be credible scientists raising valid objections to anthropogenic climate change theory..."

With this "...who is Nils-Axel Mörner, and how is he able to see these things that every other scientist in the world can’t?"

The 2nd statement seems to imply that "every other scientist in the world" either 1. agrees generally with AGW, or 2. agrees that ocean levels are rising...

381 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 1:22:03pm

re: #380 gnargtharst

How do we reconcile this: "there may be credible scientists raising valid objections to anthropogenic climate change theory..."

With this "...who is Nils-Axel Mörner, and how is he able to see these things that every other scientist in the world can’t?"

The 2nd statement seems to imply that "every other scientist in the world" either 1. agrees generally with AGW, or 2. agrees that ocean levels are rising...

Maybe you haven't noticed, but the vast majority of scientists DO generally agree with AGW, and agree that ocean levels are rising.

382 Lizard by the Bay  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 1:29:30pm

Another attack the messenger thread. Sigh...

If sea levels have indeed been rising for 50 years, then why aren't some low lying island nations like Kiribati simply gone completely? The only islands anyone can find "affected" by rising seas are the Mortlock and Carteret Islands. What do these islands have in common that no other coral atolls do? They are located right on the subduction line where the plate they rest on is sliding underneath an adjacent plate, pulling the islands down.

Also, the waters of both islands were heavily fished with dynamite during the Bougainville uprising, destroying much of the natural reef that acted as a breakwater for these islands. As a result, tidal waves that used to be harmless are instead sweeping over these islands, accelerating erosion far beyond what has been historically seen.

Frankly, I don't care who Mörner breaks bread with. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Aren't there enough liberal sites dedicated to propping up the myths of global warming?

383 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 1:32:22pm

If you're really interested in facts, and not the ravings of kooks, here's a serious scientific paper on the subject (PDF):

[Link: ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu...]

384 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 1:47:11pm
385 gnargtharst  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 1:50:25pm

"Maybe you haven't noticed, but the vast majority of scientists DO generally agree with AGW, and agree that ocean levels are rising."

Then why the phrase "every other scientist in the world"?

The phrase marginalizes, via minor syntax, all of the non-kook deniers; it straw-mans the crux of the debate.

Do you believe skepticism about catastrophic AGW is equivalent to skepticism about, say, evolution?

Briefly, my own position on the issue, lest my own straw get all pitchforked:

I believe in global warming. Or cooling. One of those. Depends on the time frame, margin of error. etc.

I'm slightly more skeptical about man-made effets on climate, though not entirely dismissive of the idea.

I utterly reject the notion that such as exists could even remotely be called "catastrophic".

I *more* utterly reject the idea that the solution to such a "problem", if it existed, would be massive government abrogation of freedom.

(And finally, I'm highly skeptical of 99% of everybody who even has an opinion on the science of this issue. It is an abstract topic, valid induction of which requires massive data; I do not trust that most people embark on this topic free of prejudice, especially now that it almost entirely politicized.)

386 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 1:52:14pm

re: #382 Lizard by the Bay

Another attack the messenger thread. Sigh...

When someone is being promoted as a "scientist," it absolutely has a direct bearing on his credibility if he turns out to be a kook who believes in all kinds of wacky pseudo-scientific nonsense.

387 Teh Flowah  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:03:26pm

re: #34 avanti

I agree about the rational debate, but it's not that popular with some. Here's a comment about Charles from a reader of the Washington Times:

"Unless you're on Little Green Footballs - Charles Johnson only allows the echo-chamber posters on his site. But he's not a conservative, but rather a leftist plant designed to split fiscal conservatives from social conservatives, water down the GOP vote. Good scam tho...

Stick with Powerline, or here at the WaTimes."

Times
The link was posted because someone must think I'm on the Obama payroll.

I can't believe people down dinged you for bringing that up... Wow, people here are pretty... vindictive?

Frankly, about the guy, he believes in some crazy ass shit, but from some people's point of view, believing in God or that Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days might qualify as "crazy ass shit". So I won't judge him TOO much based on that. I will however judge him based on the fact that he is just plain dead fucking wrong.

388 zombie  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:05:55pm

re: #383 Charles

If you're really interested in facts, and not the ravings of kooks, here's a serious scientific paper on the subject (PDF):

[Link: ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu...]

Thanks for that.

Also note, in the paper's "Executive Summary," a good example of the hyperbolic verbiage used to wildly exaggerate trivial facts or trends. The paper starts this way:

The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m.

Wait wait wait, let's look at that again. Over a period of 42 years, the oceans warmed one-tenth of one degree. That works out to a little over two-tenths of a degree per century. Or, in other words, at this rate, in 500 years, the global temperaturte will have gone up 1 whole degree!

And yet, this piece of data is preceded by the alarmist statement, "The oceans are warming."

Yes, they may be warming, but they're warming almost infinitesimally, even by the alarmists' own data.

Furthermore, we don't know why they're warming, nor whether this trend will slowly reverse and they'll start cooling again in a century or two.

This is typical of how climate science is being conducted these days. Micro-trends are fantastically exaggerated; the general public reads "The oceans are warming," and cannot comprehend the details of the numbers and the decimal points.

389 lostlakehiker  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:13:56pm

His audience is nuttier than he is. Check out the comments: yammering about "chemtrails", for instance. These guys think the little clouds that are formed when an airplane passes through moist air, whirling it enough that some of the water vapor condenses, are full of poisons, deliberately put there by the airliners.

390 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:16:25pm

re: #389 lostlakehiker

Chemtrail conspiracy moonbats are nuttier than squirrel poo.

391 Lizard by the Bay  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:18:10pm

re: #383 Charles

If you're really interested in facts, and not the ravings of kooks, here's a serious scientific paper on the subject (PDF):

[Link: ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu...]

Okay, I read it Charles, and I was most appalled at how much faith these researchers are putting into tidal measurements from 1800-1900 that use no modern measurement techniques. Even they admit that there are only 4 places in the entire Pacific Ocean where they feel confident in just the last 25-50 years worth of data. And finally, not only do they admit that water expansion (and not more water) is the primary cause of preceptible sea level rise, they also freely admit that changes in prevailing currents and even volcanic activity have more to do with ocean temperatures than melting sea ice.

It's not the AGW smoking gun, that much is for sure.

392 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:19:51pm

re: #385 gnargtharst

Do you believe skepticism about catastrophic AGW is equivalent to skepticism about, say, evolution?

Of course not, and what did I ever write that would give you that impression?

The more I research this topic though, the less I trust many of the loudest voices on the right. I've discovered a lot of dishonesty and obfuscation coming from people like James Inhofe (to name one of the worst examples). The left has its extremists and liars on the subject too (comparing AGW skepticism to Holocaust denial, for example, is completely insane) but I can't simply dismiss mountains of scientific data and evidence out of hand.

I haven't reached any firm conclusions on it, partly because the whole thing is so freaking politicized that it's not easy to determine who is trustworthy and who isn't.

393 lostlakehiker  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:19:59pm

re: #378 docremulac

Large bridges all over the world are among the most photographed objects on earth. Their pilings are very visible in these photographs and the amount of concrete rising above the waterline is very easy to measure and scale even from a great distance away since the concrete is lighter than the water.

Any evidence of the concrete above the waterline of famous bridge footings growing shorter? I'll hazard a guess. No.

Our local famous bridge, the Golden Gate is only 70 years old but isn't that the period of time during which all this Republican caused climate destruction has taken place? I'm sure we could compare high waterline pics from 70 years ago to now. I'm not interested in doing this myself any more than I'd waste time researching someone's psychic abilities, but it's something to look at if people were interested.

Sea level rise so far has been minuscule. The twice-daily variation between high and low tide would drastically overshadow any rise in sea level we've seen so far. Without thousands of photos, meticulously clocked in and carefully correlated to the times of high and low tide, you'd learn nothing. And even if you did all that, you'd still learn very little, because for any one point on the shore, it may be that the ground itself has shifted up or down a bit. Land that used to be under glaciers, for instance, is still rebounding, ten thousand years after the retreat of those glaciers.

394 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:22:29pm

re: #388 zombie

Wait wait wait, let's look at that again. Over a period of 42 years, the oceans warmed one-tenth of one degree. That works out to a little over two-tenths of a degree per century. Or, in other words, at this rate, in 500 years, the global temperaturte will have gone up 1 whole degree!

And yet, this piece of data is preceded by the alarmist statement, "The oceans are warming."

Yes, they may be warming, but they're warming almost infinitesimally, even by the alarmists' own data.

Furthermore, we don't know why they're warming, nor whether this trend will slowly reverse and they'll start cooling again in a century or two.

This is typical of how climate science is being conducted these days. Micro-trends are fantastically exaggerated; the general public reads "The oceans are warming," and cannot comprehend the details of the numbers and the decimal points.

Weighing in as someone who is in a closely related branch of physics...

I understand how a tenth of a degree centigrade seems like nothing in the oceans. However, it does not take into account the amount of energy that it takes to raise an ocean by a tenth of a degree.

Think about what it takes to boil water. A very small amount of water, over a very hot burner takes a long time to boil. This is because water has a very large specific heat. So, ask yourself, how much more thermal energy is there being put into the Earth's weather systems if the ocean has raised it's temperature by any measurable amount?

The numbers are staggering actually. The oceans are very big.

I want to thank Charles too for have the balls to look to the science and not the politics on this.

395 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:22:34pm

Current sea level rise:

The longest running sea-level measurements are recorded at Amsterdam, in the Netherlands—most of which lies beneath sea level, hence the name. Records from 1700 onwards can be found here. Since 1850, a rise of approx 1.5 mm/year is shown here.

396 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:24:17pm

re: #392 Charles

From the paper you linked above:

All of these observations taken together give high confidence
that the ocean state has changed, that the spatial distribution of
the changes is consistent with the large-scale ocean circulation
and that these changes are in response to changed ocean surface
conditions.

While there are many robust findings regarding the changed
ocean state, key uncertainties still remain. Limitations in ocean
sampling (particularly in the SH) mean that decadal variations in
global heat content, regional salinity patterns, and rates of global
sea level rise can only be evaluated with moderate confi dence.
Furthermore, there is low confi dence in the evidence for trends in the MOC and the global ocean freshwater budget.

Finally, the global average sea level rise for the last 50 years is likely to
be larger than can be explained by thermal expansion and loss
of land ice due to increased melting, and thus for this period it
is not possible to satisfactorily quantify the known processes
causing sea level rise.

397 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:26:34pm

re: #393 lostlakehiker

The processes are so complex. A rise in sea levels is not necessarily indicative of an increase in sea water mass and cannot be taken as evidence of global warming.

398 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:27:01pm

I promise to sit down and put together a list of review articles on AGW from reputable - as in the scientific community with non-kook authors - sources.

It will take some time to compile.

I also want to comment that people have a great knack for finding "scientists" who say what they want to hear.

Does anybody remember the Tabacco institute? Up untill the congress put a kabash on them, they were busy telling people that there was no link between cigarrettes and cancer - into the late 1990s for crying out loud.

Do not trust any AGW paper from an oil company or an oil companies "institute." It is nothing more than propaganda aimed at hiding science that the company considers damaging to profits.

399 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:27:14pm

re: #396 Kenneth

Yes, that's what it says -- it's not possible to quantify which processes are causing the rise in sea level. But Morner is claiming that the rise doesn't even exist.

400 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:28:12pm

re: #397 Kenneth

The processes are so complex. A rise in sea levels is not necessarily indicative of an increase in sea water mass and cannot be taken as evidence of global warming.


Wrong. You can easily coupl it to a shrinking ice cap. As the cap melts we loose albedo and we warm even faster.

401 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:32:11pm

re: #399 Charles

One of the interesting things in the paper is the discussion of the many contributing factors to sea level rise, such as land mass deformation. Even with total water mass remaining constant, sea-levels can rise is land mass increases or changes in shape.

For example, the apparent sea level in Bangladesh is rising at a furious rate, but that's because the land mass of the Ganges river delta is sinking, not because of an increase in sea water mass.

402 dry_heavz_4_alla  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:34:22pm

re: #383 Charles

Thanks for the link. I'm actually being paid to do less interesting work right now, so I don't have time to go into detail, but just skimming through the FAQ 5.1, I noticed a graph that was similar to one suggested by someone in the comments section of the Telegraph article. Here's a link to U of Colorado site referenced:
[Link: sealevel.colorado.edu...]

