Liars on my side or theirs are liars.

I'd say it's nice to be on a nice fresh thread, but the subject matter doesn't lend itself to being "relaxing".

///

More charlatans. I'm done with them.

I'm no alarmist, and Pete Sinclair is edging towards the Gore camp, but I have to say he's honest to a fault in most of these, and this particular video really demonstrates how far the denial PACs will go in lieing. Also how gullible some in the conservative media are, or how willing they are to perpetuate a lie "for a good cause" pick one...

(He’s not a scientist.)

Why do I think he as a degree in physics? (Not that I'm aware of how he may or may not have used it)

re: #4 Thanos

I'm no alarmist, and Pete Sinclair is edging towards the Gore camp, but I have to say he's honest to a fault in most of these, and this particular video really demonstrates how far the denial PACs will go in lieing. Also how gullible some in the conservative media are, or how willing they are to perpetuate a lie "for a good cause" pick one...

If I had caught Sinclair distorting any facts, I wouldn't be posting his videos. He's doing a good job of exposing some really egregious distortions and falsehoods.

" with cherry-picked data..."

Bing-O.

re: #4 Thanos

...or how willing they are to perpetuate a lie "for a good cause"

A wise man (my dad) once told me that there was no such thing.

As I've said before, I'm skeptical of the solutions some propose for this.

Skepticism of the "there's nothing to see here" variety, however, seems to rely more and more on the tactics of the Discovery Institute.

Ah. Here we go.

Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1964.
B.S., Physics, California Institute of Technology, 1959.
Previous Experience: Economist, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica CA, 1963-71.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, 1971-1983.

economist looks like

Denialist fail.

I wonder if AGW deniers will have their own "cdesign proponentsist" moment.

re: #6 Charles

If I had caught Sinclair distorting any facts, I wouldn't be posting his videos. He's doing a good job of exposing some really egregious distortions and falsehoods.

I've seen a couple where he omits things, or exaggerates a bit, but those were the exceptions - he's generally right on.

re: #12 Sharmuta

I wonder if AGW deniers will have their own "cdesign proponentsist" moment.

gmta, I was trying to think of a way to work that in to climate ...

A "repressed" report, now: Would that be one that stutters and blushes when read aloud?

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

re: #3 Sharmuta

More charlatans. I'm done with them.

I'm not a big believer in all the AGW "the sky is falling and it's all [Western] man's fault" talk that's been proffered by the likes of Al Gore and others over the past 10-15 years or more, but I do think we have had (and continue to have) some effect on the global climate.

Likely, as with many contentious subjects, the truth is somewhere in the middle of the pro-AGW "OMGWTFBBQ!1!1 We're all gonna die!!!" crowd and the anti-AGW "Man has never affected the Earth's climate and never will!" people.

I'm sure Fox TV will spend a few evenings correcting their reporting./ I can only hope Fox did not know the real facts of the issue, although they were not exactly hard to find. I guess I'm cynical enough to think they knew the story would appeal to it's audience, drive ratings and the hell with facts.
The sad thing is that so many are mislead by entertainment shows passing as news.

I don't fall into either of the Global Warming/Not Warming camps. It's kind of like God. I don't know and you don't either.

re: #13 Thanos

I've seen a couple where he omits things, or exaggerates a bit, but those were the exceptions - he's generally right on.

No he's not.

The science of AGW is real. It is real because we have ruled out other causes of the observed trends. It is real because gigatons of CO2 must have an effect.

We are at a point now where if someone is denying AGW it is equivalent to someone denying that cigarettes are bad for you. You know that they are wrong from the second that they open their mouths.

My lizard queen is due back from a trip and coming over shortly, so I will not be able to take up the cause of AGW tonight as much as might wish to. However, it is time - well past time to actually look at the science and the data as published by reputable sources and see for yourself. Put aside your political prejudices and put aside your fears for what some one - world communist conspiracy might do to solve the problem. If the right wants a legitimate voice in addressing this issue, it must first accept the gravity of the issue.

I am saying for the record, that IPCC was a lowball estimate of change patterns. The reason for this is that the polar caps and Greenland are melting much more quickly than predicted and than the assumptions made by IPCC. THat means that the timescales are shorter than IPCC would lead you to believe. By how much shorter, is an open piece of debate right now in the community. However, it is not at all unreasonable to fear loosing both caps in the next 100-150 years. Many, including myself, pray regularly that it is not that bad.

re: #17 talon_262

I'm not a big believer in all the AGW "the sky is falling and it's all [Western] man's fault" talk that's been proffered by the likes of Al Gore and others over the past 10-15 years or more, but I do think we have had (and continue to have) some effect on the global climate.

Likely, as with many contentious subjects, the truth is somewhere in the middle of the pro-AGW "OMGWTFBBQ!1!1 We're all gonna die!!!" crowd and the anti-AGW "Man has never affected the Earth's climate and never will!" people.

PLease forget the politics and look at the science. I know you hate leftists. I know you hate Al Gore. Photons and CO2 molecules do not belong to political affiliations.

re: #19 WinterCat

I don't fall into either of the Global Warming/Not Warming camps. It's kind of like God. I don't know and you don't either.

Actually I do, (AGW is real) and you would know this too if you just took the time to learn the science.

re: #20 ludwigvanquixote

I think you are misreading my comment, follow the thread, read for comprehension please.

re: #21 ludwigvanquixote

PLease forget the politics and look at the science. I know you hate leftists. I know you hate Al Gore. Photons and CO2 molecules do not belong to political affiliations.

That would make a great bumper sticker.

re: #22 ludwigvanquixote

Actually I do, (AGW is real) and you would know this too if you just took the time to learn the science.

That can be a problem, ludwig. Global Warming has become such a political tripwire that many (not all) sources present the facts they want you to see. It's very hard for someone not already scientifically oriented - ME! - to figure out what's ligit and what isn't.

re: #20 ludwigvanquixote

No he's not.

The science of AGW is real. It is real because we have ruled out other causes of the observed trends. It is real because gigatons of CO2 must have an effect.

We are at a point now where if someone is denying AGW it is equivalent to someone denying that cigarettes are bad for you. You know that they are wrong from the second that they open their mouths.

My lizard queen is due back from a trip and coming over shortly, so I will not be able to take up the cause of AGW tonight as much as might wish to. However, it is time - well past time to actually look at the science and the data as published by reputable sources and see for yourself. Put aside your political prejudices and put aside your fears for what some one - world communist conspiracy might do to solve the problem. If the right wants a legitimate voice in addressing this issue, it must first accept the gravity of the issue.

I am saying for the record, that IPCC was a lowball estimate of change patterns. The reason for this is that the polar caps and Greenland are melting much more quickly than predicted and than the assumptions made by IPCC. THat means that the timescales are shorter than IPCC would lead you to believe. By how much shorter, is an open piece of debate right now in the community. However, it is not at all unreasonable to fear loosing both caps in the next 100-150 years. Many, including myself, pray regularly that it is not that bad.

It's had to get folks to do something to fix a problem that will come about in 10 years, imagine anyone caring about a climate disaster 50-150 years down the road. I am not a global warming denier, but wonder if present politicains will implement fixes to address a bleak future.

Well Charles, hope you have more success than I did when trying to discuss the Carlin report. I mostly got down dings when challenging the crowd:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
(and that is just one example.)

So many people want to soooooo vent against Al Gore and President Obama that critical analysis has become unwelcome.

Regardless of the strength or weaknesses of any given policy to address these issues (of climate and human actions), denying and ignoring reality is just a losing approach. There is never a reason to be afraid of the truth.

How we can deal with the after effects of the industrial revolution is a tough issue, and there are not very many constructive approaches that have been offered or taken up by a society that has been built on fossil fuels.

I would even argue that there are more imminent issues, even environmental issues, with which we must deal, than AGW. Yet that doesn't mean AGW is not real or that it won't bring about negative consequences for our descendants.

I suppose we'll never get at the truth.

Like the new feature, Charles.

For those who may not have noticed, yet. The new comments button will display the number of waiting comments when one is not in 'auto-refresh' mode.

re: #22 ludwigvanquixote

Actually I do, (AGW is real) and you would know this too if you just took the time to learn the science.

There is no doubt that we need to be a lot more concerned about our environment. Just walking in the woods looking at a stream bed that is fulled with trash or driving through Gary Indiana should tell us that we need to do something and fast because we are destroying our planet. You are correct, I am no scientist. But from what I have read, there is considerable debate as to whether or not we are causing the planet to warm or even if it is warming at all.

re: #21 ludwigvanquixote

PLease forget the politics and look at the science. I know you hate leftists. I know you hate Al Gore. Photons and CO2 molecules do not belong to political affiliations.

No. But grant dollars do to a great extent.

We are affecting the environment. How much, we can't say with 100% certainty as the earth has been significantly warmer without the current strong industrial influence.

We need more apolitical science done. Far too many AGW advocates are of the 'OMGOMG we're all gonna die!' variety for me to take it at face value. James Hansen is a prime example, and representative of the attitude of many.

grrr... nice of Ludwig to respond to me like I'm some kind of denialist and then run off. I'll take it up with him later.

re: #27 freetoken

Well Charles, hope you have more success than I did when trying to discuss the Carlin report. I mostly got down dings when challenging the crowd:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
(and that is just one example.)

So many people want to soooooo vent against Al Gore and President Obama that critical analysis has become unwelcome.

Regardless of the strength or weaknesses of any given policy to address these issues (of climate and human actions), denying and ignoring reality is just a losing approach. There is never a reason to be afraid of the truth.

How we can deal with the after effects of the industrial revolution is a tough issue, and there are not very many constructive approaches that have been offered or taken up by a society that has been built on fossil fuels.

I would even argue that there are more imminent issues, even environmental issues, with which we must deal, than AGW. Yet that doesn't mean AGW is not real or that it won't bring about negative consequences for our descendants.

It's getting a more open discussion here recently, it was a automatic dingdown magnet, just a few months ago. I get the fact that since Al Gore is the face of much of the AGW publicity, many on the right reject the science.

Fine. Global Warming may be real. It may in fact be anthropogenic.

But the 64 trillion dollar question is: what to do about it?
Will we be spinning our wheels?
Doing more harm than good?
Screwing up something else?
Causing humans to suffer and die?

I guess thats closer to 320 trillion dollars worth of questions.

re: #21 ludwigvanquixote

PLease forget the politics and look at the science. I know you hate leftists. I know you hate Al Gore. Photons and CO2 molecules do not belong to political affiliations.

WTF?!?!? Nowhere in my post did I refer to the politics of Al Gore or anyone else on either side the the AGW debate...and you managed to pull a steaming pile of caca out of it.

What I originally said, for those who are comprehension-impaired, is that I don't believe much of what the alarmists on either side of the AGW debate are saying, believing that the truth is somewhere in between.

re: #29 WinterCat

There is no doubt that we need to be a lot more concerned about our environment. Just walking in the woods looking at a stream bed that is fulled with trash or driving through Gary Indiana should tell us that we need to do something and fast because we are destroying our planet. You are correct, I am no scientist. But from what I have read, there is considerable debate as to whether or not we are causing the planet to warm or even if it is warming at all.

There is a great deal of political debate, very little scientific debate.

What if Global Warming is good for humans because it creates more arable crop land to produce food for the billions of humans that will show up in the next 20 years?

To deny EITHER global warming or cooling is foolish. Both have ocurred and will continue to occur throughout the life of this planet.
To posit that a single species can materially affect either,except in extremely localized areas is evidencing arrogance taken to the extreme.
Adapting to the particular and surviving is the most logical solution. All the rest is simply white noise.

re: #20 ludwigvanquixote

No he's not.

The science of AGW is real. It is real because we have ruled out other causes of the observed trends. It is real because gigatons of CO2 must have an effect.

We are at a point now where if someone is denying AGW it is equivalent to someone denying that cigarettes are bad for you. You know that they are wrong from the second that they open their mouths.

My lizard queen is due back from a trip and coming over shortly, so I will not be able to take up the cause of AGW tonight as much as might wish to. However, it is time - well past time to actually look at the science and the data as published by reputable sources and see for yourself. Put aside your political prejudices and put aside your fears for what some one - world communist conspiracy might do to solve the problem. If the right wants a legitimate voice in addressing this issue, it must first accept the gravity of the issue.

I am saying for the record, that IPCC was a lowball estimate of change patterns. The reason for this is that the polar caps and Greenland are melting much more quickly than predicted and than the assumptions made by IPCC. THat means that the timescales are shorter than IPCC would lead you to believe. By how much shorter, is an open piece of debate right now in the community. However, it is not at all unreasonable to fear loosing both caps in the next 100-150 years. Many, including myself, pray regularly that it is not that bad.

There's no question that those who challenge the prevailing AGW orthodoxy must be held to a high standard of accuracy and sound science, and in general, media, blogs, and humans in general tend to add a lot of unnecessary beliefs and bias in to most everything political.

However, your views create the same problem for the pro AGW side, by overstating the maturity of the science and alternatively providing a false characterization of the AGW "skeptic" side as being on par with those who "deny" the effects of tobacco smoking does nothing to raise the level of knowledge and debate.

re: #35 avanti

There is a great deal of political debate, very little scientific debate.

Honestly, I am finding it a little hard to separate the two. This issue has been heavily politicized and the hysteria that has been thrown into the mix hasn't helped.

re: #30 esch

No. But grant dollars do to a great extent.

We are affecting the environment. How much, we can't say with 100% certainty as the earth has been significantly warmer without the current strong industrial influence.

We need more apolitical science done. Far too many AGW advocates are of the 'OMGOMG we're all gonna die!' variety for me to take it at face value. James Hansen is a prime example, and representative of the attitude of many.

The deafness of the crowd here astonishes me.

Let me repeat.

IPCC was a lowball estimate because the caps have been observed to have been melting faster than previously predicted.

Therefore it is not unreasonable to fear loosing the caps in the next 100-150 years.

Please process what those statements mean

re: #36 Racer X

What if Global Warming is good for humans because it creates more arable crop land to produce food for the billions of humans that will show up in the next 20 years?

And we could call it...Greenland!

re: #38 Bagua

There's no question that those who challenge the prevailing AGW orthodoxy must be held to a high standard of accuracy and sound science, and in general, media, blogs, and humans in general tend to add a lot of unnecessary beliefs and bias in to most everything political.

However, your views create the same problem for the pro AGW side, by overstating the maturity of the science and alternatively providing a false characterization of the AGW "skeptic" side as being on par with those who "deny" the effects of tobacco smoking does nothing to raise the level of knowledge and debate.

Please tell me how I have overstated anything and back it up with journal papers. If you can not, you are only voicing your political fears and not science.

I don't know what the hell is going on. You fight it out. I'm just going to sit here and wait for the next ice age.

How long have the numbers been popping up in the New Comments button?

re: #28 Noam Sayin'

I suppose we'll never get at the truth.

Of course we can get at the truth. This used to be the blog that fact checked asses. We're just as capable of applying that to AGW as we are to any other issue. It's a complicated subject that takes so time to understand, but the science is the science.

Very small disturbances can impact the climate, and it's a fact humans are contributing to increases in greenhouse gas emissions. You don't need to know a lot of science to realize these two facts are facts and this is an issue we need to quit denying.

Does this mean we're all gonna die?

re: #40 ludwigvanquixote

The deafness of the crowd here astonishes me.

Let me repeat.

IPCC was a lowball estimate because the caps have been observed to have been melting faster than previously predicted.

Therefore it is not unreasonable to fear loosing the caps in the next 100-150 years.

Please process what those statements mean

I thought Al Gore said it was only FIVE years. Which is closer to reality?

re: #42 ludwigvanquixote

Please tell me how I have overstated anything and back it up with journal papers. If you can not, you are only voicing your political fears and not science.

I already did my friend, it was your comparison to the "cigarette smoking is harmless" fringe. That is a massive overstatement and quite unnecessary.

re: #40 ludwigvanquixote

Please process a chill pill buddy. Now please answer why you are responding to my post as if you interpreted exactly opposite of what I meant?

I stated that Peter is generally right on, and you went off. Are you one of the doomsquad that believes the oceans are going to rise 20 feet by x year? I'll point out to you the predictions of the Club of Rome, Jeremy Rifkin, and others who extrapolated trends and conflated them with micro events. Jeremy lost a bet if you recall, and nobody's hoarding tuna as he said they must.

re: #34 talon_262

WTF?!?!? Nowhere in my post did I refer to the politics of Al Gore or anyone else on either side the the AGW debate...and you managed to pull a steaming pile of caca out of it.

What I originally said, for those who are comprehension-impaired, is that I don't believe much of what the alarmists on either side of the AGW debate are saying, believing that the truth is somewhere in between.

And what I am saying is that the truth is alarming to any sane person who understands the science. The only reason you are skeptical is because you have not seen the actual science and because you have gotten most of your information from people who assume this is a nefarious scheme of Al Gore.

re: #45 Danny

Does this mean we're all gonna die?

No one has ever gotten out of here alive.

re: #45 Danny

Does this mean we're all gonna die?

There's approximately 100% chance of that.

re: #36 Racer X

What if Global Warming is good for humans because it creates more arable crop land to produce food for the billions of humans that will show up in the next 20 years?

That can't happen. Ever since the days of Bushitler, even the freakin' planet hates us!

/standard response!

To the thousandth place, what is the perfect mean temperature for the earth?

re: #40 ludwigvanquixote

The deafness of the crowd here astonishes me.

Let me repeat.

IPCC was a lowball estimate because the caps have been observed to have been melting faster than previously predicted.

Therefore it is not unreasonable to fear loosing the caps in the next 100-150 years.

Please process what those statements mean

It means that you and I and all of our descendants unto the fifth generation will be dead by then.

Which is why I contend that all the papers in the world, all the shouting, all the well-meaning carbon-reduction schemes will come to nothing in the end. The average human can't think ahead more than a day or two. Turning the entire planet upside down for something that may happen fivescore years or more from now is not on.

We may be causing this, but we are not in control.

re: #47 Bagua

I already did my friend, it was your comparison to the "cigarette smoking is harmless" fringe. That is a massive overstatement and quite unnecessary.

That is a meaningless statement scientifically.

A meaningful statement would be along the lines of, current trends are... therefore... as shown by... and have those ellipses filled in with facts, not declaratives of what you think is fringe.

re: #52 SteveC

That can't happen. Ever since the days of Bushitler, even the freakin' planet hates us!

/standard response!

Proof = Katrina.

re: #33 Racer X

Fine. Global Warming may be real. It may in fact be anthropogenic.

But the 64 trillion dollar question is: what to do about it?
Will we be spinning our wheels?
Doing more harm than good?
Screwing up something else?
Causing humans to suffer and die?

I guess thats closer to 320 trillion dollars worth of questions.

I agree absolutely. I already agree with all the reasonable solutions ... e.g. nuclear power for other reasons ... like energy independence. What gripes me is that all the "solutions" one hears of are eerily familiar. We've been hearing those ideas from environmental extremists and far leftists for decades.
Heck, I'll give you AGW, already. Now let's decide how to stop those who think the only solution involves taxes that will crush our economy and do absolutely nothing to diminish the COO content of the atmosphere.

re: #49 ludwigvanquixote

And what I am saying is that the truth is alarming to any sane person who understands the science. The only reason you are skeptical is because you have not seen the actual science and because you have gotten most of your information from people who assume this is a nefarious scheme of Al Gore.

No, it is not alarming compared to other things. Sorry, you lose on that one.