There you'll find an interesting link to an Interactive Wizard:
[Link: sealevel.colorado.edu...]

Notice that wherever you click on the map, you get statistically unchanging sea level. So I wondered where they got this 0.4 mm/yr trend apparent on the graph. If you dig down a bit, it seems to come from the tide gauge calibration done to determine the bias between the TOPEX-A and TOPEX-B satellites:
([Link: sealevel.colorado.edu...]
But that calibration states a +/- 0.4 mm/yr error. So did they assume the +0.4 mm/yr in their "worst case" conclusion, or do I need to keep digging.

This is the main problem. I (and most people) don't have the time to do all this digging, and the more I do dig, the more I see people trying to discern patterns from noise like that girl staring at the TV screen in Poltergeist.

403 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:34:57pm

re: #400 ludwigvanquixote

That's a different process. I was referring to people saying the rising sea levels is proof of AGW. Not so. There are several factors contributing to the rising sea levels and the contribution to it from melting ice-caps is not clearly measurable.

404 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:37:25pm

One of the important things that people need ot consider when looking at these trends is the change in currents. This has a lot to do with warming causing cooling and a whole host of important phenomena. I present the following paper as an example of how complicated these factors can become.

Now - DO NOT think that complicated means, nothing is going on. The point is that with many of our AGW models, the problem is that they are too conservative - as in the "bad things they predict are actually made worse by things like this :

Sudden, considerable reduction in recent uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the East/Japan Sea

Park, G.-H., K. Lee, and P. Tishchenko (2008), Sudden, considerable reduction in recent uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the East/Japan Sea, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L23611, doi:10.1029/2008GL036118.

[Link: www.agu.org...]

405 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:42:47pm

re: #403 Kenneth

That's a different process. I was referring to people saying the rising sea levels is proof of AGW. Not so. There are several factors contributing to the rising sea levels and the contribution to it from melting ice-caps is not clearly measurable.

Respectfully, you are wrong again.

Attribution of polar warming to human influence

Author(s): Gillett NP (Gillett, Nathan P.)1, Stone DA (Stone, Daithi A.)2,3, Stott PA (Stott, Peter A.)4, Nozawa T (Nozawa, Toru)5, Karpechko AY (Karpechko, Alexey Yu.)1, Hegerl GC (Hegerl, Gabriele C.)6, Wehner MF (Wehner, Michael F.)7, Jones PD (Jones, Philip D.)1
Source: NATURE GEOSCIENCE Volume: 1 Issue: 11 Pages: 750-754 Published: NOV 2008

Abstract: The polar regions have long been expected to warm strongly as a result of anthropogenic climate change, because of the positive feedbacks associated with melting ice and snow(1,2). Several studies have noted a rise in Arctic temperatures over recent decades(2-4), but have not formally attributed the changes to human influence, owing to sparse observations and large natural variability(5,6). Both warming and cooling trends have been observed in Antarctica(7), which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report concludes is the only continent where anthropogenic temperature changes have not been detected so far, possibly as a result of insufficient observational coverage(8). Here we use an up-to-date gridded data set of land surface temperatures(9,10) and simulations from four coupled climate models to assess the causes of the observed polar temperature changes. We find that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence. Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities(2), ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level(11).

406 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:44:15pm

Actually, I am going to say it here straight up for anyone who wishes to talk science. AGW is real.

The only questions are how big is our effect and how bad will be the consequences.

407 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:44:38pm

re: #399 Charles

Nils-Axel Mörner: dowsing, water witching and Lyndon LaRouche.

'Nuff said.

408 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:48:33pm

re: #405 ludwigvanquixote

Thanks for all the links, but you have a reading comprehension problem. I wrote about the evidence for human contribution to rising sea levels. I did not refer to the warming of the polar regions, reduced albedo or CO2 re-uptake in the Sea of Japan.

Rising sea levels. Read the paper Charles linked to above.

409 funky chicken  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:50:19pm

re: #389 lostlakehiker

His audience is nuttier than he is. Check out the comments: yammering about "chemtrails", for instance. These guys think the little clouds that are formed when an airplane passes through moist air, whirling it enough that some of the water vapor condenses, are full of poisons, deliberately put there by the airliners.

I'd never heard the chemtrail thing until one day a couple of years ago when some loon got through Neil Boortz's call screener and brought them up. I was laughing so hard I thought I'd drive off the road. Of all the idiotic things....

410 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:50:36pm
411 gnargtharst  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:53:25pm

re: #392 Charles

I inferred from your phrase "every other scientist in the world", that you took AGW as certain as evolution, based on my premise that if a "scientist" denied evolution, he would ipso facto be a kook, and not a scientist (qua denier -- at least not a scientist in a biology field).

I agree with most of the rest of your reply -- the field is entirely politicized, and both sides have plenty of kooks.

For me, as I said, there are only 2 related issues on which I have a firm opinion: 1. "catastrophe" is ludicrous. Dismantling technological civilization would be a catastrophe, yes, but slowly rising ocean levels...? (and really, would AGW even be an issue of interest were it not for the claims of a global catastrophe? I'm old enough to remember the 70/80s global cooling scare -- interestingly, the Rx for that catastrophe was also dismantling industrial civilization (except for the "nuclear winter" variation, for which the solution was to stop waving our swords at the Soviets.); and 2. Freedom is the correct response, if such a thing were true. Netherlanders have thrive, e.g., while un-free Bangladeshis are mowed down every year by perfectly predictable monsoons.

412 Lizard by the Bay  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:54:32pm

re: #386 Charles

When someone is being promoted as a "scientist," it absolutely has a direct bearing on his credibility if he turns out to be a kook who believes in all kinds of wacky pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Being incensed about a hack being called a "scientist" I get. But calling him a liar? In my opinion, you over-reached on that one.

And if there is one thing Mörner is not lying about, it's that you can't trust a single thing the government of the Maldives has to say about sea levels rising.

Lets take a look at the real problems of the Maldives. It's true, the people of the Maldives have "run out of land". It's called over-population. The population of these tiny little islands was 100,000 in just 1965. As of 2001, the population was over 300,000. Today it is estimated at 369,000! They have one of the highest birth rates in the entire world, all living on less than 300 square kilometers (some of which is uninhabitable).

Oh, did I mention that the Maldives is a Muslim theocracy, one that is quite wealthy through tourism and fishing licensing? So, why do they want to extort large sums of money from the West to offset their overpopulation "global warming" problem? Can you say "jizya"? I knew you could.

413 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:54:42pm
414 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:56:00pm

re: #408 Kenneth

Thanks for all the links, but you have a reading comprehension problem. I wrote about the evidence for human contribution to rising sea levels. I did not refer to the warming of the polar regions, reduced albedo or CO2 re-uptake in the Sea of Japan.

Rising sea levels. Read the paper Charles linked to above.

Respectfully, mass is conserved. Where does the melted water go?

415 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:57:38pm
416 gnargtharst  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:58:13pm

re: #406 ludwigvanquixote


Okay Ludwig. Let us say AGW is real, and let us say that human influence is near-total (i.e, that we can "do something" about it):

What temperature do you propose that the Earth should be?

417 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 2:58:47pm

re: #412 Lizard by the Bay

Being incensed about a hack being called a "scientist" I get. But calling him a liar? In my opinion, you over-reached on that one.

And it's equally over-reaching to say I "called him a liar," because I wrote no such thing.

His opinions about the rise in sea level are worthless. He may or may not be lying, or he may not even know himself.

418 Kenneth  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:00:24pm

re: #414 LudwigVanQuixote

Read the paper.

" All of these observations taken together give high confidence
that the ocean state has changed, that the spatial distribution of
the changes is consistent with the large-scale ocean circulation
and that these changes are in response to changed ocean surface
conditions.

While there are many robust findings regarding the changed
ocean state, key uncertainties still remain. Limitations in ocean
sampling (particularly in the SH) mean that decadal variations in
global heat content, regional salinity patterns, and rates of global
sea level rise can only be evaluated with moderate confi dence.
Furthermore, there is low confi dence in the evidence for trends in the MOC and the global ocean freshwater budget.

Finally, the global average sea level rise for the last 50 years is likely to
be larger than can be explained by thermal expansion and loss
of land ice due to increased melting, and thus for this period it
is not possible to satisfactorily quantify the known processes
causing sea level rise."

419 Lizard by the Bay  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:02:25pm

re: #417 Charles

And it's equally over-reaching to say I "called him a liar," because I wrote no such thing.

Not to quibble Charles, but you clearly call the man a liar in the very TITLE of this very thread (unless by "kook" you were referring to Booker and not Mörner).

This "debate" is getting stupid, now. I'm bailing on this thread.

420 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:02:36pm

A couple of things to dispel here.

1. Even though there are many left wing kooks who try to use AGW for their own benefit, AGW is ont something that a cabal of hippie scientists is using to try to dismantle technological civilization... We are the ones who brought you technological civilization!

2. The kooks on the right are just as kooky and they are only in it for the money. They are nothing more than lobyists and marketing people for the oil-companies. They are no different then tabbacco doctors.

3. When Charles says every other scientist, he means everyone that the scientific peer reviewed (world wide) community takes seriously. The evidence is very hard and it is very solid. Unlike evolution, the data and the central principles behind the effects are not easily stated to those with a non-technical background. Unfortunately this leaves an awful lot more room for people to get shoody reporting and a sense that no-one knows what is going on. The lobyists from both sides prey on this fact.

421 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:03:03pm

re: #412 Lizard by the Bay

And please note that Morner himself is calling every scientist who has documented a rise in sea level a liar. This is a bullshit conspiracy theory, promoted by a raving kook.

422 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:03:37pm

re: #419 Lizard by the Bay

Not to quibble Charles, but you clearly call the man a liar in the very TITLE of this very thread (unless by "kook" you were referring to Booker and not Mörner).

This "debate" is getting stupid, now. I'm bailing on this thread.

I agree, it is getting very stupid.

423 dry_heavz_4_alla  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:04:03pm

re: #405 ludwigvanquixote

This paper was published less than 6 months ago. To what extent has it been peer reviewed? Who did the peer reviews? It seems to me they would be managing quite a feat just to have shown definitive evidence of climate change in the arctic regions (esp. given the variability), but to also declare that it's "directly attributable to human influence" seem a bit much, on the surface.

I agree with Zombie. Working in an industry that churns out a lot of research papers, I've become increasinglymore skeptical of those with vested interests in large research grants, corporations, ideologies, religions, or "we'll save the world with wealth/resource redistribution" schemes.

424 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:05:11pm

re: #416 gnargtharst

Okay Ludwig. Let us say AGW is real, and let us say that human influence is near-total (i.e, that we can "do something" about it):

What temperature do you propose that the Earth should be?

This is a talking point kind of question. The proper answer is that the Earth should be at a temperature that does not cause massive loss of arable land, change of habitat and loss of coastline.

425 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:05:40pm
426 MittDoesNotCompute  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:05:55pm

re: #77 Charles

If you have an account at the Washington Times, please go use their feature to mark that comment as offensive. It's here: Washington Times - BREITBART: Online activists on the right, unite!

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that avanti posted that comment at TWT...

/you're not paranoid if they're out to get you ;-P

427 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:09:11pm

re: #423 dry_heavz_4_alla

This paper was published less than 6 months ago. To what extent has it been peer reviewed? Who did the peer reviews? It seems to me they would be managing quite a feat just to have shown definitive evidence of climate change in the arctic regions (esp. given the variability), but to also declare that it's "directly attributable to human influence" seem a bit much, on the surface.

I agree with Zombie. Working in an industry that churns out a lot of research papers, I've become increasinglymore skeptical of those with vested interests in large research grants, corporations, ideologies, religions, or "we'll save the world with wealth/resource redistribution" schemes.

Did you notice that it was published in NATURE GEOSCIENCE? It was fully peer reviewd.

Here are the credentials of the authors.
1. Univ E Anglia, Sch Environm Sci, Climat Res Unit, Norwich NR4 7TJ, Norfolk England
2. Univ Oxford, Dept Phys, Clarendon Lab, Oxford OX1 3PU, England
3. Univ Oxford, Environm Change Inst, Tyndall Ctr Climate Change Res, Oxford OX1 3QY, England
4. Met Off Hadley Ctr, Exeter EX1 3PB, Devon England
5. Natl Inst Environm Studies, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 3058506 Japan
6. Univ Edinburgh, Sch Geosci, Grant Inst, Edinburgh EH9 3JW, Midlothian Scotland
7. Univ Calif Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley Lab, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA

428 zombie  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:10:41pm

re: #392 Charles

I haven't reached any firm conclusions on it, partly because the whole thing is so freaking politicized that it's not easy to determine who is trustworthy and who isn't.

It's very important in this discussion to avoid any "appeals to authority." Because almost every person involved has a political agenda. The only rational course of action is to look at the raw data yourself and draw your own conclusions.

(And even that is somewhat problematic, because even the raw data can be slanted, and is generally very incomplete.)

I've done exactly that -- tried to look at the raw data for climate variation, and tried to assess it to the best of my limited scientific capabilities. I set aside anyone else's "conclusions" or projections.

And my assessment was:

The temperature of the earth is constantly going up and down, and has been for the last 4 billion years. Up, down, up, down, up, down. The variations in the past were MUCH more wild and extreme than they are these days. The variations we're talking about these days are absolutely trivial. And the same thing holds true for ocean levels.

For example, in the fairly recent past, sea levels were at one point 300 FEET [yes, feet] higher than they are today, such that the California Central Valley was an inland sea, etc. And subsequent to that, sea levels were hundreds of feet lower than they are now, such that it was possible for humans and animals to walk from Russia to Alaska, since Asia and North America were actually a single connected continent.

And yet, here we are fretting about, literally, centimeters of ocean level variations. (Or, as in that pdf you linked to, millimeter-scale changes per year.)

It's completely absurd just on the face of it. When the oceans rose 300 feet, the planet survived, animals thrived, the fish had a bit more room to swim around in. When the oceans fell 300 feet, the planet survived, the animals thrived, the reptiles had a bit more land to crawl around on. IT WAS NOT A CATASTROPHE EITHER WAY. And yet, in the most wild alarmist projections, they're talking about sea levels rising 5 feet in the next 500 or 1000 years or so. That's never going to come to pass, considering the data we now have, but even if it did -- so what? So the oceans will have risen by 5 feet in 3000 AD. A couple of streets in Miami and San Diego will be flooded. The coastline of Bangladesh will be shorter. But none of that will be perceptible over the span of anyone's lifetime. The oceans, even in a worst-case scenario, will inch in, inch by inch, over centuries.

Now, this same principle can be applied to all aspects of the global warming debate. Just try to look at the data yourself and judge for yourself, aside from any politics, and ignoring any "appeals to authority" or any ad hominem arguments; and you'll almost certainly come to the same conclusion as as I did, namely that the entire topic is blown wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy out of proportion; that any changes thay may happen will be fairly minor and of unknown significance, and that it's nothing but a big political football filled with hot air.

429 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:14:41pm

re: #428 zombie

Zombie, I really am a physicsit in a closely related field. I am giving you the raw papers. You can say who the hell is this quixote guy, as well you should. That is why I am linking to actual peer reviewd journal papers. You will just have to believe that not every scientist in the world is in a conspiracy to elect Al Gore to messiah.

430 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:20:52pm

re: #428 zombie

Looking at the data in the chart Charles posted from the Netherlands you see a rise of about 7 inches if I'm converting CMs right, that just doesn't equate to "no rise" or micro effect.

431 dry_heavz_4_alla  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:33:25pm

re: #427 LudwigVanQuixote

I asked "to what degree" has the paper been peer reviewed. I'm sure I could find articles in Nature from the past couple years that contradict these conclusions ... underwater volcanoes, dust accumulation, changes in salinity come to mind (although these are more related to ice melting).

If you look back in history, I'm sure you'd be amazed at how much junk science has been published relative to the well-reviewed and contested bits we know about today. Unfortunately, there have always been so many Chicken Littles that the true prophets of doom are usually only heeded after the fact.

432 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:35:49pm
433 zombie  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:41:03pm

re: #430 Thanos

Looking at the data in the chart Charles posted from the Netherlands you see a rise of about 7 inches if I'm converting CMs right, that just doesn't equate to "no rise" or micro effect.

I'm not claiming that the sea level has no rise; just that they are currently rising -- even by the data cited by the alarmists -- at a much, much slower pace than the average person visualizes. According to that wikipedia chart, the rise has been 7-ish inches over the last 140-ish years, which equals to 1 inch every 20 years, or 1/20th of an inch per year.

Now, compare that to the scenes in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth with millions of downtrodden people literally fleeing the coastline is mass migrations, as the seas inundate that land behind them. In reality, as I said, there will be essentially only the tiniest perceptible rise during any one person's lifespan, so that you wouldn't even notice it. Gore was whipping up fears, playing on our guilt.

Sure, over many many millennia, the seas may go up 30 feet or 100 feet or even 300 feet, as they have done in the past. (And then likely go down again.) But in what way is that disastrous, or problematic? The shape of the coastline will change. Some cities may slowly become uninhabitable and little by little be abandoned (such as is already happening with Venice.) But cities rarely last that long anyway. Aside from Jerusalem, Rome, Babylon and a handful of others, the cities we inhabit today are of fairly recent vintage; and 3,000 years from now, when the sea levels might be a few feet higher, we'll probably all be living in New Quetzelcoatl or Obama City or wherever, while Berlin and Shanghai will be distant memories from a history book.

And life will go on.

434 dry_heavz_4_alla  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:44:39pm

re: #430 Thanos

Please read up on the Rhine Distributaries and the effect these have had on the lands of Holland over the centuries. The situation in Venice and other "extreme" places is often similar.

435 dry_heavz_4_alla  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:47:00pm

Lower the water table, and the land sinks.

436 EndlessBob  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:47:14pm

I think the name-calling of Mr. Axel-Morner needs to come to an end now. I don't know if anyone else has looked up his CV, but I'd say the details below provide enough evidence that at least in the field of sea level rise, he is one of the world's experts.

He is the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, having retired in 2005. He was president of the INQUA Commission on Neotectonics (1981-1989). He has published books and papers on the interaction among isostacy and eustasy, the oscillating regional eustatic curve of NW Europe, the changing geoid concept, the redefinition of the concept of eustasy, the dynamic-rotational redistribution of oceanic water masses, and the interchange of angular momentum between the hydrosphere and solid Earth. His publications span over thirty years.

The Palegeophysics and Geodynamics unit at Stockholm University was a research unit, with a few subjects of special attention: Sea Level, Uplift of Fennoscandia, Climate, Paleoseismiy & Neotectonics, Paleomagnetism, and Geophilosophy.

Whatever views he holds on dowsing are completely irrelevant to the work he's done in the field in which he claims expertise. Much of early science was done by individuals attempting to document the perfection of God's creation; that their findings led to modern science has little to do with their personal beliefs, and everything to do with the quality of the work that they did.

Juge Mr. Axel-Morner should be judged on the quality of _this_ work as well, and not on his other interests.

437 Aye Pod  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:52:33pm

re: #428 zombie

What was trivial in terms of the survival of the animal kingdom in the past won't necessarily be trivial in terms of the well-being of today's population of humans. Also, sea level change is only one of several major effects of AGW on our environment which could seriously harm our well-being. You can't just dismiss these concerns by saying 'things change- life is still here, quit worrying'.

I have already done what you suggested and found most of the anti-AGW sources that I used to listen to to be a huge steaming mound of lying misinformed crap that would almost be enough to make a creationist blush; the climatologists on the other hand appear to be far more honest and their arguments more persuasive. I very much hope of course, that the worst climate scenarios are overblown, but I think it would be irresponsible to declare any such concerns as nonsense at this point.

438 Aye Pod  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 3:57:23pm

re: #425 taxfreekiller

Many have been under air conditioning to long, forgot the influence of the sun.

Anaszi
Chaco Canyon

The sun is important if you do not put yourself at the center of it all.

[Link: www.exploratorium.edu...]

Yes, 'climate scientists forgot to factor in the sun'. This is the sort of thing that AGW sceptics actually go around believing.

439 under  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:00:48pm

"Nils-Axel Mörner, who claims that every scientist and climate expert in the world is wrong . . ."
"Verdict: there may be credible scientists raising valid objections . . ."

I haven't read anything about, or by, Morner, nor do I have an urge to. Nor do I have an opinion one way or the other on sea levels. However, Charles, it appears you've adopted an Obama tactic. You refute an absurd claim you falsely attribute to a Morner . . . unless Morner actually said that every scientist in the world is wrong.

On Morner's association with oil lobbyists, I'm not sure who is most likely to be dishonest, a scientist who is associated with, but not necessarily funded by, a "group controlled by energy industry lobbyists", or a climate expert whose funding is dependent on there being a man-made global warming threat. No threat? No funding.

I have noticed Al Gore's tendency to resort to character assassination against critics as opposed to logical rebuttals to arguments. Critics all seem to be either in bed with big oil, or all think the world is flat, or they're just academically dishonest. So they're all discredited, and no discussion is necessary.

440 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:05:53pm

re: #433 zombie

I agree, the Gore / Hanson flick is sensationalized science at best, pseudo-science at worst.

The effect definitely isn't "catastrophic" but, at some point we should move to decrease our signature, if for no other reason than benzene ring compounds aren't healthy to breathe.

441 Bagua  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:11:31pm

re: #436 EndlessBob

That is a reasonable comment, much of my protest against the the whole AGW Hoax is that when the orthodoxy is questioned, the response always seems to be to discredit the "skeptic," not to dispute the data.

I was not pleased at all to find out DR. Morner was also alleged to be a proponent of dousing, (I posted the original link) but then I also know good scientists that nevertheless have some superstitious beliefs, for example, I work with an MD who is also a PHD, he developed a diagnostic method for a major disease that is used and accepted worldwide, yet he is also a fervent Catholic. I can't understand how a man of science can also have such certainty in what is clearly superstition, yet, it obviously did not prevent him from doing some good science.

The real question to me remains, is his data good science or not? To determine this it is necessary to examine his data, not his personal "beliefs" or quirks.

However, with that said, knowing that he may be advocating something like dousing as real science, would definitely cause me to question his judgement, problem is, and what I took issue with Freetoken, is that all I saw was a single paragraph from 1998 from this Randi fellow that I don't know, this raised an eyebrow, but may also be nothing.

I also agree that appearing in a Larouch publication is problematic, but he does not appear to be an "associate," he may have just shown poor judgment in agreeing to an interview. Many reputable people are interviewed by the New York Times, certainly a cesspool of bias, yet are they disqualified as authorities bases solely on that?

442 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:11:37pm

re: #431 dry_heavz_4_alla

I asked "to what degree" has the paper been peer reviewed. I'm sure I could find articles in Nature from the past couple years that contradict these conclusions ... underwater volcanoes, dust accumulation, changes in salinity come to mind (although these are more related to ice melting).

If you look back in history, I'm sure you'd be amazed at how much junk science has been published relative to the well-reviewed and contested bits we know about today. Unfortunately, there have always been so many Chicken Littles that the true prophets of doom are usually only heeded after the fact.

If it were one paper, using only one method and only one dataset, you would have a lot more of a point. There are thousands of papers like this in bigger and smaller journals - all peer reviewed and all consistent.

443 Gramfan  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:14:06pm

I really appreciate your exposure of this kook.
I apologize for putting this in the link viewer but I had no idea about all this. I had only heard of Booker and thought he was ok.

444 Bagua  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:18:07pm

Gramfan,

Booker is most certainly "ok," he is a terrific journalist and a skilled researcher,
he may or may not have made a misstep is using Dr. Morner, but he remains is a class of his own among journalists.

Also, you posted the link after me, so if there's blame involved then that includes me. :-(

445 Bagua  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:21:20pm

I think Under hit the nail on the head with

"I have noticed Al Gore's tendency to resort to character assassination against critics as opposed to logical rebuttals to arguments. Critics all seem to be either in bed with big oil, or all think the world is flat, or they're just academically dishonest. So they're all discredited, and no discussion is necessary."

That does seem to be the tactic, and leads me to believe that there is something fishy with all this "the science is settled" business, and that Skeptics are all labeled as heretics and nutters.

446 Gramfan  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:30:20pm

re: #444 Bagua

Thanks for that. I appreciate it very much :)

447 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:33:45pm

re: #439 under

I haven't read anything about, or by, Morner, nor do I have an urge to. Nor do I have an opinion one way or the other on sea levels. However, Charles, it appears you've adopted an Obama tactic. You refute an absurd claim you falsely attribute to a Morner . . . unless Morner actually said that every scientist in the world is wrong.

Hello? How else would you like to characterize this quote? "...all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story"?