Food security, clean energy, water, then Global warming should be your priorities if you are sane.

re: #53 Roger

-5000 Kelvin...absolute zero... no other temp is perfect

I'm with Thanos, now you are insinuating it is insanity to challenge the dominant theory. Einstein would laugh at you, be you right or wrong on the issue.

Well alright then. Let's partayyy!

re: #40 ludwigvanquixote

Assuming that the current trend remains the same, and we are on track to losing the poles in 150 years. What do you realistically propose we do about it?

Positing the fact that India and China (and other emerging industrial economies) are NOT going to destroy themselves economically to go along with any carbon scheme.

Are we looking at war with countries that won't go along?

re: #54 Cato the Elder

It means that you and I and all of our descendants unto the fifth generation will be dead by then.

Which is why I contend that all the papers in the world, all the shouting, all the well-meaning carbon-reduction schemes will come to nothing in the end. The average human can't think ahead more than a day or two. Turning the entire planet upside down for something that may happen fivescore years or more from now is not on.

We may be causing this, but we are not in control.

Cato, no, we can do something to avert disaster now. I personally see it as a responsibility to my descendants to not give them a world that is crashed. It is utterly selfish, evil and immoral to think otherwise.

re: #45 Danny

Does this mean we're all gonna die?

have you consumed any dihydrogen oxide? If you have, you're screwed.

re: #58 Thanos

No, it is not alarming compared to other things. Sorry, you lose on that one.

Food security, clean energy, water, then Global warming should be your priorities if you are sane.

If you think that food and water are not affected by global warming you are living in a daydream.

My perspective is a bit different, because I make no pretense to understanding the science, much less to being in a position to pass judgment on it. I do, however, know a fair amount about history, and am aware of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Ageof the 16th-17th centuries. These events seem to me to indicate that there are large forces at work which have nothing to do with human activity. Until the Global Warming folks come up with a convincing answer on that, I will consider them charlatans.

re: #22 ludwigvanquixote

Actually I do, (AGW is real) and you would know this too if you just took the time to learn the science.

Start here. It's mentioned in the video.

Global Warming Goes On

The IPCC reports that were also mentioned are available on the web (basically, they are "synthesis reports", gathering and summarizing the relevant scientific research).

re: #60 Bagua

I'm with Thanos, now you are insinuating it is insanity to challenge the dominant theory. Einstein would laugh at you, be you right or wrong on the issue.

Einstein never accepted the Big Bang Theory.

just sayin.

re: #55 ludwigvanquixote

That is a meaningless statement scientifically.

A meaningful statement would be along the lines of, current trends are... therefore... as shown by... and have those ellipses filled in with facts, not declaratives of what you think is fringe.

LVQ... That was basically your comparison that was repeated back to you. Read back a couple of posts.

I love the thoughtfulness of your posts generally speaking, but you sound a little different tonight.

Hope everything is ok and that you have fun with the lizard queen!

re: #64 SteveC

have you consumed any dihydrogen oxide? If you have, you're screwed.

thought that was dihydrogen monoxide.

And again, "meaningless scientifically" "peer reviewed papers" the subject matter is that there is political hysterics on both sides of this issue, it's a personal observation and an opinion.

re: #64 SteveC

have you consumed any dihydrogen oxide? If you have, you're screwed.

Does single malt scotch contain any of that? If so that's a big roger.

Will everybody please calm down. Iran is getting the bomb so all this talk about AGW is moot. /

re: #53 Roger

To the thousandth place, what is the perfect mean temperature for the earth?

Ya see, if we told you then you'd change the thermostat before we could enact legislation to punish free-market capitalism.

re: #62 esch

Assuming that the current trend remains the same, and we are on track to losing the poles in 150 years. What do you realistically propose we do about it?

Positing the fact that India and China (and other emerging industrial economies) are NOT going to destroy themselves economically to go along with any carbon scheme.

Are we looking at war with countries that won't go along?

Well could anyone who has seen me post on this issue fill him in on the other 50 times I have suggested solutions?

1. Nuclear
2. Deploy better batteries so you can do solar and wind supplementation for homes and businesses
3. Stop funding Chinese and Indian pollution by no longer buying their sweatshop crap unless they get more green.

My lady is here. I must go now.

re: #58 Thanos

Food security, clean energy, water, then Global warming should be your priorities if you are sane.

Global warming could have very serious consequences for both food security and water.

re: #53 Roger

To the thousandth place, what is the perfect mean temperature for the earth?

What is the ideal temperature for our species? Because whatever happens, the rest of life will evolve. Adapt or die. We'll see how humans do.

re: #65 ludwigvanquixote

If you think that food and water are not affected by global warming you are living in a daydream.

I understand that food and water are affected, the growing bands move, etc. I also understand that there will be 9 billion of us in 40 short years, not 150. I'm not stupid and I've been a proponent of we need to do something about AGW for twenty years, when did you hop on the bandwagon out of curiosity?

re: #75 ludwigvanquixote

My lady is here. I must go now.

Strains of Tom Jones just wafted through my mind.

re: #63 ludwigvanquixote

Cato, no, we can do something to avert disaster now. I personally see it as a responsibility to my descendants to not give them a world that is crashed. It is utterly selfish, evil and immoral to think otherwise.

Such as? And I'm not just giving you a hard time, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THESE THINGS. If you're going to throw a problem like that on the table, you have to at least offer a possible solution.

re: #80 SteveC

Such as? And I'm not just giving you a hard time, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THESE THINGS. If you're going to throw a problem like that on the table, you have to at least offer a possible solution.

look above.

re: #68 Racer X

Exactly the point!

Now does that make Einstein insane? A "denialists"? Immoral? Anti-Science?

re: #78 Thanos

I understand that food and water are affected, the growing bands move, etc. I also understand that there will be 9 billion of us in 40 short years, not 150. I'm not stupid and I've been a proponent of we need to do something about AGW for twenty years, when did you hop on the bandwagon out of curiosity?

Umm. I pretty much thought I was the Lizard pioneer here, but I am glad that you get that there is a problem.

re: #66 MikeySDCA

My perspective is a bit different, because I make no pretense to understanding the science, much less to being in a position to pass judgment on it. I do, however, know a fair amount about history, and am aware of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Ageof the 16th-17th centuries. These events seem to me to indicate that there are large forces at work which have nothing to do with human activity. Until the Global Warming folks come up with a convincing answer on that, I will consider them charlatans.

However, considering that our technological age has been going strong for only about 150 years it is possible that we are tipping the balance of those natural forces. Again, not in any particular camp here, just saying it is possible.

re: #21 ludwigvanquixote

Photons and CO2 molecules do not belong to political affiliations.

But other molecules do. The more common and better L-(+)-lactic as example :P. It turns right!

re: #79 Danny

Strains of Tom Jones just wafted through my mind.

Oh Yeah Babaaay

re: #76 Jimmah

Global warming could have very serious consequences for both food security and water.

Yes, but food security must come first along with clean plentiful energy or we won't have the luxury or the capital or the time to deal with AGW. You fail to understand what hunger has and can do.

re: #63 ludwigvanquixote

Cato, no, we can do something to avert disaster now. I personally see it as a responsibility to my descendants to not give them a world that is crashed. It is utterly selfish, evil and immoral to think otherwise.

Pessimistic, yes. Evil? My thoughts are evil?

Hmm.

I take it you do not drive a car, consume anything made of plastic, heat your home with oil or gas, burn electricity, fart, breathe or sigh...because it is the aggregate of all of those things and more that is causing the problem. A 50% reduction in population through voluntary extinction (check on those guys and see how that movement is going!), plague, or the murder of all people who do not meet Earth First!'s standards for how to live on the planet might accomplish something. Short of that, we're screwed.

re: #68 Racer X

Einstein never accepted the Big Bang Theory.

just sayin.

Einstein never denied Newton or evolution either. Think about the differences. I have to go now.

I really don't like being lied to and used as a political pawn, and now that I see AGW deniers have the integrity of the Discovery Institute, I no longer consider them a reputable movement. I plan on studying the issue on my own from credible, scientific sources. I really appreciate the sunlight being cast upon these charlatans and hope it continues.

re: #75 ludwigvanquixote

My lady is here. I must go now.

I really should be irritated that he cut and run, but I'm a little jealous. :(

re: #68 Racer X

Einstein never accepted the Big Bang Theory.

just sayin.

Are you sure of that? The big bang follows from a solution of Einstein's field equations. He didn't want to accept the non-deterministic nature of quantum mechanics, but that's rather different.

re: #82 Bagua

Exactly the point!

Now does that make Einstein insane? A "denialists"? Immoral? Anti-Science?

Just another guy. He came to his own conclusions based on what he observed. Some of his conclusions were right, some where wrong. Just like mine are.

re: #86 Pianobuff

It was "She's a Lady" but I love that one too.

re: #76 Jimmah

Global warming could have very serious consequences for both food security and water.

As indeed could Global Cooling, should we wind up there anytime over the next few hundred or thousand years. In fact food security has been an issue for most of human existence, except for a short period coinciding with the industrial revolution, and inconveniently, CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere and greenhouse crops.

re: #83 ludwigvanquixote

Umm. I pretty much thought I was the Lizard pioneer here, but I am glad that you get that there is a problem.

For the record, I posted this video in a thread yesterday, and put the link in spinoffs. I was pro nuclear when it was highly unfashionable, and recognized that AGW is something we had to deal with way back. If the posts were still around you could look them up from 1989 in alt.sci.energy on the old usenet archives.

re: #88 Cato the Elder

Dude. You're harshing my buzz.

re: #92 John Neverbend

That's correct ...it was quantum that he was skeptical about " I can't believe God plays dice with the Universe" is the quote. However after a fomous astronomical discovery he changed his mind.

re: #92 John Neverbend

Are you sure of that? The big bang follows from a solution of Einstein's field equations. He didn't want to accept the non-deterministic nature of quantum mechanics, but that's rather different.