On Morner's association with oil lobbyists, I'm not sure who is most likely to be dishonest, a scientist who is associated with, but not necessarily funded by, a "group controlled by energy industry lobbyists", or a climate expert whose funding is dependent on there being a man-made global warming threat. No threat? No funding.

It is extremely disingenuous of you to suggest that there is nothing suspicious about the fact that Morner is employed by an energy industry apologist group.

I have noticed Al Gore's tendency to resort to character assassination against critics as opposed to logical rebuttals to arguments. Critics all seem to be either in bed with big oil, or all think the world is flat, or they're just academically dishonest. So they're all discredited, and no discussion is necessary.

Morner is a flat-out nutjob, and when people promote him as a "scientist" without any context on his other insane beliefs, it is absolutely pertinent and appropriate to call them out on it.

448 Bagua  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:43:35pm

It is pertinent to reveal a persons funding and employment/affiliations, and to suspect bias as a result. While his data may be valid my eyes roll up in my head if I hear a person is a conspiracy theorist and such. Much of the AGW stuff is likewise financed by those that way inclined, it could certainly be affecting the result.

I'd like to see a bit more definitive before I label Dr. Morner though, was his academic record also suspect, or just the fact that he has some theories on dowsing?

449 gnargtharst  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:50:04pm

re: #424 LudwigVanQuixote

I asked "What temperature do you propose that the Earth should be?"

Ludwig replied:

"This is a talking point kind of question... [Actually no -- it was a specific and simple question; I'd like to know at what specific worldwide mean temperature I'll stop being harangued by church-lady-type greens wagging their armed fingers at me for the sin or paying for the energy I use. It's not lost on me that you've punted.]

"...The proper answer is that the Earth should be at a temperature that does not cause massive loss of arable land, change of habitat and loss of coastline."

So, as soon as climate is completely static -- something it has never been in 4 billion years -- we can start enjoying our light bulbs again? Great.

Well, at least the Global Warming Church Ladies don't have the power of armed government behind th... oh... never mind.

450 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:52:12pm

re: #448 Bagua

I'd like to see a bit more definitive before I label Dr. Morner though, was his academic record also suspect, or just the fact that he has some theories on dowsing?

There are eight links in the post above.

451 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 4:59:04pm

Morner's also been on this a while, and many papers have found serious flaws in his works, here's one:

[Link: www.imedea.uib.es...]

452 Artki  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:04:14pm

Linus Pauling is a Noble Prize winner in Chemistry. Pauling also has stupid ideas on what Vitamin C can do when taken in large doses. Using the Nils-Axel Mörner example, because Pauling is wrong on Vitamin C that means we shouldn't trust him when he IS in his area of expertise, Quantum Chemistry.

William Shockley won a Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the Transistor. Shockley also had stupid ideas on Eugenics. Using the Nils-Axel Mörner example, because Shockley is wrong on Eugenics that means we shouldn't trust him when he IS in his area of expertise, Physics.

453 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:06:34pm

It's also not usual for scientists to pimp their books in their science papers as Nils does:

Today I launch a short book
entitled:
The Greatest Lie Ever Told
unfortunately I have to charge
15 Australian dollars for it

454 Lizard by the Bay  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:08:19pm

re: #452 Artki

Artki,

You're being way too logical.

455 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:12:37pm

Now I've seen everything. LGF readers making excuses for a guy who believes in dowsing, water witching, and crackpot archaeological nonsense, and associates with the Lyndon LaRouche moonbats -- just because he said something on another subject that you really want to believe.

Pathetic.

456 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:13:36pm

re: #451 Thanos

Morner's also been on this a while, and many papers have found serious flaws in his works, here's one:

[Link: www.imedea.uib.es...]

The more you look, the more evidence you'll find that this guy is a pure crackpot.

457 Alberta Oil Peon  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:14:09pm

re: #108 zombie

Zombie, I cannot up-ding you enough for this: (snip)
"I experienced first-hand the lockstep Orwellian groupthink that has taken ahold of our society when it comes to this topic. Honest unbiased views are forbidden. If you doubt, you are a "Denier."

This is absolutely true. My true position on this is: "skeptic". There may be some valid science behind the AGW theory, but there isn't anything approaching rock-solid proof. Not of the mechanism, nor of the claimed evidence of it happening.

There is, in fact, some very shoddy, if not outright fraudulent work being done on behalf of the AGW lobby. Mann's "hockey stick" is simply the best-known instance. Nils-Axel Mörner may be a kook in some aspects of his life, but he seems to have been well-respected in his professional field.

Here is a link to the blog wattsupwiththat, which discusses a report that Mörner did on the Maldives, complete with photographs that support his conclusion that the sea level there is not rising, but falling. These photos are very strong evidence for a falling sea level, or probably more correctly, an uplift of the seabed beneath the Maldives.

458 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:18:12pm

re: #457 Alberta Oil Peon

Nils-Axel Mörner may be a kook in some aspects of his life, but he seems to have been well-respected in his professional field.

Did you miss the paper that Thanos just linked to? Morner is absolutely not well-respected by other scientists -- he's regarded as a kook.

Because he is.

459 Bagua  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:19:39pm

re: #450 Charles

Hi Charles,

I did read those links and there is stuff there that concerns me, I'm not cheerleading the guy at all and he's not on my list of experts, I'm just trying to determine if those few links apply to all his actual research as well.

What Thanos wrote and you linked is more what I'm getting at, a critic of the relevant work.

460 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:23:12pm

There are a lot more papers refuting him, but they are behind membership walls at the publications, else I would link them as well.

Regarding tidal gauges:


(ii) The data on sea levels from tide guages, comes from 100's of tide guage locations. In fact there are probably 1000's of these, but since it would be foolish to use tide guage measurements from regions where the geophysics, in relation to isostatic post glacial rebound effects or subsidence, is poorly defined, many of these are eliminated from analysis. So as Douglas and Peltier stated in a review some years ago:

"Tide guages in Alaska, Japan, India, and many other areas have long records that are unusable because of vertical uplift or subsidence associated with seismic activity or crustal deformation"

BC Douglas and WR Peltier (2002) The puzzle of global sea-level rise. Physics Today 2002, 35-40.

And so, for example, a recent analysis of the rate of sea level rise throughout the 20th century century analyzed data from a set of tide guages that numbered around 50 in 1900, rising to around 100 in 1940 and 300 in the 1990's. Tide guages data were only used where reliable assessment of non-sea level change contributions were determined either to be minimal or assessable [*]

[*] J. A. Church & N. J. White (2006) A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise. Geophys. Res. Lett 33, art # L01602

Netherlands is not one of those areas where they need to eliminate using the tide gauges.

461 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:24:52pm

re: #457 Alberta Oil Peon

Here is a link to the blog wattsupwiththat, which discusses a report that Mörner did on the Maldives, complete with photographs that support his conclusion that the sea level there is not rising, but falling. These photos are very strong evidence for a falling sea level, or probably more correctly, an uplift of the seabed beneath the Maldives.

People who live in the Maldives could not possibly disagree more with this assessment:

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

462 docremulac  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:26:34pm

re: #393 lostlakehiker

Regarding using old pics of bridge pilings to mark sea level rise

"...sea level rise has been minuscule..."

Well, yes that's my point. But drastic sea level rise (presumably the kind we care about) would be documented in the thousands of photographs taken of these bridges. To get useful information out of these pictures taking tides into consideration might be tricky but not impossible if you were motivated (and bored)

Angle of the sun for time of day and the date on the picture for example. I assume you can project tide charts back as far as you want. You may or may not be able to get info about inches of sea rise, but I was talking more about the large changes liberals say are happening.

But none of that is really necessary, I'm sure we keep sea level records and the amount of variation is inconsequential. The idea of looking at landmarks to see if they get covered with water is only something you'd do if catastrophic sea level rises were occurring, and they aren't.

So yes, a better way to check sea levels would be to check with the people keeping those records. Unless they're owned by the Democrats, then I wouldn't trust them if they told me the sun was coming up in the morning.

463 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:27:32pm

re: #462 docremulac

So yes, a better way to check sea levels would be to check with the people keeping those records. Unless they're owned by the Democrats, then I wouldn't trust them if they told me the sun was coming up in the morning.

Posted for the second time:

Current sea level rise:

The longest running sea-level measurements are recorded at Amsterdam, in the Netherlands—most of which lies beneath sea level, hence the name. Records from 1700 onwards can be found here. Since 1850, a rise of approx 1.5 mm/year is shown here.

464 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:30:12pm

re: #457 Alberta Oil Peon

or probably more correctly, an uplift of the seabed beneath the Maldives.

Which is exactly why it was the chosen spot. Morner might be right in that the Maldives aren't sinking (being in one of the more geo-active areas of the earth, an area rising as India continues to push into Asia...) however he's probably way wrong in his conclusion that the oceans aren't rising at all.

465 Bagua  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:37:33pm

re: #464 Thanos

Yes, its possible to be both right and wrong.

It seems beyond dispute that the sea levels have risen significantly since the last ice age, the question is to what extent is that continuing now, at what rate and duration and is it now caused by human activity? Is this rise accelerating and so on. What seems completely crackpot is to assert certainty to any theory at this point in time.

466 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:39:40pm

If you want to look at real data, here's a great place to start

[Link: www.pol.ac.uk...]

467 gnargtharst  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:41:28pm

re: #447 Charles

I don't want to mischaracterized as supporting this Morner character --"water divination" *is* kooky, and he should be called on it. But, as was mentioned above, many scientists have held ridiculous beliefs outside their field. This points to a lack of integration, but does not automatically invalidate every claim they make. And so we can only judge his claim, on the basis of the science.

"...On Morner's association with oil lobbyists, I'm not sure who is most likely to be dishonest, a scientist who is associated with, but not necessarily funded by, a "group controlled by energy industry lobbyists", or a climate expert whose funding is dependent on there being a man-made global warming threat. No threat? No funding."

From Charles: "It is extremely disingenuous of you to suggest that there is nothing suspicious about the fact that Morner is employed by an energy industry apologist group."

The words you respond to, I've left intact above. I see no verbiage to suggest a claim that there's "nothing suspicious" about such affiliation, only that the AGW industry itself is not above suspicion.

For my part, I grant no undue credit or condemnation to industry-funded groups. Some are formed to fight unjust legislation in the first place. As for the governmental science industry, it is so deeply corrupt on such a wide range of issues (perhaps you've heard of the Texas State Government's science program...), and so consistently supportive of the conclusion that there's a CATASTROPHE! that can only be solved by MORE GOVERNMENT!, that I automatically consider government-backed claims suspect, until proven otherwise.

(To re-emphasize: I don't have an opinion on the levels of the oceans relative to a few decades ago. In fact, I don't remotely care. I do, however, hold the opinion, that regular citizens, whose scientific expertise extends to the content of a brochure they got from Ted Danson, who nonetheless are CERTAIN that CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE is going to KILL US ALL, particularly those of us who are polar bears, and who therefore feel impelled to preach Puritan/Ludditism to us via email... are suffering from something akin to religious delusion.)

468 Alberta Oil Peon  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:41:40pm

re: #417 Charles

And it's equally over-reaching to say I "called him a liar," because I wrote no such thing.

His opinions about the rise in sea level are worthless. He may or may not be lying, or he may not even know himself.

Just because the guy is indubitably a kook in some of his extra-curricular activities, it does not necessarily follow that he is a kook in his professional field.

469 Aye Pod  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:42:21pm

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

I get the feeling one of Mr Morner's pals wrote his Wiki entry for him - it states his positions, but there's no mention of any criticism of his work whatsoever, and all the links point to pages from his own website - all highly abnormal for a wiki page about a scientist with controversial views.

470 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:42:29pm

More Datasets here

[Link: www.pol.ac.uk...]

471 ConservativeAtheist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:43:02pm

re: #440 Thanos

I agree, the Gore / Hanson flick is sensationalized science at best, pseudo-science at worst.

The effect definitely isn't "catastrophic" but, at some point we should move to decrease our signature, if for no other reason than benzene ring compounds aren't healthy to breathe.

Please explain what CO2 concentrations have to do with breathing benzene ring compounds?

472 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:46:35pm

re: #471 ConservativeAtheist

When you start your car and go anywhere, you are creating benzene ring compounds, those go into the air. They are also greenhouse gases. They cause cancer.

Diesel, gas, ethanol, etc. all create them when they are burned. Coal creates them when it is burned. CO2 is just the tagalong product. You reduce one, you most likely reduce the other and vice versa.

473 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:52:53pm

re: #468 Alberta Oil Peon

Just because the guy is indubitably a kook in some of his extra-curricular activities, it does not necessarily follow that he is a kook in his professional field.

I suggest you read this:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Not only is Morner a kook, he is apparently a fraud as well:

Dear Dr. Osipov:

It has come to my attention that Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner gave presentations at the seminar on climate change organized by the Russian Academy of Sciences at the request of President Vladimir Putin earlier this month. Dr. Mörner attacked the science of climate change, while claiming that he is President of the Commission on Sea Level Change of INQUA.

I am writing to inform you that Dr. Mörner has misrepresented his position with INQUA. Dr. Mörner was President of the Commission on Sea Level Change until July 2003, but the commission was terminated at that time during a reorganization of the commission structure of INQUA. Dr. Mörner currently has no formal position in INQUA, and I am distressed that he continues to represent himself in his former capacity. Further, INQUA, which is an umbrella organization for hundreds of researchers knowledgeable about past climate, does not subscribe to Mörner’s position on climate change. Nearly all of these researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth’s climate, a position diametrically opposed to Dr. Mörner’s point of view.

Sincerely,
John J. Clague President, INQUA

474 Aye Pod  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:56:25pm

re: #468 Alberta Oil Peon

Just because the guy is indubitably a kook in some of his extra-curricular activities, it does not necessarily follow that he is a kook in his professional field.

Not absolutely, but as a rule of thumb it's pretty reliable in my experience. For example, last time I heard that argument being made it was in defence of that 9/11 troof 'professor' who wrote a paper that presented 'evidence' of Jesus visiting America. "Just because he wrote that paper doesn't mean blah blah..."

And the point about dowsing is that it is a 'different field' as far as everyone else is concerned - the nonsense field - but to him, it is science - he apparently believes that this is how the natural world operates. This asks serious questions of his scientific judgement, or his honesty.

475 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:58:31pm

And with that, I'm finished running around doing everyone's research for them.

476 Alberta Oil Peon  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 5:58:38pm

re: #458 Charles

Did you miss the paper that Thanos just linked to? Morner is absolutely not well-respected by other scientists -- he's regarded as a kook.

Because he is.

I hadn't reached Thanos' link when I responded to Zombie. I downloaded the .pdf, and will read it after I have supper, which is calling me right at this moment.

But clearly Morner was regarded as an expert in his field, and was put in charge of several academic bodies. Perhaps he has had some kind of meltdown, or maybe he simply compartmentalizes his beliefs.

477 Aye Pod  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:04:14pm

re: #473 Charles

Case closed.

478 docremulac  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:07:01pm

re: #463 Charles

Re sea level rise official records:

"Since 1850, a rise of approx 1.5 mm/year is shown here..."

So 1 Foot = 304.8 millimeters, that's a foot in 200 years assuming that rate stays the same. So about a thousand years before the Golden Gate Bridge needs to re-concrete it's pilings.

I'm trying to loose sleep over this but it's just not happening.

479 TheConservator  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:07:28pm

Charles:

A consensus of 100 scientists is undone by one fact--A. Einstein

A skeptic's evaluation of the theory that man is causing global warning:
[Link: home.comcast.net...]

This strikes me as a very sensible analysis of this issue.

480 ConservativeAtheist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:08:06pm

re: #472 Thanos

When you start your car and go anywhere, you are creating benzene ring compounds, those go into the air. They are also greenhouse gases. They cause cancer.

Diesel, gas, ethanol, etc. all create them when they are burned. Coal creates them when it is burned. CO2 is just the tagalong product. You reduce one, you most likely reduce the other and vice versa.

With all due respect, please learn some basic chemistry. Combustion of ethanol, for example:

C2H5OH + 3O2 --> 2CO2 + 3H2O

CO2 is not the "tagalong" product. It and water vapor are the main products. Due to incomplete combustion, you can obtain other carbon compounds in smaller quantities, but even this is going to mostly be carbon monoxide.

481 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:08:18pm

NOAA Data

[Link: co-ops.nos.noaa.gov...]

482 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:09:12pm

re: #480 ConservativeAtheist

So you mean to tell me you've never driven behind a stinky bus or car?

483 ConservativeAtheist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:12:10pm

re: #478 docremulac

Satellite-derived records for the past decade and a half also show a rise of approximately 3.2 mm/yr, or about a foot per century. I agree, hard to lose sleep over.

484 ConservativeAtheist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:13:35pm

re: #482 Thanos

So you mean to tell me you've never driven behind a stinky bus or car?

Sure, but what do minute traces of H2S have to do with CO2? (or benzene)

485 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:13:44pm

What makes a stinky bus or car stink? Could it be that incomplete combustion you mentioned and aromatic compounds?

486 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:16:49pm

The point is that combustion is never a pure process, all forms of it do introduce some forms of carcinogens into the atmosphere, some more, some less. Sometimes it's oil and gas burning in those cylinders, sometimes it's water, gas, and oil. Sometimes it's carbon from the cylinder walls, water, ethanol, and oil at varying pressures and temperatures. It's not as pure as you spell it out to be.

487 docremulac  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:18:11pm

Can I approach this whole man made global warming allegation from a different perspective?

WE don't have to disprove anything.

Exceptional claims require exceptional proof. The job of proving the Earth is going to end unless you give a particular group of politicians money and power falls upon the shoulders of those making the allegations.

Let me put it this way: I dare anybody out there to prove Bigfoot isn't going to break into your house in 5 years and pee on your food unless you send me fifty bucks.

And do you think Al Gore will send the money back if his claims turn out to be as bogus as those in "The Population Bomb" book in 15 years? He'll just say he prevented it by planting a couple of trees. Just like I prevented Bigfoot from breaking into your house and violating your PopTarts.

488 Aye Pod  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:23:09pm

re: #484 ConservativeAtheist

Sure, but what do minute traces of H2S have to do with CO2? (or benzene)

[Link: www.nature.com...]

Benzene pollution emanating from motor traffic can cause leukaemia1, 2, 3, with the risk being estimated at about four cases per million among people who experience lifelong exposure to benzene concentrations of 1 mug m-3 in air

489 marsl  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:23:34pm

It seems that the only rise that we see is in Al Gore's bank accounts... wonder why....

490 ConservativeAtheist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:26:56pm

re: #486 Thanos

The point is that combustion is never a pure process, all forms of it do introduce some forms of carcinogens into the atmosphere, some more, some less.

Sorry, that's simply not true.

2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O

Now if we could just find a cheap, non-polluting source of hydrogen and a decent way to transport and store it.

We are nowhere near ending our reliance on fossil fuels unless you want to return us to the stone age. Unfortunately, that seems to quite be the point for much of the radical environmentalist movement.

491 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:33:10pm

re: #490 ConservativeAtheist

But without proper carburation burning hydrogen creates laughing gas...

492 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:34:06pm

re: #490 ConservativeAtheist

Yes, it is true. What makes stinky cars and buses stink? You never answered the question.

493 Aye Pod  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:34:27pm

Again, it seems that the only approach to this problem that AGW sceptics are aware of, or feel comfortable acknowledging is the luddite approach of going back to some kind of pre technological world. for many though, myself included, the real solution is to put lots and lots of cash and man hours into propelling ourselves into the next technological age. (Not to mention that this would also free us of our dependence on Saudi/middle eastern oil)

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

Giant laser experiment powers up


The US has finished constructing a huge physics experiment aimed at recreating conditions at the heart of our Sun.

The US National Ignition Facility is designed to demonstrate the feasibility of nuclear fusion, a process that could offer abundant clean energy.

The lab will kick-start the reaction by focusing 192 giant laser beams on a tiny pellet of hydrogen fuel.

To work, it must show that more energy can be extracted from the process than is required to initiate it.

Professor Mike Dunne, who leads a European venture that is also pursuing nuclear fusion with lasers, told BBC News that if NIF was successful, it would be a "seismic event".

"It would mark the transition for laser fusion from 'physics' to 'engineering reality'," he said.

494 Bagua  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:34:38pm

re: #491 Thanos

Ha, ha ha... :-)

Goodnight, and thank you for the links and input.

495 gnargtharst  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:34:44pm

re: #475 Charles

Overall, this seemed an odd topic to me: criticsm of a kook for holding kooky ideas, alongside controversial ideas which are likely beyond the expertise of anybody here, so that the legitimate criticism is inextricably twsited together with a conclusion one way or another on the issue of AGW... a topic about which you admittedly have no firm opinion.

For topics like this, that typically shed far more flames than light, I typically ask a question that gets to the heart of the methodology involved:

What fact or facts would convince you one way or another about X? [X being alternatively AGW, catastrophic AGW, the efficacy of organic granola, etc.]

Without such a cognitive standard, is there any reason to even discuss AGW, or sea levels, etc.?

496 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:35:58pm

More satellite data studies on Ocean levels:

[Link: ibis.grdl.noaa.gov...]

497 docremulac  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:37:18pm

re: #490 ConservativeAtheist

"We are nowhere near ending our reliance on fossil fuels unless you want to return us to the stone age. Unfortunately, that seems to quite be the point for much of the radical environmentalist movement."

Got that right. I don't believe for a second the people at the top of this environmental-doomsday-for-cash movement give a damn about anything but lining their pockets and increasing their power over others. The people following them are just morons who wouldn't know scientific method if it popped out of their bong and bit them on the ass.

498 Bagua  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:39:06pm

re: #493 Jimmah

Agreed Jimmah, but the point I'd make is that while we are working on the technological advances, we still need to eat, drive, etc., we simply can not replace the massive oil based economy and infrastructure rapidly, it would destroy us economically.

Alternatively, if we drilled for our own crude, used much more nuclear and so on, we could have a century or two of cheap crude while the inevitable advances came on line. It shouldn't be forced upon us.

499 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:42:02pm

re: #495 gnargtharst

Overall, this seemed an odd topic to me: criticsm of a kook for holding kooky ideas, alongside controversial ideas which are likely beyond the expertise of anybody here, so that the legitimate criticism is inextricably twsited together with a conclusion one way or another on the issue of AGW... a topic about which you admittedly have no firm opinion.

For topics like this, that typically shed far more flames than light, I typically ask a question that gets to the heart of the methodology involved:

What fact or facts would convince you one way or another about X? [X being alternatively AGW, catastrophic AGW, the efficacy of organic granola, etc.]

Without such a cognitive standard, is there any reason to even discuss AGW, or sea levels, etc.?

I have no idea what your point is with this.

MY point is that we need to be very careful about who we align ourselves with, because there's way too much crackpot garbage being spread about this issue.

And I have a thing about people who lie and misrepresent facts, especially when they are serving a dishonest agenda.

500 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:43:17pm

I don't know about your perfect car CA, but my car sometimes drives in the mountains, sometimes drives in the plains. Sometimes it's in rain or fog, sometimes it's not. Sometimes my foot is heavy, sometimes my foot is light. Sometimes the engine is hot, sometimes the engine is cold.

Modern cars are a wonder of computerized combustion technology in the amount of toxins not created, but they are not perfect.

501 Bagua  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:44:34pm

re: #499 Charles

Agreed, and I appreciate your fact checking and research.

502 Alberta Oil Peon  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:47:33pm

re: #486 Thanos

The point is that combustion is never a pure process, all forms of it do introduce some forms of carcinogens into the atmosphere, some more, some less. Sometimes it's oil and gas burning in those cylinders, sometimes it's water, gas, and oil. Sometimes it's carbon from the cylinder walls, water, ethanol, and oil at varying pressures and temperatures. It's not as pure as you spell it out to be.

That is why we now have catalytic converters on automobiles. If the emissions system of a modern automobile is working properly, virtually nothing exits the tailpipe besides CO2 and water vapor.

And modern coal-burning power plants are quipped with scrubbers, too.

503 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:48:45pm

re: #449 gnargtharst

I asked "What temperature do you propose that the Earth should be?"

Ludwig replied:

"This is a talking point kind of question... [Actually no -- it was a specific and simple question; I'd like to know at what specific worldwide mean temperature I'll stop being harangued by church-lady-type greens wagging their armed fingers at me for the sin or paying for the energy I use. It's not lost on me that you've punted.]

"...The proper answer is that the Earth should be at a temperature that does not cause massive loss of arable land, change of habitat and loss of coastline."

So, as soon as climate is completely static -- something it has never been in 4 billion years -- we can start enjoying our light bulbs again? Great.