Did he ever fully abandon ether?

re: #89 ludwigvanquixote

Einstein never denied Newton or evolution either. Think about the differences. I have to go now.

Gee, I'm not smart enough for that.

/

re: #99 Pianobuff

Did he ever fully abandon ether?

I think he gave it up for single-malt.

re: #68 Racer X

Einstein never accepted the Big Bang Theory.

just sayin.

Close but no cigar.

Einstein at first dismissed Friedmann and then (privately) Lemaître out of hand, saying that not all mathematics leads to correct theories. After Hubble's discovery was published, Einstein quickly and publicly endorsed Lemaître's theory, helping both the theory and its proposer get fast recognition.[4]

Einstein was also slow to accept quantum mechanics but later changed his mind in light of overwhelming evidence.

re: #76 Jimmah

Global warming could have very serious consequences for both food security and water.

True, becuuse we all know that crops grow much better on the frozen tundras of Siberia than they do in temperate climes!

re: #90 Sharmuta

I really don't like being lied to and used as a political pawn, and now that I see AGW deniers have the integrity of the Discovery Institute, I no longer consider them a reputable movement. I plan on studying the issue on my own from credible, scientific sources. I really appreciate the sunlight being cast upon these charlatans and hope it continues.

There's crossover with DI among several of them, we shouldn't be surprised by these tactics. This is one of the reasons on every Creationist thread Charles ever posted you will see them trying to change the subject to AGW.

re: #101 Cato the Elder

I think he gave it up for single-malt.

Sounds like a limerick waiting to be written.

AGW? I am enjoying reading this thread...There are a 1000 top notch scientists I will not link too concerning this issue... Our Earth goes in cycles..
Why just 20,000 years ago the City of New York was covered in Ice hundreds of feet high...The science says we are going through another cycle...
Sorry about our luck Earthlings

re: #75 ludwigvanquixote

Well could anyone who has seen me post on this issue fill him in on the other 50 times I have suggested solutions?

1. Nuclear
2. Deploy better batteries so you can do solar and wind supplementation for homes and businesses
3. Stop funding Chinese and Indian pollution by no longer buying their sweatshop crap unless they get more green.

My lady is here. I must go now.

I have to say, I have not seen you post but if you say you have gone over your solutions 50 times I can understand why you seem a little impatient with those of us in the room who may appear deaf to you. Still, you could be a little less cutting in your responses to people.

I fully support solar. My husband and I are talking about putting in some panels. Would like to see the gov't redirect money they will put into wind toward solar instead.

I am happy not to fund China for any reason.

Not too sure about nuclear. It scares the hell out of me.

re: #89 ludwigvanquixote

Einstein never denied Newton or evolution either. Think about the differences. I have to go now.

Again, exaggerations, Climate Science is far less developed and proven as your examples.

It is the alarm-ism and the exaggerations that is most weakening the AGW side.

re: #102 Killgore Trout

That's what happens when you follow the science.

re: #75 ludwigvanquixote

Well could anyone who has seen me post on this issue fill him in on the other 50 times I have suggested solutions?

1. Nuclear
2. Deploy better batteries so you can do solar and wind supplementation for homes and businesses
3. Stop funding Chinese and Indian pollution by no longer buying their sweatshop crap unless they get more green.

My lady is here. I must go now.

1. Agree 100%. Get the wacko greenies on board.
2. Solar and wind still aren't anywhere near where they would need to be. There are also serious ecological issues involved with the sheer volume of batteries you're talking about.
3. So it is war, a trade war. Good luck with that.

Have a great night!

In other news. Rising temperatures would make a lot of places habitable that currently aren't. Greenland, Northern Canada and Russia spring to mind. That's a LOT of area.

OTOH, lots of coastal area would disappear, but lots of near coastal area would now be coastal.

Oh well. These are changes that would take decades. Move.

Tornado warning in the northern Twin Cities. Duck!

re: #90 Sharmuta

I really don't like being lied to and used as a political pawn...

Alas, we are all pawns on the great chess board of life.

Did you ever watch the Canadian SciFi show "Lexx"? One of the episodes in the final season has one of the major characters playing chess (against one of the key antagonists)... It was a chess game for life, with the show's characters as the pieces. Great episode.

re: #104 Thanos

There's crossover with DI among several of them, we shouldn't be surprised by these tactics. This is one of the reasons on every Creationist thread Charles ever posted you will see them trying to change the subject to AGW.

Yep- I recall it well. Diversion is a favorite tactic on many threads of varying topics. And to be honest, it was the connection with the DI that first made me reconsider my position on AGW.

re: #17 talon_262

I'm not a big believer in all the AGW "the sky is falling and it's all [Western] man's fault" talk that's been proffered by the likes of Al Gore and others over the past 10-15 years or more, but I do think we have had (and continue to have) some effect on the global climate.

Likely, as with many contentious subjects, the truth is somewhere in the middle of the pro-AGW "OMGWTFBBQ!1!1 We're all gonna die!!!" crowd and the anti-AGW "Man has never affected the Earth's climate and never will!" people.

Hi, talon: Here's a very sincere question.

Have you watched, all the way through, Al Gore's video documentary about climate change? Have you listened, all the way through, to audio of one of his speeches about climate change?

Or are you relying on an anti-AGW site or news channel for your synopsis, above, of his work ["OMGWTFBBQ!1!1 We're all gonna die!!!"]? I'd really like to know if that phrase occurs in his presentations, and if so, where I can find it. Thanks.

Wait - there are solutions to store energy. Greener than batteries.
But as I always say - energy you do not need to produce is energy you do not need to save.

re: #99 Pianobuff

Did he ever fully abandon ether?

His use of the word "ether" which occurred later on in his life was not the same as the "ether" that was believed to be the medium through which electromagnetic radiation passed. This latter type of ether was shown not to exist by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 and was effectively shown to be unnecessary by Einstein's theory of special relativity in 1905. So, he never believed in an ether in the classical sense that prevailed in the 19th century.

re: #107 WinterCat

So we believe the science that says AGW is real (I'll give you that one) but you don't believe the science - not to mention the track record - that tells us nuclear power is very safe.

I don't know how to respond to that.

I grew up very near to Indian Point nuclear power station and we were all very delighted that we got relatively cheap power from Con Ed.

Maybe it takes getting used to ...

re: #112 freetoken

Alas, we are all pawns on the great chess board of life.

Did you ever watch the Canadian SciFi show "Lexx"? One of the episodes in the final season has one of the major characters playing chess (against one of the key antagonists)... It was a chess game for life, with the show's characters as the pieces. Great episode.

heh ,, I aspire to be a pawn. I'm stuck back here on the checkerboard!

re: #102 Killgore Trout

Thank you for the clarification.

re: #66 MikeySDCA

My perspective is a bit different, because I make no pretense to understanding the science, much less to being in a position to pass judgment on it. I do, however, know a fair amount about history, and am aware of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Ageof the 16th-17th centuries. These events seem to me to indicate that there are large forces at work which have nothing to do with human activity. Until the Global Warming folks come up with a convincing answer on that, I will consider them charlatans.

No-one in the climate science community has said that increased CO2 from human activity is the only factor involved in climate change. The models that scientists use include all known natural factors as well as the steadily increasing CO2 in the atmosphere from man's activities. And those models show that this human factor is indeed influencing our climate and making global temperatures trend upward.

As for the medieval warm period it is not thought to have been a global phenomenon, rather one that affected Europe. Globally averaged temperatures for this period may actually have been lower than in 20th century.

PS You may have heard the stories about wine-producing English vineyards during the medieval warm period - just for perspective, English wines are winning international prizes today.

re: #105 Pianobuff

Sounds like a limerick waiting to be written.

Old Einstein was smart to a fault
Where others' brains crawled, his would vault
Though he started with ether
He soon took a breather
And ended up on single-malt!

re: #90 Sharmuta

I really don't like being lied to and used as a political pawn, and now that I see AGW deniers have the integrity of the Discovery Institute, I no longer consider them a reputable movement. I plan on studying the issue on my own from credible, scientific sources. I really appreciate the sunlight being cast upon these charlatans and hope it continues.

It is indeed good to see a commitment to accuracy and exposing bias and propaganda, but it is unfair to lump everyone in either camp as being the same.

re: #116 John Neverbend

His use of the word "ether" which occurred later on in his life was not the same as the "ether" that was believed to be the medium through which electromagnetic radiation passed. This latter type of ether was shown not to exist by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 and was effectively shown to be unnecessary by Einstein's theory of special relativity in 1905. So, he never believed in an ether in the classical sense that prevailed in the 19th century.

I thought he was still on some further question for an ether-like medium later in his career, but it sounds like your saying that's not the case.

re: #102 Killgore Trout

Einstein was also slow to accept quantum mechanics but later changed his mind in light of overwhelming evidence.

It's sad that the Discovery Institute doesn't accept neo-Darwinism in the light of overwhelming evidence, but then they're not like Einstein.

re: #121 Cato the Elder

Old Einstein was smart to a fault
Where others' brains crawled, his would vault
Though he started with ether
He soon took a breather
And ended up on single-malt!

Bravo! Not enough up-dings.

re: #49 ludwigvanquixote

And what I am saying is that the truth is alarming to any sane person who understands the science. The only reason you are skeptical is because you have not seen the actual science and because you have gotten most of your information from people who assume this is a nefarious scheme of Al Gore.

So nice of you to know exactly what I know about AGW and how I've learned it, LVQ...

///"You know exactly two things right now: Jack and Shit...and Jack just left town!"

re: #103 sattv4u2

True, becuuse we all know that crops grow much better on the frozen tundras of Siberia than they do in temperate climes!