Well, at least the Global Warming Church Ladies don't have the power of armed government behind th... oh... never mind.

No I didn't punt, I went to another thread.

You are not interested in looking at this rationally. You assume that because I am a physicist who actually has the expertise to make real comments about this stuff that I am some church lady green and that I want to take away all of your toys, simply because I have the audacity to point to real data and not play sophomoric debating games.

Step one: Acknowledging the problem is separate from the proposed solution.
Step two: My proposed solution - drastically increasing nuclear plants, is hardly what the hippie crowd would like.

504 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:51:26pm

Sea level trend chart, notice the rise in lower latitudes, the fall in northern latitudes, it's important to know that to counter one of Morning's specious arguments.

[Link: yosemite.epa.gov...]

505 Alberta Oil Peon  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:52:12pm

re: #493 Jimmah

Again, it seems that the only approach to this problem that AGW sceptics are aware of, or feel comfortable acknowledging is the luddite approach of going back to some kind of pre technological world. for many though, myself included, the real solution is to put lots and lots of cash and man hours into propelling ourselves into the next technological age. (Not to mention that this would also free us of our dependence on Saudi/middle eastern oil)

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

Giant laser experiment powers up

I call bullshit. I'm an AGW skeptic, but I fully support research into alternative sources of energy. Petroleum and coal can keep us going for a while, but those resources are not infinite, and we would really be better off to keep them for use as manufacturing feedstock, anyway.

506 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:53:06pm

re: #502 Alberta Oil Peon

That is why we now have catalytic converters on automobiles. If the emissions system of a modern automobile is working properly, virtually nothing exits the tailpipe besides CO2 and water vapor.

And modern coal-burning power plants are quipped with scrubbers, too.

Again true in a perfect world, and they've done wonders, but not all bad products are trapped by catalytic converters. Cars are definitely cleaner than they used to be when kept in good maintenance, and running in normal conditions.

507 Aye Pod  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:57:27pm

re: #498 Bagua

With the proper effort and a little luck we can get there in very much shorter than the time scale you mention. Again, from the BBC article:

Professor Mike Dunne, who leads a European venture that is also pursuing nuclear fusion with lasers, told BBC News that if NIF was successful, it would be a "seismic event".

"It would mark the transition for laser fusion from 'physics' to 'engineering reality'," he said.

Lets hope this experiment is successful...

508 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:59:38pm

re: #507 Jimmah

With the proper effort and a little luck we can get there in very much shorter than the time scale you mention. Again, from the BBC article:

Professor Mike Dunne, who leads a European venture that is also pursuing nuclear fusion with lasers, told BBC News that if NIF was successful, it would be a "seismic event".

"It would mark the transition for laser fusion from 'physics' to 'engineering reality'," he said.

Lets hope this experiment is successful...

Amen. Controlled fusion would solve everything energy wise - and be very very green to boot.

509 zombie  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 6:59:55pm

re: #493 Jimmah

Again, it seems that the only approach to this problem that AGW sceptics are aware of, or feel comfortable acknowledging is the luddite approach of going back to some kind of pre technological world. for many though, myself included, the real solution is to put lots and lots of cash and man hours into propelling ourselves into the next technological age. (Not to mention that this would also free us of our dependence on Saudi/middle eastern oil)

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

Giant laser experiment powers up

On this issue you and I wholeheartedly agree.

While we seem to have different opinions about the significance and severity of possible anthropogenic climate change, we do agree that this current hysteria (merited or not) has one wonderful side effect: It will hasten the West freeing ourselves from dependence on Saudi oil. (And Venezuelan oil and Iranian oil and Russian oil).

I would like nothing more than to see the Saudi bank accounts drained and the Wahhabist doctrine revert to being just an obscure desert cult. So, despite my skepticism concerning the Global Warming hysteria, I find its side effect so pleasing that I'm willing to let the anti-capitalists have their little fun, because we more quickly will develop non-polluting energy sources, and the Saudis' day in the limelight will more quickly come to an end.

510 Aye Pod  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:03:07pm

re: #505 Alberta Oil Peon

I wasn't talking about you personally, but surely you must have noticed this "they want us to give up all out stuff" meme among AGW sceptics?

511 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:04:38pm

re: #509 zombie

I would like nothing more than to see the Saudi bank accounts drained and the Wahhabist doctrine revert to being just an obscure desert cult. So, despite my skepticism concerning the Global Warming hysteria, I find its side effect so pleasing that I'm willing to let the anti-capitalists have their little fun, because we more quickly will develop non-polluting energy sources, and the Saudis' day in the limelight will more quickly come to an end.

Great point, and this is why the energy industry is funding deceptive efforts to subvert the AGW theory, because they are deeply in bed with the Saudis.

512 Basho  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:05:00pm

re: #508 LudwigVanQuixote

Amen. Controlled fusion would solve everything energy wise - and be very very green to boot.

As a cynic once said: Fusion is the energy of the future and always will be.

513 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:07:20pm

re: #512 Basho

As a cynic once said: Fusion is the energy of the future and always will be.

Meanwhile the tried and true off the shelf solution is nuclear fission.

514 Basho  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:10:54pm

re: #487 docremulac


Exceptional claims require exceptional proof. The job of proving the Earth is going to end unless you give a particular group of politicians money and power falls upon the shoulders of those making the allegations.

[Link: scienceblogs.com...]

...global warming isn't going to destroy the world[.] It's not an argument anyone is making. It could very well make the world more tropical, and it could be of some advantage to certain kinds of plants.

However, please note: human beings aren't plants (well, most of us, anyway — John Shimkus does seem to share some similarities with root vegetables). The concern with global warming is change that will cause economic disruption and environmental disturbances and damage to places we like…like cities. Honestly, if nations collapse, we know that algae will still thrive. We just happen to generally take the side of humanity.

515 Basho  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:13:47pm

re: #513 Thanos

Meanwhile the tried and true off the shelf solution is nuclear fission.

Forgot where I read it, but one named Harry Reid is the main individual responsible for halting nuclear power plant progress in this country. He's a Democrat if I recall correctly. But whining about funds going to volcano monitoring is more important I guess...

516 Aye Pod  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:17:41pm

re: #512 Basho

Honestly, if nations collapse, we know that algae will still thrive. We just happen to generally take the side of humanity.

PZ myers puts it well as ever.

517 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:18:24pm

re: #509 zombie

In one of my earlier replies to you, I failed to make clear that 1/10 of a degree in the oceans not only means a great deal more thermal energy in the oceans, but a great deal more water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2. It really is a much bigger problem than you think because of the feedback involved.

518 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:19:41pm

re: #511 Charles

Great point, and this is why the energy industry is funding deceptive efforts to subvert the AGW theory, because they are deeply in bed with the Saudis.

And there we also have the problem with expanding fission plants and fusion research. If you wish to go into the fusion battles in the congress you will see a fight played out between DoD, DoE on the pro side and the Oil lobby opposed.

519 Basho  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:27:14pm

re: #517 LudwigVanQuixote

This may or not have anything to do with what you're talking about, but ocean acidification is "yet another carbon challenge":
[Link: www.hereticalideas.com...]

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the oceans have absorbed approximately 30-40% of all man-made carbon dioxide emissions. And that absorption is beginning to show.

The basic problem here is one of chemistry. When carbon dioxide dissolves in water, one of the byproducts is carbonic acid (H2CO3). Now, there are many buffer systems in place in the oceans to prevent too great a change in pH. However, over the past 200 years, the increase in carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere and, consequently, the oceans, have been so great as to overwhelm the ocean’s natural ability to keep the pH in balance, which is why it has dropped 0.1 so quickly.

520 hopperandadropper  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:28:30pm

There is actually a fairly simple test which can be applied to the global warming debate. Which side of the argument is supporting (a) higher taxes, (b) more government control over your life, (c) more government control over businesses, (d) loss of national sovereignty, (e) creating a new bureaucracy to run it all?

I'm voting with the other guys, thanks.

521 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:31:54pm

re: #519 Basho

This may or not have anything to do with what you're talking about, but ocean acidification is "yet another carbon challenge":
[Link: www.hereticalideas.com...]

Actually it goes hand and hand with what I am talking about. Good show.

522 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:33:32pm

re: #520 hopperandadropper

There is actually a fairly simple test which can be applied to the global warming debate. Which side of the argument is supporting (a) higher taxes, (b) more government control over your life, (c) more government control over businesses, (d) loss of national sovereignty, (e) creating a new bureaucracy to run it all?

I'm voting with the other guys, thanks.

That is not a particularly scientific argument. As you stay in denial and the effects of it catch up with us in future generations, you kids will thank you for your astute scientific thinking.

This is not and should not be about politics. If the GoP didn't have the oil lobbies hand around its balls, perhaps the GoP could have gotten the science right on this one.

523 hopperandadropper  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:38:41pm

re: #515 Basho

I find it incredibly ironic that an advocate of AGW would try and make the case by talking about economic disruption. Let's see, inflict massive economic disruption right now in order to prevent an unknown degree of economic disruption that may or may not occur at some unknown point in the future.

Riiiiiight.

524 Basho  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:43:43pm

re: #521 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually it goes hand and hand with what I am talking about. Good show.

Nice. re: #520 hopperandadropper

There is actually a fairly simple test which can be applied to the global warming debate. Which side of the argument is supporting (a) higher taxes, (b) more government control over your life, (c) more government control over businesses, (d) loss of national sovereignty, (e) creating a new bureaucracy to run it all?

I'm voting with the other guys, thanks.

Increases in taxes and regulations go hand and hand with population growth. After all, fitting a few million people into a small space is a recipe for disaster without a lot of regulation to sort things out. And the more regulation the more taxation to keep the system running.

Maybe some of Paul Ehrlich's ideas would be a nice fit for your political philosophy. I'm not being facetious, I agree with some of his ideas.

525 LieSeeker  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:44:16pm

Did Morner claim to still be president of INQUA, or did he merely include that responsibility in his list of recognitions? Where's the link to the conference proceedings where he claimed to still be president?

526 Basho  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:44:40pm

re: #524 Basho

Sorry Ludwig... don't know how your quote showed up there.

527 Basho  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:45:52pm

re: #523 hopperandadropper

I find it incredibly ironic that an advocate of AGW would try and make the case by talking about economic disruption. Let's see, inflict massive economic disruption right now in order to prevent an unknown degree of economic disruption that may or may not occur at some unknown point in the future.

Riiiiiight.

Sounds like supply-side economics. Oooh I made a funny ;D

528 hopperandadropper  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:50:45pm

re: #522 LudwigVanQuixote

As a scientist, it's been my experience that valid scientific arguments usually don't have the political consequences I mentioned. I note that you did not refute my points, just whine about Exxon. They produce a panoply of incredibly useful products, at reasonable cost, but that makes them EVIL, right?

But okay, now let's make the scientific argument. Fact A: The climate of the earth has been both much warmer and much colder than it is now, including episodes of both within recorded human history. Fact B: None of the events mentioned in Fact A could possibly have been caused by human activity. Fact C: it is not necessary to invoke human activity to explain anything that is currently being observed. Fact D: Even if you ignore Fact C, CO2 is not well correlated with 20th century climate. The climate was cooling for more than two decades in the middle of the century, at a time when fossil fuel production and consumption was expanding markedly. Over the past 9 or ten years, the climate has not changed significantly- if anything there is a slight cooling trend. Yet CO2 continued to rise. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is trivial compared to the effect of water vapor, a far more prevalent atmospheric gas.

So what exactly is the actual physical data showing that CO2 drives climate change? Hint: the output from computer models does not constitute data. Physical observations constitute data.

529 ConservativeAtheist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 7:53:19pm

re: #488 Jimmah

re: #492 Thanos

Yes, it is true. What makes stinky cars and buses stink? You never answered the question.

Yes, I did. H2S. Most diesel fuels contain traces of sulfur.

Severely incomplete combustion can produce soot products (such as with diesel engines) which contain traces of PAH's, but this is hardly one of the main products of combustion, as you implied.

I'm all for replacing fossil fuels, but it is ludicrous to think that this will happen overnight, as many of our politicians keep promising. All "cutting national emissions to 1990 levels by 2020" will do is to give us a 1990 economy in eleven more years.

530 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:00:35pm

re: #525 LieSeeker

Did Morner claim to still be president of INQUA, or did he merely include that responsibility in his list of recognitions? Where's the link to the conference proceedings where he claimed to still be president?

Why don't you look it up for yourself, instead of asking others to do the work? The current president of INQUA stated very clearly that Morner misrepresented his position.

531 Basho  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:02:30pm

re: #438 Jimmah

Yes, 'climate scientists forgot to factor in the sun'. This is the sort of thing that AGW sceptics actually go around believing.

I was going to add water vapor to that... but thanks to 528 I won't seem so clairvoyant =(

532 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:03:19pm

re: #529 ConservativeAtheist

I did not imply it was the main product, you inferred that. I said combustion releases those products in the air, which it does.
Here you can do some reading

[Link: books.google.com...]

533 ConservativeAtheist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:05:17pm

re: #511 Charles

... and this is why the environmentalist industry energy industry is funding deceptive efforts to promote subvert the catastrophic AGW hypothosis theory, because they are deeply in bed with the Socialists Saudis.

Sorry, Charles, I agree with you on most things, but my modified quote has just as much validity as your original.

534 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:10:56pm

CA, also please note that I said "Benzene ring compounds" ... not Benzene. That might be what's throwing you off here since this is pretty elementary.
I've got to go watch Jack Bauer, have a good night.

535 ConservativeAtheist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:12:10pm

re: #472 Thanos

Diesel, gas, ethanol, etc. all create them when they are burned. Coal creates them when it is burned. CO2 is just the tagalong product. You reduce one, you most likely reduce the other and vice versa.

I guess I misconstrued your statement of CO2 just being a "tagalong" product.

536 ConservativeAtheist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:13:37pm

re: #534 Thanos

CA, also please note that I said "Benzene ring compounds" ... not Benzene. That might be what's throwing you off here since this is pretty elementary.
I've got to go watch Jack Bauer, have a good night.

Note that I referenced PAH's. Elementary indeed. With all seriousness, I hope you have a good night also.

537 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:16:07pm

re: #533 ConservativeAtheist

Sorry, Charles, I agree with you on most things, but my modified quote has just as much validity as your original.

Oh really? So it's your position that Saudi Arabia has no influence on the US energy industry?

How's the weather on your planet?

538 hopperandadropper  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:18:30pm

re: #531 Basho

You guys love to pretend that solar activity has been perfectly accounted for in pro-AGW models, but that is inconsistent with the facts. The effects of the sun are far more complex than most people understand. Cosmic rays are implicated in the formation of clouds, for example, although the effects are not fully understood. The degree of cloud cover has large effects on heating, for obvious reasons. Changes in the sun's magnetic field may also be significant.

Sunspot data correlate with warming and cooling cycles much better than CO2 does, and the records go back for hundreds of years. I've been around long enough to know that most of the people selling AGW now come from the same crew that was screaming 25 years ago about the horrible dangers of biotechnology. Many of them were also screaming 30 years ago about impending severe global cooling. I find it interesting that you AGWers just make snarky comments without offering any factual arguments.

539 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:19:36pm

re: #528 hopperandadropper

As a scientist, it's been my experience that valid scientific arguments usually don't have the political consequences I mentioned. I note that you did not refute my points, just whine about Exxon. They produce a panoply of incredibly useful products, at reasonable cost, but that makes them EVIL, right?

Don't be ludicrous. Exxon would never ever put it's own gain above the common good. They are some of the greenest, most philanthropic people on the planet. They would never gouge or pollute or try to use their political influence to the benefit of their bottom line.

But okay, now let's make the scientific argument. Fact A: The climate of the earth has been both much warmer and much colder than it is now, including episodes of both within recorded human history.

But it has never had these concentrations of greenhouse gasses - not just CO2

Fact B: None of the events mentioned in Fact A could possibly have been caused by human activity.

This is patently false. The ocean algae and the forests were not depleted by natural causes. Methane from industrial agricultural sewage was not naturally caused. Enormous amounts of exhaust from autos and factories was not naturally caused. We are talking billions of tons of gas. What would make you think that there is no effect?

Fact C: it is not necessary to invoke human activity to explain anything that is currently being observed.

False, See the paper I linked above. If you do not like that one, I have others I can link.

Fact D: Even if you ignore Fact C, CO2 is not well correlated with 20th century climate. The climate was cooling for more than two decades in the middle of the century, at a time when fossil fuel production and consumption was expanding markedly. Over the past 9 or ten years, the climate has not changed significantly- if anything there is a slight cooling trend. Yet CO2 continued to rise. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is trivial compared to the effect of water vapor, a far more prevalent atmospheric gas.

False false and false. Nothing you have said there is true.

So what exactly is the actual physical data showing that CO2 drives climate change? Hint: the output from computer models does not constitute data. Physical observations constitute data.

Again, the models have made accurate predictions. See the paper I linked above, or for that matter any of a slew of others. For that matter, if you are not going to use computers to crunch systems of differential equations, what other method of analysis do you propose?

I do not doubt that you are some sort of scientist, but you are clearly not involved with the field.

540 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:21:15pm

re: #538 hopperandadropper

You guys love to pretend that solar activity has been perfectly accounted for in pro-AGW models, but that is inconsistent with the facts. The effects of the sun are far more complex than most people understand. Cosmic rays are implicated in the formation of clouds, for example, although the effects are not fully understood. The degree of cloud cover has large effects on heating, for obvious reasons. Changes in the sun's magnetic field may also be significant.

Sunspot data correlate with warming and cooling cycles much better than CO2 does, and the records go back for hundreds of years. I've been around long enough to know that most of the people selling AGW now come from the same crew that was screaming 25 years ago about the horrible dangers of biotechnology. Many of them were also screaming 30 years ago about impending severe global cooling. I find it interesting that you AGWers just make snarky comments without offering any factual arguments.

Actually the observer mission that would have settled that score completely is sitting in Greenbelt MD for the last eight years because Cheny prevented the launch. This year we will do the albedo measurements and settle that score once and for all.

541 rqballjohn  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:21:34pm

Hi gang- About 2 weeks ago I could find on the NOAA web site a chart that showed the world temp from the 1880 up to present. If you would change the starting dates to back before the 1960s it showed that we are cooler now than back then. Now I can not find it at the web site. I think it was named the -Global Mean Surface Temperature Map- Can anyone help me locate it again so that I can show others how the earth is not getting warmer. Thanks

542 Basho  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:28:40pm

re: #538 hopperandadropper

I find it interesting that you AGWers just make snarky comments without offering any factual arguments.

Idk... I'm not singling you out, but... whenever I post links or try to make a sound argument on this topic I seem to be flat out ignored. How many times do I have to post links about it's not the sun or the historical context behind 70's global cooling.

It's much more satisfying to talk to people like Jimmah or Ludwig who actually remember things I've pointed out three days ago.

About a week or two ago somebody basically called me an idiot on economic issues, without bothering to ask what my understanding of the subject is. (I minored in it, and was 4 electives away from a major in it) So nowadays a get a kick out of making fun of libertarian or "conservative" economics.

Those are basically the reasons I become snarky. It comes and goes in phases.

543 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:33:32pm

re: #541 rqballjohn

Hi gang- About 2 weeks ago I could find on the NOAA web site a chart that showed the world temp from the 1880 up to present. If you would change the starting dates to back before the 1960s it showed that we are cooler now than back then. Now I can not find it at the web site. I think it was named the -Global Mean Surface Temperature Map- Can anyone help me locate it again so that I can show others how the earth is not getting warmer. Thanks

How about these graphs from NASA that show that it is and has been rising.
[Link: data.giss.nasa.gov...]

544 ConservativeAtheist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:35:17pm

re: #537 Charles

You mistake my point. I agree that the Saudis certainly have influence. I disagree with the notion that those who disagree with the idea of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are oil industry shills. Are there some? Surely. Are there just as many on the other side who duplicitously push the notion of CAGW for their own ends? You bet.

It certainly seems difficult to find the high ground with this highly politicized subject which is an absolute tragedy for science.

545 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:40:19pm

re: #544 ConservativeAtheist

You mistake my point. I agree that the Saudis certainly have influence. I disagree with the notion that those who disagree with the idea of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are oil industry shills.

And you mistake my point. I certainly never said that every climate change skeptic is a shill for the oil industry -- but the one who is the subject of this post definitely is.

In addition to being a flat-out psycho, and a fraud.

546 Charles Johnson  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:41:14pm

And yes, the energy industry is absolutely funding a lot of deception on this issue.

547 hopperandadropper  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:44:43pm

re: #539 LudwigVanQuixote

I'm talking about things that occurred pre-19th century, and in most cases long before that (in fact, much of it took place before humans existed). Humans certainly had at least local environmental impacts during early human history, but it defies the laws of chemistry and physics to claim that 16th century humans generated more than a tiny fraction of today's industrial exhaust (CO2 and otherwise).

The cooling period between the late '40s and late '70s is extremely well documented. Look it up. Gotta go, thunderstorm coming.

548 ConservativeAtheist  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:48:55pm

re: #541 rqballjohn

You won't be able to find such graphs, because they don't exist. Global temperatures have been slightly increasing since a cooler period from the mid 40's through the mid 70's. What you can easily find is that temperatures have generally stopped increasing since the high temperature year of 1998. To eliminate the "I don't agree with that website" issues, I suggest plugging in UAH or MSS satellite data into Excel and making your own graphs.

549 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 8:49:19pm

re: #547 hopperandadropper

I'm talking about things that occurred pre-19th century, and in most cases long before that (in fact, much of it took place before humans existed). Humans certainly had at least local environmental impacts during early human history, but it defies the laws of chemistry and physics to claim that 16th century humans generated more than a tiny fraction of today's industrial exhaust (CO2 and otherwise).

The cooling period between the late '40s and late '70s is extremely well documented. Look it up. Gotta go, thunderstorm coming.

Yes, see the above link to global temperature trends... People actually thought we might be headed for an ice age once, but then post war industrialization and all of the feedbacks generated by it took over.

Your reasoning is utterly flawed in that it it fails to take into account all of the data and you have not addressed any of the peer reviewed papers I have brought or any of the hard data I have brought. You are only looking at what you want to see. How about you address any of my actual facts rather than repeating the same flawed talking points?

550 rqballjohn  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 9:06:41pm

re: #543 LudwigVanQuixote

re: #548 ConservativeAtheist

If you look at the middle map you will note that it starts in 1950. That map up until several weeks ago was on their website where if you would plug in the start date of say 1930 instead of 1950 it would show that we are cooler. It all depends of where the starting point is as to the result of the map. That map is the one I want to find. Thank You for the response.

551 gnargtharst  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 9:07:39pm

re: #499 Charles

My point was only that reference to this Morner dude tends to conflate the serious topic of AGW, with the trivial nonsense of his kookiness. Lotta heat, no light. By analogy consider anti-evolution groups who constantly refer to Richard Dawkins' (who, when not talking biology, can be an absolute loon).

As I started with in my original post, the throwaway phrase "every other scientist in the world" was what threw me. There's an implication in the phrase. You have since clarified, and subsequently posted the Freeman Dyson article too, so that clarified it a little more.

552 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 9:10:13pm

re: #550 rqballjohn

re: #548 ConservativeAtheist

If you look at the middle map you will note that it starts in 1950. That map up until several weeks ago was on their website where if you would plug in the start date of say 1930 instead of 1950 it would show that we are cooler. It all depends of where the starting point is as to the result of the map. That map is the one I want to find. Thank You for the response.

I don't know what map you are referring to. If you look at my NASA data you see no such thing.

553 Randall Gross  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 9:13:12pm

re: #535 ConservativeAtheist

I guess I misconstrued your statement of CO2 just being a "tagalong" product.

Yeah, that was poor phrasing, I meant in the sense that it is less harmful.

554 gnargtharst  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 9:21:51pm

re: #503 LudwigVanQuixote

"No I didn't punt, I went to another thread."

Presumably then, I'll find your answer on another thread? What temperature should the earth be? If it is a "problem", as you insist, for which government regulation is an appropriate solution, then one would hope you have a goal in mind. An actual temperature. Yes? No?

"You are not interested in looking at this rationally."

Ah.

"You assume that because..."

I assume you should get your ESP checked, as you're batting .000, and being quite rude in the bargain.

"... I am a physicist who actually has the expertise to make real comments about this stuff that I am some church lady green and that I want to take away all of your toys, simply because I have the audacity to point to real data and not play sophomoric debating games."

It was not my intention to direct these issues personally to you, except the request to quote me an acceptable temperature. Generally I am speaking of adherents to the Green Religion. If the shoe fits, be my guest, but it is not presumed.