Sure! And crops also love being waterlogged! And scorched! Yaay bring on the global warming! It can only bring good things///

The hijab is NOT a sign of opression

The hijab is NOT a sign of opression - This video proves it:

re: #123 Pianobuff

I thought he was still on some further question for an ether-like medium later in his career, but it sounds like your saying that's not the case.

No, you're right. He did reinvent it, as he thought it was necessary for a unified field theory, but it wasn't the same as the "old" ether.

re: #11 Basho

Denialist fail.

Hey Basho - how's things? Good to see you!

re: #127 Jimmah

Sure! And crops also love being waterlogged! And scorched! Yaay bring on the global warming! It can only bring good things///

Wait ... haven't we already been getting warmer? Global crop production is up 15% over the past three decades. I'd better go recheck that source!

re: #128 Killgore Trout

Thanks. Now I forgive you for that Alex Jones clip earlier today. My nightmares will now be sweet dreams of long black hair and an amazing ass.

re: #107 WinterCat

[Link: www.atomicarchive.com...]

Here's a list of nuke power plant accidents. As you will see the last one was in Japan a decade ago exposing 55 workers to radiation (no deaths). Operator error as it was the fault of the workers impoperly mixing acids. (similar to other industries accidents)
Chernobyl was 1986. Americas last incident was 1976. Many improvemnts and safety guides have been developed in the past 3-4 decades. many US plants have been running for that long with zero incidents

re: #40 ludwigvanquixote

What is the physical evidence that the ice caps are "melting faster than the models predicted"? If you look at the NSIDC web site, Cryosphere Today, you will find that the extent of Antarctic sea ice is at the 1979-2000 mean for this time of year. Likewise, the Arctic sea ice extent is only slghtly below this average (which, of course, is for a rather short and artibrarily chosen period).

The fact is that the last ten years have not shown a significant warming trend. NOTHING that has been observed is outside the bounds of known natural variability (the US Navy archives have pictures of submarines in open waters at the North Pole in the '50s, and the Northwest Passage was navigable in the '40s). Ten years ago, the predictions were all about an ice-free North Pole and warming temperatures all over the place. In fact, what we have experienced is nothing of the sort and frequently the opposite.

There is no question that human activity can have severely detrimental environmental effects. Pollution of the Mediterranean and global overfishing are just two of many examples. It does not follow that human activity is the cause of all change. The burden of proof is on those who want to reorder the global economy to fight their postulated demon, not on those who disagree with them. In order to make their case, extensive and incontrovertible physical evidence is required. The output of computer models does not constitute physical evidence. The physical data do not favor the AGW side. It's as simple as that. Those who try to explain the behavior of extremely complex systems in terms of a singe variable are going to be wrong. The history of science shows this again and again.

re: #117 grambo46

So we believe the science that says AGW is real (I'll give you that one) but you don't believe the science - not to mention the track record - that tells us nuclear power is very safe.

I don't know how to respond to that.

I grew up very near to Indian Point nuclear power station and we were all very delighted that we got relatively cheap power from Con Ed.

Maybe it takes getting used to ...

I didn't say I believed the AGW science is real. I said I do not know. I believe it is possible that we have caused the problem or contributed to it but it is also possible we have not. I believe we need to clean up our planet because we are destroying it. It is obvious but whether or not that destruction is resulting in global warming, I do not know. In other words, I am not in either camp on that issue. But I am willing to listen and weigh facts.

I am not convinced that nuclear is safe. It is a security risk at least. I would much rather head us toward solar if it can be developed into a reliable energy source.

re: #127 Jimmah

Sure! And crops also love being waterlogged! And scorched! Yaay bring on the global warming! It can only bring good things///

An increase of temp by 1-2 (even 5) degrees would mean MORE places in the world that could grow crops and those that already do would have a longer season. Decreases in core temp would be a disaster. Increases, not so much!

re: #117 grambo46

So we believe the science that says AGW is real (I'll give you that one) but you don't believe the science - not to mention the track record - that tells us nuclear power is very safe.

I don't know how to respond to that.

I grew up very near to Indian Point nuclear power station and we were all very delighted that we got relatively cheap power from Con Ed.

Maybe it takes getting used to ...

Maybe I should not say this.. I spent 20 years working on Nuclear Sub reactors..You know why America will never be Nuclear powered?
No cred..period...The only people I would ever trust to run America's Nuclear plants safely is the US Navy or the French..Period...
The NRC is a fucking joke and everybody knows it.. We laughed about the private industry all the time.. Completely lame Engineering and safeguards... It's a fact...I'm sorry...But there will not be any new nuclear plants going into your neighborhood soon...Wonder why? The private nuclear Industry has no cred at all in America..
Maybe I shouldn't have posted that..But it is fact

I live in such a geek household. My husband just announced the dessert was ready to be eaten by opening the door and shouting, "Three point one four one five nine."

re: #132 Cato the Elder

Nice falafels too.

re: #138 EmmmieG

I live in such a geek household. My husband just announced the dessert was ready to be eaten by opening the door and shouting, "Three point one four one five nine."

{groan}

(but updinged!)

re: #138 EmmmieG

Cake is a lie!

re: #138 EmmmieG

LOL, I'm gonna steal that and use it next time we have pie.

re: #138 EmmmieG

I live in such a geek household. My husband just announced the dessert was ready to be eaten by opening the door and shouting, "Three point one four one five nine."

Mmmm, pi...

/I like fresh strawberry pi, with lots of whipped cream ;-P

If I may be allowed a short sermonette...

I ask myself: about what are people afraid?

In the case of AGW, about what are people afraid?

Failure? Loss of power? Loss of freedom?

The heat (ahem...) surrounding AGW is much greater than the actual scientific controversies would indicate.

This is why I now lump AGW-discussions into the "culture war" category (and why in spin-offs I'm starting to put links about AGW discussions into the culture category.)

My fear isn't about AGW, per se, but that my society (the people around me) seem so unable, unwilling, to discuss it reasonably.

I really, really dislike the idea of sidelining science for political convenience, which so many people appear so willing to do (in the case of AGW and some other controversies as well.)

Here in California we have many problems, including environmental problems. We have a chronic water shortage. By all indications, AGW will make that worse (and some claim it already has.) If we can't deal with today's water problems, how will we deal with the future water problems when there (is a great likelihood that there) will be less water available but more people?

Adaptation will be necessary. Yet the old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure seems quite applicable here.

re: #129 John Neverbend

No, you're right. He did reinvent it, as he thought it was necessary for a unified field theory, but it wasn't the same as the "old" ether.

Ere Einstein's new ether was neither nor here nor there. Either way, old ether n'eer be there.

re: #136 sattv4u2

An increase of temp by 1-2 (even 5) degrees would mean MORE places in the world that could grow crops and those that already do would have a longer season. Decreases in core temp would be a disaster. Increases, not so much!

And indeed cold appears to be the greater killer of human beings.

I am not insinuating that all warming is good either, rather, that there are benefits and disadvantages to both warming and cooling, but there seems a teensy bit of over emphasis and over study of the malefactors of warming.

re: #134 hopperandadropper

What is the physical evidence that the ice caps are "melting faster than the models predicted"? If you look at the NSIDC web site, Cryosphere Today, you will find that the extent of Antarctic sea ice is at the 1979-2000 mean for this time of year. Likewise, the Arctic sea ice extent is only slghtly below this average (which, of course, is for a rather short and artibrarily chosen period).

The fact is that the last ten years have not shown a significant warming trend. NOTHING that has been observed is outside the bounds of known natural variability (the US Navy archives have pictures of submarines in open waters at the North Pole in the '50s, and the Northwest Passage was navigable in the '40s). Ten years ago, the predictions were all about an ice-free North Pole and warming temperatures all over the place. In fact, what we have experienced is nothing of the sort and frequently the opposite.

There is no question that human activity can have severely detrimental environmental effects. Pollution of the Mediterranean and global overfishing are just two of many examples. It does not follow that human activity is the cause of all change. The burden of proof is on those who want to reorder the global economy to fight their postulated demon, not on those who disagree with them. In order to make their case, extensive and incontrovertible physical evidence is required. The output of computer models does not constitute physical evidence. The physical data do not favor the AGW side. It's as simple as that. Those who try to explain the behavior of extremely complex systems in terms of a singe variable are going to be wrong. The history of science shows this again and again.

Salamantis and LVQ were debating this the other night. I had to check out at 3:30 AM, but the conversation was still going on... Check Tue or Wed overnight thread.

Some examples:
1. solar updraft tower (real big ones of course) will even produce energy at night, combined with a gravel layer and lots of water, even hydrophonic farming is possible with this.
2. Combination of solar or wind energy and water tanks.
Not used power from this source pumps water to a storage and is released if needed and drives than a generator.
3. high tech capacitors - Lockheed Martin buyed some patents last time I checked. And they are not known to spend big money on stupid things.

But most important - you can reduce your energy needs by 70 to 80% with state of the art technology. so 7 or 8 from 10 power plants are not needed anymore.

Just saying.

re: #134 hopperandadropper

The burden of proof is on those who want to reorder the global economy to fight their postulated demon, not on those who disagree with them. In order to make their case, extensive and incontrovertible physical evidence is required. The output of computer models does not constitute physical evidence. The physical data do not favor the AGW side. It's as simple as that. Those who try to explain the behavior of extremely complex systems in terms of a singe variable are going to be wrong. The history of science shows this again and again.

What I see here is the conflation of two separate points- the science and the solutions, and for me that's not logical.

The science is the science. It is what it is, and I fully support the scientific method being applied, with full peer review.

However- what the right has a problem with is the solutions. The problem with that is they attack the science instead of offering alternatives to the issue that are more agreeable to them politically and economically.

re: #144 freetoken

For a change I agree with you. The problem is not the science, it is in the politicization and exaggerations of the science.

I don't normally join much in AGW threads because I haven't the scientific knowledge to debate, but I do know that if we could find a way to harness the energy of little boys, all of our problems would be solved.

re: #131 grambo46

Wait ... haven't we already been getting warmer? Global crop production is up 15% over the past three decades. I'd better go recheck that source!

This 'experiment' is in it's early stages. Have you ever come across, or can you imagine, a situation where adding some more of something seems to help ...then you add some more...still fine...then you add some more still...and...oops! Too much! Not looking so good now.

But please do get that source for me. I'd certainly be interested to see a report demonstrating that this increase in food production is purely down to temperature increases. Apart from anything else, it would be a good additional item for refuting global warming deniers.

re: #149 Sharmuta

Sharmuta,

I would go a bit further and say the real problem is the premature rush to "solutions" to something as highly complex and fluid at the global climate. The same was true in the '70s when the idea was to counter the impending ice age.

But just in case of a nuclear war in the middle east - some solar panels can produce energy from radiation too. 24/7 for decades ;)

re: #144 freetoken

Well said.

re: #151 EmmmieG

I don't normally join much in AGW threads because I haven't the scientific knowledge to debate, but I do know that if we could find a way to harness the energy of little boys, all of our problems would be solved.

LOL Nice!
Hope you are well

I guess the thought that every man, woman, and child ever born with breathing room around them would fill an area roughly the size of Rhode Island, has kept me skeptical. I'm sure there's a lot more to it...

I like Emmmies idea.

re: #151 EmmmieG

I don't normally join much in AGW threads because I haven't the scientific knowledge to debate, but I do know that if we could find a way to harness the energy of little boys, all of our problems would be solved.

And puppies. Looks like I gotta go outside again so Zelda can chase the coon in my backyard.

re: #156 HoosierHoops

LOL Nice!
Hope you are well

As well as a big slice of apple pie can make me.

re: #149 Sharmuta

What I see here is the conflation of two separate points- the science and the solutions, and for me that's not logical.

The science is the science. It is what it is, and I fully support the scientific method being applied, with full peer review.

However- what the right has a problem with is the solutions. The problem with that is they attack the science instead of offering alternatives to the issue that are more agreeable to them politically and economically.

I will agree if you will call them "proposed" solutions. Does anyone here actually think cap and tax will reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by one molecule??

PS: I also get heartburn when AGW skepticism is portrayed as anti-environment. I've been an environmentalist all my life.

re: #151 EmmmieG

I don't normally join much in AGW threads because I haven't the scientific knowledge to debate, but I do know that if we could find a way to harness the energy of little boys, all of our problems would be solved.

That was the ultimate purpose of the matrix as I recall, ergo and concordantly...

re: #151 EmmmieG

I don't normally join much in AGW threads because I haven't the scientific knowledge to debate, but I do know that if we could find a way to harness the energy of little boys, all of our problems would be solved.

Nope, not all!

My son just had three of his freinds for a sleepover. They arrived at noon on Thursday and left between 3 and 4 p.m. Friday!

All cupboards are completey bare, as is the fridge and freezer. (last time we saw the dog he was hiding under the bed after one of the boys yelled HOT DOG!)

It's a Cost/ Benefit thing

re: #144 freetoken

California is not destined to be populated for the long term, IMO. Drain from the places with water to the deserts which out populated the places with water...

I'll never understand how that can be sustained.

But, I know nothing about his stuff (as you can probably tell).

re: #160 grambo46

Me too, but now the Environmental movement has been co-opted by fringe lunatics and they need to be reigned in, the unfortunate counter reaction will be harmful to the good effects of the movement, such as clean air/water and sensible wildlife protection.

re: #159 EmmmieG

As well as a big slice of apple pie can make me.

That's my girl!
French Apple pie with ice Cream may save the world some day...
*wink*

re: #163 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

California is not destined to be populated for the long term, IMO. Drain from the places with water to the deserts which out populated the places with water...

I'll never understand how that can be sustained.

But, I know nothing about his stuff (as you can probably tell).

California is now essentially a Ponzi scheme, it is growing at an unsustainable rate on many levels.

re: #160 grambo46

I will agree if you will call them "proposed" solutions. Does anyone here actually think cap and tax will reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by one molecule??

PS: I also get heartburn when AGW skepticism is portrayed as anti-environment. I've been an environmentalist all my life.

I'm getting heartburn because to reject the AGW denial line is to be a flaming communist or al gore lover. And I like trees.

re: #136 sattv4u2

An increase of temp by 1-2 (even 5) degrees would mean MORE places in the world that could grow crops and those that already do would have a longer season. Decreases in core temp would be a disaster. Increases, not so much!

You don't think there's any chance that you might be massively oversimplifying things here? Ignoring local effects, droughts caused by shifting climatic patterns, flooding caused by melting glaciers, icecaps, etc?

We are talking about messing with a hugely complex system. "Warm is teh good!" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

re: #168 Jimmah

Flooding caused by melting glaciers, icecaps, etc?

And did not ice has a lower density than water (the reason it swims on water)?
So if it melts it will use less space than before...?

Just asking...

Early on he shows single word differences between the two documents in white but later he lets them slide and leaves a few slight mismatches in all yellow.

It's not important but kinda creepy.

re: #168 Jimmah

You don't think there's any chance that you might be massively oversimplifying things here? Ignoring local effects, droughts caused by shifting climatic patterns, flooding caused by melting glaciers, icecaps, etc?

We are talking about messing with a hugely complex system. "Warm is teh good!" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

There is massive oversimplification on both sides of the debate, warming is almost exclusively considered from the point of view that it is exclusively harmful, this creates the appearance of systemic bias.

re: #168 Jimmah

You don't think there's any chance that you might be massively oversimplifying things here? Ignoring local effects, droughts caused by shifting climatic patterns, flooding caused by melting glaciers, icecaps, etc?

We are talking about messing with a hugely complex system. "Warm is teh good!" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

We've had all those (local effects, droughts caused by shifting climatic patterns, flooding caused by melting glaciers, icecaps) for EONS now and guess what, we're STILL HERE. We're still propagating and producing crops to sustain us. We've had ice ages, mini ice ages and "global warming" before. WAY before we had craeture comforts to get us through it, yet we always did. But this time is differnt. The differnce is people have discovered an entire new way to PROFITEER by it (a person who seeks or exacts exorbitant profits, esp. through the sale of scarce or rationed goods.)

WAVIN AT YA, BIG AL GORE!

re: #40 ludwigvanquixote

The deafness of the crowd here astonishes me.

Let me repeat.

IPCC was a lowball estimate because the caps have been observed to have been melting faster than previously predicted.

Therefore it is not unreasonable to fear loosing the caps in the next 100-150 years.

Please process what those statements mean

What you forget to mention is that icecaps have existed for only about 15 percent of earth's history.

In the meantime,

CORVALLIS, Ore. – A team of researchers says it has largely put to rest a long debate on the underlying mechanism that has caused periodic ice ages on Earth for the past 2.5 million years – they are ultimately linked to slight shifts in solar radiation caused by predictable changes in Earth’s rotation and axis.

In a publication to be released Friday in the journal Science, researchers from Oregon State University and other institutions conclude that the known wobbles in Earth’s rotation caused global ice levels to reach their peak about 26,000 years ago, stabilize for 7,000 years and then begin melting 19,000 years ago, eventually bringing to an end the last ice age.

The melting was first caused by more solar radiation, not changes in carbon dioxide levels or ocean temperatures, as some scientists have suggested in recent years.

“Solar radiation was the trigger that started the ice melting, that’s now pretty certain,” said Peter Clark, a professor of geosciences at OSU. “There were also changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and ocean circulation, but those happened later and amplified a process that had already begun.”

The findings are important, the scientists said, because they will give researchers a more precise understanding of how ice sheets melt in response to radiative forcing mechanisms. And even though the changes that occurred 19,000 years ago were due to increased solar radiation, that amount of heating can be translated into what is expected from current increases in greenhouse gas levels, and help scientists more accurately project how Earth’s existing ice sheets will react in the future.

“We now know with much more certainty how ancient ice sheets responded to solar radiation, and that will be very useful in better understanding what the future holds,” Clark said. “It’s good to get this pinned down.”

The researchers used an analysis of 6,000 dates and locations of ice sheets to define, with a high level of accuracy, when they started to melt. In doing this, they confirmed a theory that was first developed more than 50 years ago that pointed to small but definable changes in Earth’s rotation as the trigger for ice ages.

“We can calculate changes in the Earth’s axis and rotation that go back 50 million years,” Clark said. “These are caused primarily by the gravitational influences of the larger planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn, which pull and tug on the Earth in slightly different ways over periods of thousands of years.”

That, in turn, can change the Earth’s axis – the way it tilts towards the sun – about two degrees over long periods of time, which changes the way sunlight strikes the planet. And those small shifts in solar radiation were all it took to cause multiple ice ages during about the past 2.5 million years on Earth, which reach their extremes every 100,000 years or so.

[Link: oceanworld.tamu.edu...]

re: #170 Joshua Cohen

And did not ice has a lower density than water (the reason it swims on water)?
So if it melts it will use less space than before...?

Just asking...

The antarctic ice (most of the ice in question) is part of the continent and isn't floating. When it melts, it displaces its weight of water. Also, the sea would rise if its average temperature deviates from 4 centigrade (the point of maximum density).

re: #9 Cato the Elder

As I've said before, I'm skeptical of the solutions some propose for this.

Skepticism of the "there's nothing to see here" variety, however, seems to rely more and more on the tactics of the Discovery Institute.

No kidding. Bjorn Lomborg has done an honest study of the costs of various proposed remedies, and some of them are jaw-droppingly expensive. The sad thing is that science is losing its cachet before much of the public because so many non-scientists pretend to be authorities on the topic and then there's the appearance of a scientific controversy and it looks as though scientists don't really know squat.

There is a modest scientific controversy. The models now in use are early efforts and naturally they don't provide really authoritative projections. The question of just how close to the mark they are is up in the air. Nevertheless, these models are good enough, and the hard data is strong enough, to conclude that it is reasonably likely or at any rate "on the table" that we are facing some painful consequences from AGW.

It therefore behooves us to get cracking with wind, solar, nuclear, and various conservation efforts. All these will be of some value even if AGW fears come to nothing, and they'll be of enhanced value if we discover that we're dodging an AGW bullet as well as building a secure energy future.

re: #170 Joshua Cohen

And did not ice has a lower density than water (the reason it swims on water)?
So if it melts it will use less space than before...?

Just asking...

That is only true for ice that is already floating in water. The antarctic ice cap, and glacial melts could only raise sea levels.

re: #173 sattv4u2

WAVIN AT YA, BIG AL GORE!

Ain't that "Big Gore Al"?

re: #172 Bagua

There is massive oversimplification on both sides of the debate, warming is almost exclusively considered from the point of view that it is exclusively harmful, this creates the appearance of systemic bias.

I have to say I don't see any evidence that climate scientists are guilty of distorting through massive oversimplifications like the one I just addressed.
And ut's not so much that warming is exclusively harmfuil, it is that too rapid change in the climate will be harmful to us.

If you'll excuse me...G'night John-Boy!

re: #179 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Ain't that "Big Gore Al"?

Anagrams for Al Gore

Ear Log
Oar Gel
Oar Leg

re: #170 Joshua Cohen

And did not ice has a lower density than water (the reason it swims on water)?
So if it melts it will use less space than before...?

Just asking...

The earth used to be covered with much more water. In the Eocene Era there were no ice caps. One of the big factors that cooled the earth from this period was the Indian sub-continent colliding with Asia and creating a mountain range capable of altering climate patterns.

re: #178 Jimmah

That is only true for ice that is already floating in water. The antarctic ice cap, and glacial melts could only raise sea levels.

But it cools the water down...and needs lots of energy to melt, it take out of its surrounding

And below the thermocline sea water has a constant temperature, or? So just a part above will get warmer and expand...

re: #168 Jimmah

Of course it is. But how is 'If the core temperature goes up 2.3 degrees celsius over the next 50 years, we're ALL GONNA DIE' any better? I've seen/heard variants of that theme over and over and over.

All of these theories posit a 'flashpoint' armageddon event where everything goes to hell in a handbasket overnight. Ice caps. The Siberian peat bogs. Etc.

I simply don't trust these scenarios. The planet has been significantly warmer than now. Why didn't these doomsday scenarios come true then?

Here's an article where I lay out why I think energy and food are more pressing than AGW.

[Link: noblesseoblige.org...]

re: #185 esch

I simply don't trust these scenarios. The planet has been significantly warmer than now. Why didn't these doomsday scenarios come true then?

We were still lemurs.

re: #144 freetoken

Freetoken: What a wonderfully cogent post. Wish I had more than one upding, etc., etc.

I was especially struck by the irony of your last line:

...Yet the old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure seems quite applicable here.

When I was a kid, that sentence was the very essence of the Conservative mindset. When did the world turn topsy-turvy? And who turned it? (Other than Atwater and Rove, of course. {G})

re: #177 lostlakehiker

"It therefore behooves us to get cracking with wind, solar, nuclear, and various conservation efforts. All these will be of some value even if AGW fears come to nothing,"

Exactly. Thank-you.

/I notice you didn't mention cap and trade

re: #179 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Ain't that "Big Gore Al"?

ONE BILLLIONNN UPDINGS!

re: #185 esch

The planet has been significantly warmer than now. Why didn't these doomsday scenarios come true then

As stated, the Al Gorians weren't profiteering about it "then". The far left extremist environementalists (as opposed to actual evironemenatists) didn't hold sway over gov't officials

re: #187 Sharmuta

We were still lemurs.

I didn't know Smurfs evolved from lemurdom!

re: #182 sattv4u2

Anagrams for Al Gore

Ear Log
Oar Gel
Oar Leg

Also:
Go real
Gaoler

re: #192 sattv4u2

I didn't know Smurfs evolved from lemurdom!

It was the punk lemurs. The blue ones.

re: #187 Sharmuta

We were still lemurs.

Just call me Louis.

You know...Louis Lemur.

re: #187 Sharmuta

We were still lemurs.

I was going to say it was a long time ago, but I like your answer better.:)

re: #173 sattv4u2

We've had all those (local effects, droughts caused by shifting climatic patterns, flooding caused by melting glaciers, icecaps) for EONS now and guess what, we're STILL HERE. We're still propagating and producing crops to sustain us. We've had ice ages, mini ice ages and "global warming" before. WAY before we had craeture comforts to get us through it, yet we always did. But this time is differnt. The differnce is people have discovered an entire new way to PROFITEER by it (a person who seeks or exacts exorbitant profits, esp. through the sale of scarce or rationed goods.)

WAVIN AT YA, BIG AL GORE!

I don't think anyone is suggesting that man will be wiped out by global warming. The survival of the species is not the issue - the issue is -can we avoid unneccessary hardship, chaos and death by altering our impact on the environment.

re: #190 esch

*blushes*

re: #180 Jimmah

I have to say I don't see any evidence that climate scientists are guilty of distorting through massive oversimplifications like the one I just addressed.
And ut's not so much that warming is exclusively harmfuil, it is that too rapid change in the climate will be harmful to us.

I do realize that you have a different opinion than I. :-)

It is the overwhelming abundance of papers on the "Effects of Global Warming" on everything from Newts to the entire planetary eco-system that I find suspicious, as the conclusion is always that it is harmful.

Also, I'm not talking about "Climate Science" which is in its infancy, I'm talking about the politicization and propaganda that is going on, of which the post is an example of bias and exaggeration on the AGW skeptic side.

re: #197 Jimmah

I don't think anyone is suggesting that man will be wiped out by global warming. The survival of the species is not the issue - the issue is -can we avoid unneccessary hardship, chaos and death by altering our impact on the environment.

You're kidding me, right?

re: #192 sattv4u2

I didn't know Smurfs evolved from lemurdom!

Absosmurfly!

Hi lizards! I'm just checking in here for NY Nana. She said to tell you she is having a nervous breakdown. ;-) Cable is out so she doesn't have her internet and the TV is going in and out. As you know, radio is not great on the weekend. Cable company can't come out until late afternoon tomorrow.

re: #202 Sharmuta

Absosmurfly!

Well then, thar ya go!

re: #186 Thanos

Here's an article where I lay out why I think energy and food are more pressing than AGW.

[Link: noblesseoblige.org...]

Yep, and the obsession with the Warming, be it the eventually longer term threat or not, is likely to lead to massive starvation should we in fact be entering a cooling period, or be deprived of cheap fossil fuels and industrial farming due to the Enviro movements excesses.

re: #197 Jimmah

So...that explains

“James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature"

re: #203 Pvt Bin Jammin

Hi lizards! I'm just checking in here for NY Nana. She said to tell you she is having a nervous breakdown. ;-) Cable is out so she doesn't have her internet and the TV is going in and out. As you know, radio is not great on the weekend. Cable company can't come out until late afternoon tomorrow.

hmmm,, what did we EVER do back in the day before the intertubbies and cable TV?

Harken back with me, if you will, to those long lost days of my youth back in the late 50s and early 60's
I went outside and played with the dinosaurs!

This 400,000 year trend for CO2 level in the atmosphere shows we are in uncharted territory so predicting how nature is going to respond to the excess CO2 is speculative. Who knows, maybe we need the carbon blanket to hold in more heat seeing as we also create so much particulate matter that hangs in the air and blocks sunlight from reaching the ground.

re: #203 Pvt Bin Jammin

As you know, radio is not great on the weekend.

It is, if you like John Sterling on 880AM "ball game over, Yankees win, thuuu Yankeees wiiin!!!". There's an entire anti-Sterling blog.

re: #173 sattv4u2

We've had all those (local effects, droughts caused by shifting climatic patterns, flooding caused by melting glaciers, icecaps) for EONS now and guess what, we're STILL HERE. We're still propagating and producing crops to sustain us. We've had ice ages, mini ice ages and "global warming" before. WAY before we had craeture comforts to get us through it, yet we always did. But this time is differnt. The differnce is people have discovered an entire new way to PROFITEER by it (a person who seeks or exacts exorbitant profits, esp. through the sale of scarce or rationed goods.)

WAVIN AT YA, BIG AL GORE!

It's easier to escape a ice age for example when all your personalty property is a spear and a fur suit. Sure, mankind will survive with Florida and NYC under water for example, but it will be a real inconvenience.

But maybe we should limit the growing numbers of mankind.
7 billion is a lot and much more than 300 years ago with max 250 million.
Exponential growth is not so funny at all.

And after all - the sum of all intelligence on every planet in the universe is a constant - the population grows ;)

re: #202 Sharmuta

Then DON'T Google "Strawberry Shortcake Smurf" images!

re: #208 sattv4u2

hmmm,, what did we EVER do back in the day before the intertubbies and cable TV?

Harken back with me, if you will, to those long lost days of my youth back in the late 50s and early 60's
I went outside and played with the dinosaurs!

LOL. You too?

Poor Nana cannot even get out of the house now.

Well I don't know what to think.

I've read in the NY Times (no less quoting a NASA scientist) that sunspot activity has severely dropped off and it's similar to the previous Dalton Minimum which was where two solar cycles peaked with only about 50 sunspots and included the so called year without summer (1816). A time of servere hardship due to crop failure. Basically no growing season.

If that's true it explains this extreme pleasant and mild summer we're currently experiencing. Weather I haven't seen regularly since I was a kid in the '70s it seems like. But we're only at the beginning and if this continues with more severely cool years it could get ugly

I know everyone's all worried about it getting too hot but seriously if we enter an ice age we are major hosed. The sun's activity is obviously the most major component to our climate. Not CO2.

Of course we don't want to pollute ourselves into an artifically warmed scenario but an uncontrolled cooling scenario could end civilization a lot more quickly. Let's hope that NASA guy and the NY Times are in the pocket of big oil and it's all hooey.

re: #211 avanti

It's easier to escape a ice age for example when all your personalty property is a spear and a fur suit. Sure, mankind will survive with Florida and NYC under water for example, but it will be a real inconvenience.

Yweah ,, people will have to ,, umm,, whats that word? I know it! I've heard about people actually doing it!

Oh yeah,, I remeber ,,,

They'll have to MOVE

re: #212 Joshua Cohen

But maybe we should limit the growing numbers of mankind.
7 billion is a lot and much more than 300 years ago with max 250 million.
Exponential growth is not so funny at all.

Limit how?

re: #151 EmmmieG

I don't normally join much in AGW threads because I haven't the scientific knowledge to debate, but I do know that if we could find a way to harness the energy of little boys, all of our problems would be solved.

Did not work out well for MJ though...

/re: #211 avanti

Yes, Mankind will survive, and some places, such as Bangladesh are unsustainable disasters regardless of any cooling, warming, or stasis.

re: #40 ludwigvanquixote

The deafness of the crowd here astonishes me.

Let me repeat.

IPCC was a lowball estimate because the caps have been observed to have been melting faster than previously predicted.

Therefore it is not unreasonable to fear loosing the caps in the next 100-150 years.

Please process what those statements mean

Post 174 argued that the caps are not a permanent feature of the earth, so, not to worry.

Hello?

The caps are a permanent feature of that part of the earth's history that concerns us human beings. If they now melt, the new ecosystem will be just fine for some species. Maybe not so good for ours.

If they now melt, sea levels will rise quite a bit. Bangladesh will go underwater. That's 100 million people out of luck. Add in the multitudes of others driven from their homes to crowded high ground, and you have the makings of wars in which the combatants absolutely must win if they are to live. Ugly!

If they now melt, it will be in the context of a warmer climate everywhere. Who can say whether the rain in Spain will still fall mainly on the plain? Tundra won't necessarily make good farmland even if it becomes warm enough to try farming there. For one thing, there's just too little insolation.

re: #174 astronmr20

Nice to see some real science being trotted out, in this thread. Excellent article, that.

Peter Sinclair is a True Believer, and I believe he is doing the best he can with his limited scientific expertise, and dogged faith. He reminds me of a younger me, even though he's older than me chronologically. He writes an amusing greeting card, too: [Link: www.care2.com...]

re: #212 Joshua Cohen

Josh? My wife and I had two children. We made our replacements. That's it.

What other things should we be doing, in your opinion?

Hah, there goes the Bangladesh red herring just as I was typing my comment.

I

re: #210 John Neverbend

It is, if you like John Sterling on 880AM "ball game over, Yankees win, thuuu Yankeees wiiin!!!". There's an entire anti-Sterling blog.

I don't even think she likes the Yankees. She grew up in Boston.

Ah well Kid EES

Have to go catch my beauty sleep. 8 a.m. comes early. Then I get a fun filled 12 hour workday

Cya All 2MorO

re: #182 sattv4u2

Anagrams for Al Gore

Ear Log
Oar Gel
Oar Leg

Also, "Get Real." :)

re: #222 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Josh? My wife and I had two children. We made our replacements. That's it.

What other things should we be doing, in your opinion?

Didn't you leave, John Boy?

re: #210 John Neverbend

re: #203 Pvt Bin Jammin

It is, if you like John Sterling on 880AM "ball game over, Yankees win, thuuu Yankeees wiiin!!!". There's an entire anti-Sterling blog.

Just one?

re: #225 sattv4u2

Ah well Kid EES

Have to go catch my beauty sleep. 8 a.m. comes early. Then I get a fun filled 12 hour workday

Cya All 2MorO

Be well...

re: #226 garycooper

Also, "Get Real." :)

No it's not. There's no "O" in it!

re: #217 Mich-again

Limit how?

Birthcontrol? Condoms? The industrial countries have usually less than 2 kids now - but others have much more, esp. because of a lower infant mortality than before but at unaltered birthrate. Mostly in regions where food and clean water is a problem for a long time.

re: #227 sattv4u2

Took a pill... Hurt my back today... I'll probably drop off any minu

re: #233 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Took a pill... Hurt my back today... I'll probably drop off any minu

A Michael Jackosn pill?

re: #215 dwells38

Well I don't know what to think.

I've read in the NY Times (no less quoting a NASA scientist) that sunspot activity has severely dropped off and it's similar to the previous Dalton Minimum which was where two solar cycles peaked with only about 50 sunspots and included the so called year without summer (1816). A time of servere hardship due to crop failure. Basically no growing season.

If that's true it explains this extreme pleasant and mild summer we're currently experiencing. Weather I haven't seen regularly since I was a kid in the '70s it seems like. But we're only at the beginning and if this continues with more severely cool years it could get ugly

I know everyone's all worried about it getting too hot but seriously if we enter an ice age we are major hosed. The sun's activity is obviously the most major component to our climate. Not CO2.

Of course we don't want to pollute ourselves into an artifically warmed scenario but an uncontrolled cooling scenario could end civilization a lot more quickly. Let's hope that NASA guy and the NY Times are in the pocket of big oil and it's all hooey.

"You should say " this extreme pleasant and mild summer I'm currently experiencing locally. "

re: #228 Fenway_Nation

Just one?

I've only seen one. If there are others, do provide a link. I actually like him, but I think some of the anti-Sterling comments are very funny.

re: #233 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Took a pill... Hurt my back today... I'll probably drop off any minu

ouch! be well my friend...

re: #229 HoosierHoops

Be well...

Thanks Hoops. You also

CYA's

re: #235 avanti

Yea, it's hot as hell in Houston this summer.

re: #212 Joshua Cohen

But maybe we should limit the growing numbers of mankind.
7 billion is a lot and much more than 300 years ago with max 250 million.
Exponential growth is not so funny at all.

And after all - the sum of all intelligence on every planet in the universe is a constant - the population grows ;)

There's no need to regulate it - it's easily demonstrable that population moderates on it's own if you introduce plentiful energy, education, and a chance at prosperity.

Twitter Update: I haven't had to turn on the air-conditioning more than 3-4 times this summer. Cool in Novi, MI.

re: #185 esch

Of course it is. But how is 'If the core temperature goes up 2.3 degrees celsius over the next 50 years, we're ALL GONNA DIE' any better? I've seen/heard variants of that theme over and over and over.

All of these theories posit a 'flashpoint' armageddon event where everything goes to hell in a handbasket overnight. Ice caps. The Siberian peat bogs. Etc.

I simply don't trust these scenarios. The planet has been significantly warmer than now. Why didn't these doomsday scenarios come true then?

When was it significantly hotter than it is today? Got data on that?

BBL Have a nice evening. I'm heading out.

re: #240 Thanos

Right, and places like Bangladesh and Gaza are on a racetrack to disaster from over-population that is independent of the weather.

re: #232 Joshua Cohen

Birthcontrol? Condoms? The industrial countries have usually less than 2 kids now - but others have much more, esp. because of a lower infant mortality than before but at unaltered birthrate. Mostly in regions where food and clean water is a problem for a long time.

I recall reading somewhere recently that last year's US birth rate just came out and it was down 2% from the prior year.

re: #241 garycooper

I hear its a lack of sunspot activity.

re: #222 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Josh? My wife and I had two children. We made our replacements. That's it.

What other things should we be doing, in your opinion?

We are not the problem. You could say we have level out.
But there a cultures where they still get 7 or more children. In earlier times 4-5 of these die. But now no more. They have not adapted and these are the regions where food, water and other stuff is in short supply for hundreds of years.
Only thing will help is education and responsible usage of the resources.

re: #236 John Neverbend

I hate the Yankees, but my favorite Sterling moment was when he had to talk a weepy Susyn Waldaman down from a ledge after they lost to the Tribe in the ALDS back in '07...

One Red Sox fan likened it to the 'Mr Frog is now in Froggy Heaven' talk he had to give his daughter...

re: #240 Thanos

There's no need to regulate it - it's easily demonstrable that population moderates on it's own if you introduce plentiful energy, education, and a chance at prosperity.

And that's the positive side of it. There's also disease and disaster that contribute to population control.

Do we even have a computer model that can accurately predict the weather three days out?

/we flatter ourselves

Arctic Climate Under Greenhouse Conditions In The Late Cretaceous
New evidence for ice-free summers with intermittent winter sea ice in the Arctic Ocean during the Late Cretaceous – a period of greenhouse conditions - gives a glimpse of how the Arctic is likely to respond to future global warming.
[Link: www.sciencedaily.com...]

re: #241 garycooper

Twitter Update: I haven't had to turn on the air-conditioning more than 3-4 times this summer. Cool in Novi, MI.

Twitter update: Megan Fox had a grilled Tuna dish today...Very nice
The Gaza rooster: Wandering the desert today...Need more water...Having issues with wireless...Send Bill Clinton...

re: #218 taxfreekiller

An ounce of prevention then the pound of cure will be the 2010 and 2012 elections and we the people vote these loons out of office.

Quite Concur.

re: #241 garycooper

Twitter Update: I haven't had to turn on the air-conditioning more than 3-4 times this summer. Cool in Novi, MI.

Check the Twitters from the NW a few weeks back. Weather is not climate change.

All nations birth trends are down with the exception of low energy countries in poverty or countries at war. Notable among them are Afghanistan, the West Bank, and Sub Saharan Africa. Even those places it's trending downward.

Here's a chart that demonstrates this trend, good is down and left, bad is up and right in this graph Press the play button to see the historic trend play out.