"Step one: Acknowledging the problem is separate from the proposed solution...."

I propose Step one: figuring out whether climate change = catastrophe, without resorting to inherently religious premises, such as the belief that there is inherent value in a perpetually non-changing coastline, etc.

555 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 9:28:01pm

re: #554 gnargtharst

"No I didn't punt, I went to another thread."

Presumably then, I'll find your answer on another thread? What temperature should the earth be? If it is a "problem", as you insist, for which government regulation is an appropriate solution, then one would hope you have a goal in mind. An actual temperature. Yes? No?

"You are not interested in looking at this rationally."

Ah.

"You assume that because..."

I assume you should get your ESP checked, as you're batting .000, and being quite rude in the bargain.

"... I am a physicist who actually has the expertise to make real comments about this stuff that I am some church lady green and that I want to take away all of your toys, simply because I have the audacity to point to real data and not play sophomoric debating games."

It was not my intention to direct these issues personally to you, except the request to quote me an acceptable temperature. Generally I am speaking of adherents to the Green Religion. If the shoe fits, be my guest, but it is not presumed.

"Step one: Acknowledging the problem is separate from the proposed solution...."

I propose Step one: figuring out whether climate change = catastrophe, without resorting to inherently religious premises, such as the belief that there is inherent value in a perpetually non-changing coastline, etc.

OK this is now insane. Right now, current trends are not good. We are looking at the loss of arable land and living space. Now it is not a question of just temperature at any one point. That is why your question is so silly.

Yes, the governments of the world need to start changing the way we do things. we need to pollute less and reforest more and most importantly get the oceans more healthy again on the eco front.

On the industrial front, switching to nuclear power would be a really good start.

Now before you froth at the mouth please go and look at the actual papers and the actual science. You will see that if current trends continue, in about 100 years we are looking at a very bad situation. Your economic arguments will not make much sense then because there will be too many people with too little food and not enough places to live. So yes, we should start trying to avoid that now.

556 Basho  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 9:36:35pm

I don't understand where the anti AGW meme "what temp should the Earth be?" started. (Not singling you out, I've seen it dozens of times here)

Obviously there is a human-centric bias to this... We would rather have present farmlands remain where they are instead of relocating them. We would rather have coastal cities and island nations remain unchanged.

Humans are very adaptable, but the days of packing your bags and moving elsewhere are long gone. There are too many people, too few realestate, too much infrastructure to rebuild, etc...

557 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 9:44:09pm
558 rqballjohn  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 9:45:38pm

re: #552 LudwigVanQuixote


Thank you, If you would look at the map that compares with the two years warmest annual means you will note that it iuses the base of 1950 - 1980. The map I want is the same one only you can use different base years. It was on that web site until 2-3 weeks ago.

559 gnargtharst  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 9:51:21pm

re: #555 LudwigVanQuixote

"OK this is now insane."

I'm glad you took my previous comment about rudeness to heart. I have a policy about such interaction. Thanks.

560 rqballjohn  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 9:54:32pm

re: #552 LudwigVanQuixote


I finally found it, I hopefully saved the link. You can use different base years and use trends to see different results. I pluged in 1890 - 1940 and 2000 - 2008 and trends. It showed that the US is cooler than before and basically the only region warmer is Siberia and the artic. There are many resons for this I have been told. But try it out. Below is the link.

[Link: data.giss.nasa.gov...]

561 gnargtharst  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:12:41pm

re: #556 Basho

"I don't understand where the anti AGW meme "what temp should the Earth be?" started. (Not singling you out, I've seen it dozens of times here)".

I've never seen it here on LGF, because I rarely have ever posted. To me the question and its answer (or lack thereof) gets quickly to a point: is there a goal in mind, or "climate change" an infinitely flexible demon, which can be perpetually used to justify "doing something" (i.e., government-imposed religiou sstrictures against such sinful activities as driving one's car, or paying for and using the now-taboo *incandescent light bulb*.)

I regard the new radical environmentalism as a full-fledged religion, complete with adherents who want to impose their will on me, by force, because they "just know" that it would be an unacceptable evil for a coastline to change, or a factory to be built, or, Gaia forbid, a person to own an SUV.

I reject all the tenets of this religion at their root -- the idea that we're "running out of land", or "running out of food", or oil, or metal, or any other Erlich-ean commodity you'd care to mention; I reject the idea that humans should stand aside and grant nature sovereignty even if it means we suffer. I reject the idea that there is some cosmic value to nature, *other* than *our* value of it.

"Obviously there is a human-centric bias to this... "

There absolutely is. My value system is human-centric.

"We would rather have present farmlands remain where they are instead of relocating them."

Why? Who are "we" here? Why should you make that call? Shouldn't that be the farmers who own the farms? (And obviously history shows us that we'd rather *not* keep present farmlands in some state of eternal stasis.)

"We would rather have coastal cities and island nations remain unchanged."

Why? *We* would rather this? Who says? Cities, coastal and otherwise, rise and fall. Cities, climates, nations, langauages, continents, etc. *change*. We can survive this easily. We can thrive, in fact, as long as we aren't forced to freeze all existence because some Luddite with a gun doesn't want to be ponder a tree being cut down.

"Humans are very adaptable, but the days of packing your bags and moving elsewhere are long gone. There are too many people, too few realestate, too much infrastructure to rebuild, etc..."

The extent to which I factually disagree with the above claims could fill a book. Short version: disagree.

562 Alberta Oil Peon  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:25:09pm

re: #545 Charles

And you mistake my point. I certainly never said that every climate change skeptic is a shill for the oil industry -- but the one who is the subject of this post definitely is.

In addition to being a flat-out psycho, and a fraud.

Charles, I read your INQUA link. If I remember right, John Clague was on the faculty of the Department of Geology at UBC when I was a student there. If he says that Morner was misrepresenting himself as to his position with INQUA, I will accept that.

I work in the oil and gas industry. It pays me a damn good living, and the cheap energy from petroleum is why we get to live in nice homes and play with toys like computers and carbon-fibre bicycles.

Since the proposed solution to this alleged Global Warming problem is a major threat to the viability of the petroleum industry, one really cannot blame the industry for wanting to tell its side of the story.

My own position on this whole controversy is much closer to that of Prof. Dyson, I think, and I first read that NYT article yesterday.

1. It may be happening, maybe it's not. The current hypothesis places altogether too much trust in computer modeling, and not enough in direct observation.

2. Some of the observations used to support the hypothesis are clearly faulty, e.g. the GISS land stations.

3. The doom-mongers have, prominent among their number, people like Al Gore, who stands to profit greatly from a cap & trade system.

4. Instead of methodically trying to shut down industries using carbon-based fuels, we should try to move beyond coal and petroleum. Nuclear fission in the here and now, fusion if we can make it work, and even wind and solar in those niche applications where they make sense.

5. And if the climate does change adversely, whether as a result of human or natural causes, we will be better able to adapt to it and mitigate any impact on human society if we keep our economy healthy.

563 Aye Pod  Mon, Mar 30, 2009 10:28:22pm

re: #528 hopperandadropper

So what exactly is the actual physical data showing that CO2 drives climate change? Hint: the output from computer models does not constitute data. Physical observations constitute data.

564 [deleted]  Tue, Mar 31, 2009 5:43:44am
565 [deleted]  Tue, Mar 31, 2009 5:48:57am
566 Basho  Tue, Mar 31, 2009 7:57:29am

these environloons are paranoid and misguided
they fail to see nasa commies take over america
and pelosi turning it into stalinist state

567 gregmw  Tue, Mar 31, 2009 10:21:20am

Climate change is happening. It's always happening. The climate is a dynamic system and therefore it is always changing. So anyone who claims it doesn't change is like someone who's saying weather doesn't change or solar output doesn't change.

AGW is happening. Every species on earth affects the world in its own way, on various scales. We should be very happy that Trees and algae are so prevalent on our planet, giving off the oxygen we need to breathe and to sustain the ozone layer. But humans have been dumping our trash directly into the air for hundreds of years. In ever increasing amounts. It has an effect. It has to. That's what a dynamic system means.

The question is, what effect? There's little doubt that the mean global temperature is rising, and there's little doubt that recent human activity has something to do with it. All the arguments against this fail to explain the mounting evidence. And as always, in science, evidence wins.

However, what the overall future effect will be is not known, and this is where the science gets a little wonky. There hasn't been a computer model yet that has accurately predicted how the climate will be affected by AGW, and it's likely the only accurate model is going to be the Earth itself. It probably won't be epic global disaster of Al Gore proportions. But it probably won't be "nothing will change," either.

In a time when our economy is in a serious mode of transition, it's worth looking into doing what we can to stop throwing our trash into the air. I think this is something everyone can get behind. I'm not saying Kyoto (awful, awful treaty) but I'm also not saying do nothing.

But the evidence is in. Denying anthropogenic global warming, at this point, is nearly as bad as denying evolution.

568 shotgun  Thu, Apr 2, 2009 9:43:16am

re: #43 zombie

Just because this one guy (whom I've never heard of) is kooky, does not mean that this particular thesis (that the sea levels are not rising) is false.

I've actually done a bunch of research on this topic, and in this particular case, he's right:

The sea levels are not rising, or are rising a very tiny amount at most.

This is obvious at any location along the California coast, especially places like here in San Francisco area, where shoreline structures built in the 19th century are at the exact same position in relation to the water line that they were 140 years ago.

The sea level may indeed be going up a few inches per century, but it is nothing that any individual person would ever be able to notice in his lifetime. And ALL of the "doomsday scenarios" promoted by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth are completely laughable: he shows millions of third worlders streaming inland, fleeing from the onrushing waves. Gimme a break. If the sea levels do rise, even anywhere near what Gore is saying, it will literally be centimeter by centimeter, over decades.

Don't discredit a theory just because a kook believes in it. I'm quite sure that Charles Manson accepts the fact the sun rises in the east every morning -- but his acceptance of it doesn't make it untrue.

Exactly correct, in fact he could be wrong about anything and everything else and still be right about this. Since when is applied science a poor methodology?

This entire OP is pretty sloppy one, I see no inference that this Morner believes ALL OTHER scientists are wrong and since when do all other scientist agree that sea level is changing at any appreciable rate? The included links don't do anything to help, since the post on waterwitching is crap that could have come from anywhere.
By the way all you science mavens here should realize that in some situations water witching can work, it depends on things like hardness(ion content) of the water, the velocity it's moving and the depth of course. If you all have such strong science backgrounds you might be able to figure out where this goes.

569 under  Sat, Apr 4, 2009 8:45:00am

re: #447 Charles

Really late response, but . . .

". . . How else would you like to characterize this quote? '. . . all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story'?

Charles, I wouldn't have an issue if you had quoted that in your original. But you basically said that Morner claimed that every scientist in the world was wrong. No big thing in my mind though since the intent was a characterization and not actually a direct quote.

"It is extremely disingenuous of you to suggest that there is nothing suspicious about the fact that Morner is employed by an energy industry apologist group."

I don't believe I suggested there was nothing suspicious, although I also don't remember you using the word "employed" in your original post. My point was that we should be equally skeptical of AGW scientists who receive funding to study man-made causes of global warming. (By "employed", are you saying Morner is receiving funding?) I would bet that if you dig deep enough you'll find a lot of AGW supporters who hold some rather odd views on other subjects.

I don't necessarily see anything wrong with questioning Morner's motives. However, if you're going to do that, I would suggest that you concentrate more on the motives of AGW scientists who have good reason to distort the facts. Question global warming data, loose your funding and have your reputation destroyed by character assassination from the pro-AGW community with the MSM providing full, uncritical dissemination.

Morner may be a poor case in point for me to argue. You could be right and he could very well be a kook. But it's your approach that bothers me; it's very Gore-like. If you question Al's views, you're in bed with big oil and you think the earth is flat. You never have to worry about an open discussion of differing views; all you have to do is destroy someone's reputation. That also keeps others with questions silent. Democrats have a proclivity for using the same tactic. Put forth a logical criticism of liberal policies, and their rebuttal to your argument is that you hate the poor. It isn't logical or relevant, but it works. Put forth a logical reason why Israel has a right to defend itself? No problem. That's easy to rebut. You're a racist and you support Nazi-like states.

Not much has changed since the Dark Ages has it? People still tend to handle critical arguments badly, and sometimes viciously. I find it ironic that today, this is a standard tactic of those who consider themselves part of the well-educated enlightened few.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh