Major Science Organizations Send Letter to US Senate on Climate Change

Environment • Views: 4,173

Yesterday, the leaders of 18 major American scientific organizations — some of the most reputable and respected organizations in the world — sent the following letter to the US Senate, strongly urging Senators to address the issue of human-caused climate change and offering their help to become better informed.

October 21, 2009

Dear Senator:

As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.

If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves.

We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.

The signatories of the letter:

Alan I. Leshner, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Thomas Lane, American Chemical Society
Timothy L. Grove, American Geophysical Union
May R. Berenbaum, American Institute of Biological Sciences
Keith Seitter, American Meteorological Society
Mark Alley, American Society of Agronomy
Tuan-hua David Ho, American Society of Plant Biologists
Sally C. Morton, American Statistical Association
Lucinda Johnson, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Kent E. Holsinger, Botanical Society of America
Kenneth Quesenberry, Crop Science Society of America
Mary Power, Ecological Society of America
William Y. Brown, Natural Science Collections Alliance
Brian D. Kloeppel, Organization of Biological Field Stations
Douglas N. Arnold, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
John Huelsenbeck, Society of Systematic Biologists
Paul Bertsch, Soil Science Society of America
Richard A. Anthes, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

Jump to bottom

312 comments
1 DaddyG  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:49:26pm

I sincerely hope this injects more information into the debate with less heat and smoke. I for one would love to see this issue taken back from the alarmists and deniers and put solidly into the scientific community for policy purposes.

2 Randall Gross  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:51:06pm

Republicans who are fighting this through knee jerk denialism really need to rethink it. Red states are going to be impacted by much higher cooling bills in coming summers, it’s somewhat of a non discriminatory event.

3 Kragar  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:52:26pm

I’m sure that Congress will take this information and use it to fuel cap and trade debates and working on a system of tax incentives and loopholes for the lobbyists, rather than actually providing solutions like desalinization plants, irrigation systems and emergency response.

4 Jack Burton  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:54:13pm

re: #3 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I’m sure that Congress will take this information and use it to fuel cap and trade debates and working on a system of tax incentives and loopholes for the lobbyists, rather than actually providing solutions like desalinization plants, irrigation systems and emergency response.

Or nuclear power. Can’t have anything that won’t force us to live like the Amish within the next century.

5 First As Tragedy, Then As Farce  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:54:26pm

re: #3 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I’m sure that Congress will take this information and use it to fuel cap and trade debates and working on a system of tax incentives and loopholes for the lobbyists, rather than actually providing solutions like desalinization plants, irrigation systems and emergency response.

Or, they’ll just agree to disagree.

6 Velvet Elvis  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:54:50pm

I really don’t understand why this is even a partisan issue anymore. Is it because accepting the reality of AGW will necessitate big government solutions to save our asses? Is it because the oil and coal industries will be harmed by carbon reduction plans?

How does global warming denialism synchronize with Republican ideology other than the fact Al Gore made a movie about AGW so it must be wrong.

7 Political Atheist  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:54:51pm

Which of those guys is Ludwig? :)

8 freetoken  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:56:05pm

re: #6 Conservative Moonbat


How does global warming denialism synchronize with Republican ideology other than the fact Al Gore made a movie about AGW so it must be wrong.

IMO this is one of the drivers behind the vehemence.

9 Athens Runaway  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:56:10pm

re: #4 ArchangelMichael

Or nuclear power. Can’t have anything that won’t force us to live like the Amish within the next century.

Butbutbut, nuclear power is teh scary!!!1!!!

10 Velvet Elvis  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:56:48pm

re: #5 negativ

Or, they’ll just agree to disagree.

“agree to disagree” is one of the stupidest phrases I’ve ever heard come out of a politician’s mouth. Who coined the phrase? Clinton in talks with Moscow or something like that? I thought it was stupid then and think it’s stupid now.

11 Jack Burton  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:58:26pm

re: #6 Conservative Moonbat

I really don’t understand why this is even a partisan issue anymore. Is it because accepting the reality of AGW will necessitate big government solutions to save our asses? Is it because the oil and coal industries will be harmed by carbon reduction plans?

How does global warming denialism synchronize with Republican ideology other than the fact Al Gore made a movie about AGW so it must be wrong.

It does not have to require big government solutions to “save our asses”. However, ceding the issue to the left will result in just that.

12 Haole  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:58:40pm

They won’t read it. Reading sh!t is so 1990’s.

13 DaddyG  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:58:48pm

Carbon taxes and credits are going to be seen as punitive in the long run (taking money out of someones pocket based on their activities). A more productive approach is being taken in places like Bangladesh with the Grameen bank.

Women are empowered to act in ways that are both earth friendly and good for their families. This takes away some of the threats that may encourage them to have families larger than they can support in the first place.
Grameen Bank

Take a look at the voluntary decisions they ask clients to make.

In the west it will be similar to give people personal incentives to want to live “green”. Punishment (taxation) will only drive behaviors underground or segregate the polluters from the greens by economic class.

One of the issues is politicians are very good at stirring up issues and telling others what they should do (i.e. Al Gore’s house) but not so good at finding ways to implement change at the individual level.

14 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:59:11pm

re: #4 ArchangelMichael

Or nuclear power. Can’t have anything that won’t force us to live like the Amish within the next century.

Exactly. We need to go forward, not backward. Cap and trade, carbon taxes, etc are not the way to go. All that does is to fuel government and corruption. We need to improve our technology and become far more efficient. Nuke plants, desalination plants, biofuels, electric & hybrid vehicles (from cars to airplanes), green roofs, gray water reclamation, and other such things go a long way toward that goal. Throwing our heads in the sand and reverting to the 16th Century (whether by the hands of the deniers or the alarmists) doesn’t work.

15 DaddyG  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:59:20pm

re: #12 Haole

They won’t read it. Reading sh!t is so 1990’s.


I got your podcast right here… /

16 Political Atheist  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:59:46pm

I was talking to a denier. He say the co2 is from volcanoes. Then I asked which is easier to reduce-our cars and power plant or volcanoes.

Crickets

No that I agreed with him on the cause BTW…

17 Velvet Elvis  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 12:59:47pm

re: #11 ArchangelMichael

It does not have to require big government solutions to “save our asses”. However, ceding the issue to the left will result in just that.

OK, let me rephrase that. Is it the assumption that it will require big government solutions?

18 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:01:41pm

By the way, this constitutes a real petition.

Just to link, here is what Steven Chu says about a number of these issues.

Youtube Video

These organizations represent tens of thousands of working scientists.

We are really long past the point where there is much in the way of debate in the community as to if we need to act.

19 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:02:21pm

re: #2 Thanos

Republicans who are fighting this through knee jerk denialism really need to rethink it. Red states are going to be impacted by much higher cooling bills in coming summers, it’s somewhat of a non discriminatory event.

Yeah, then things get much worse than that for everyone.

20 Jack Burton  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:02:59pm

re: #14 Honorary Yooper

If no one on the right stands up to outright denialism and offers real solutions rather than leftist schemes toward socialist utopia, we are just going to get a bunch of bullshit out of DC that will cost everyone money and fix nothing.

21 DaddyG  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:03:15pm

The debate should focus on how to act, incent and change without being discriminatory or punative. It would help a great deal if the congresscritters and pundits put their money where their mouth is and set a better example.

22 Guanxi88  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:03:18pm

re: #17 Conservative Moonbat

OK, let me rephrase that. Is it the assumption that it will require big government solutions?

Well, solutions along those lines appear to be the ones on tap and under discussion. I’m skeptical, not about AGW, but about the ability of the feds to find a reasonable, cost-effective solution that will not cause any further harm than that already caused by the climate change under way.

23 bosforus  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:03:48pm

re: #2 Thanos

Republicans who are fighting this through knee jerk denialism really need to rethink it. Red states are going to be impacted by much higher cooling bills in coming summers, it’s somewhat of a non discriminatory event.

Well, won’t the govt at least subsidize the cost of my new AC unit?
/

24 John Neverbend  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:03:48pm

re: #6 Conservative Moonbat

How does global warming denialism synchronize with Republican ideology other than the fact Al Gore made a movie about AGW so it must be wrong.

Because the extinction of the human race cannot occur before the coming (first, second or otherwise) of the Messiah?

25 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:04:07pm

re: #8 freetoken

IMO this is one of the drivers behind the vehemence.

Oh for certain. The GOP smear machine go into full gear over him and Hansen and made the whole scientific discussion into a political one for the faithful.

Hansen BTW is the most unfairly slandered and demonized scientist in recent memory.

He got that way by daring to tell Bush appointed censors to shove it.

26 DaddyG  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:04:19pm

re: #22 Guanxi88

Unintended consequences are the primary product of big government.

27 Guanxi88  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:04:51pm

re: #26 DaddyG

Unintended consequences are the primary product of big government.

Indeed, some would argue that any improvements are largely incidental, and to that extent, more or less unintended.

28 freetoken  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:04:59pm

re: #18 LudwigVanQuixote


Just to link, here is what Steven Chu says about a number of these issues.

Dude… he’s an Obama appointee… thus everyone knows he’s just another Maoist planted inside the government to bring about the program to destroy this country and derail God’s 5000 year plan to have mankind leap…

/ ☜ not needed

29 DaddyG  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:05:52pm

re: #23 bosforus

Well, won’t the govt at least subsidize the cost of my new AC unit?
/


No- but if the new A/C unit subsidized itself from cost savings within a few years then it would sell itself.

30 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:06:15pm

Greedy scientists. Everybody knows they’re only in it for the money.

That and they want a communist totalitarian socialist fascist marxist world government. /

31 baier  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:06:56pm

re: #16 Rightwingconspirator

I was talking to a denier. He say the co2 is from volcanoes. Then I asked which is easier to reduce-our cars and power plant or volcanoes.

Crickets

No that I agreed with him on the cause BTW…

I have a lot of sympathy for your friend. I’ve heard 1000 dire climate predictions in my life and none have come to pass. If someone told him/her it was volcanoes, why not believe it? The average person doesn’t have the background or knowledge to understand global warming science. There has been so much misinformation out there, being bolstered by the press, that unless you follow the issue closely, it just seems like a bunch of people crying wolf all the time.

Personally, I’m for a cleaner environment, global warming or not.

32 Kragar  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:06:57pm

re: #5 negativ

Or, they’ll just agree to disagree.

The phrase which always reminds me of this exchange:

Ron Burgundy: Discovered by the Germans in 1904, they named it San Diego, which of course in German means a whale’s vagina.
Veronica Corningstone: No, there’s no way that’s correct.
Ron Burgundy: I’m sorry, I was trying to impress you. I don’t know what it means. I’ll be honest, I don’t think anyone knows what it means anymore. Scholars maintain that the translation was lost hundreds of years ago.
Veronica Corningstone: Doesn’t it mean Saint Diego?
Ron Burgundy: No. No.
Veronica Corningstone: No, that’s - that’s what it means. Really.
Ron Burgundy: Agree to disagree.

33 suchislife  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:07:56pm

re: #27 Guanxi88

You know, if you had written “are an unavoidable product that sometimes has a larger impact than the intended goal” (that’s horribly phrased, but you get what I mean, right?), then I would have agreed. But “the primary product”? That’s an ideologically motivated lie.

34 middy  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:08:08pm

re: #6 Conservative Moonbat

Maybe they’re all buying up oceanfront property in Orlando…

35 brent  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:08:20pm

That’s all well and good, but who thinks the good folks in Beijing would ever follow recommendations like this? They’ll keep making turbine blades for our windmills, but they’ll power their plants with coal to do it. Until we run out of money they’ll accept any more.

Just throwing that out there - a large portion of the world’s industrial output is going to be cheap and dirty. I don’t trust the government to come up with a solution that won’t make us expensive and out of work.

36 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:08:39pm

re: #31 baier

Personally, I’m for a cleaner environment, global warming or not.

As am I. It would do us all good in both the short and long runs. I should know, I do that for a living. :-)

37 avanti  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:08:46pm

re: #23 bosforus

Well, won’t the govt at least subsidize the cost of my new AC unit?
/

The federal government kicked in $1500 for my new energy efficient unit a few months back.

38 suchislife  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:09:14pm

re: #33 suchislife

Sorry, I meant to reply to DaddyG.

39 DaddyG  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:10:00pm

re: #33 suchislife

You know, if you had written “are an unavoidable product that sometimes has a larger impact than the intended goal” (that’s horribly phrased, but you get what I mean, right?), then I would have agreed. But “the primary product”? That’s an ideologically motivated lie.

Relax- my post was lacking a sarc tag. I didn’t think I needed one.

(what do we use for an irony tag?)

40 Guanxi88  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:10:16pm

re: #33 suchislife

You know, if you had written “are an unavoidable product that sometimes has a larger impact than the intended goal” (that’s horribly phrased, but you get what I mean, right?), then I would have agreed. But “the primary product”? That’s an ideologically motivated lie.

No, it’s an ideologically motivated exaggeration, intended for rhetorical and comedic effect, intended primarily to underline the suggestion that the larger and more involved the “solutions” proposed, the less likely they are to attain their goals, and the more likely they are to produce effects of less-than-desirable characteristics. This is because larger systems are more subject to dynamic instability and chaotic effects than smaller ones, owing the fewer interactions in the latter versus the former.

41 Curt  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:10:32pm

re: #39 DaddyG

Relax- my post was lacking a sarc tag. I didn’t think I needed one.

(what do we use for an irony tag?)

Recycled steel?

42 brizer  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:10:46pm

To me it seems that educating the the members of congress will actually change the way they will cast their vote. Call me cynical but in my eyes politicians have always been in the business of keeping themselves in office. No matter what information they get they know that a large portion of their constituency is willfully ignorant of the scientific evidence if not actively engaged in subverting this evidence with the few dissenting scientists. This would lead one to the idea that educating the public would be the best move, forcing the pols to change their position out of their nature drive toward self preservation. This however is just a problematic. The portion of the population that is actively arguing against the large amount of evidence will either don’t care about the scientific evidence or don’t understand how the scientific process is supposed to work, which leads me to think that only a large scale disaster will be the only thing to bring them around. At this point the damage will already have been done, if it hasn’t already.

43 DaddyG  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:11:16pm

re: #34 middy

Maybe they’re all buying up oceanfront property in Orlando…


Any good believer in global warming impeding catastrophe would buying up ocean from property in Kansas. /

44 DaddyG  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:12:02pm

re: #41 Curt

Recycled steel?


Upding for being clever. But now I’m afraid I’m going to have to slap you for the cornyness factor. :-p

45 Jack Burton  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:12:02pm

re: #17 Conservative Moonbat

OK, let me rephrase that. Is it the assumption that it will require big government solutions?

It’s that to some. Many hit a wall when all proposed solutions to a problem look exactly like the left’s “wish list” that they throw out as the solution to every problem. They wont get past that to look at science because they run into the smell of a left-wing bullshit power and money grab way before they get to any science. This stops a lot of otherwise rational people from being rational on this issue.

Others are paid shills for backward thinking energy companies who believe they are in the “coal” or “oil” sector rather than the “energy” sector.

Finally there are those who think the antichrist is working his way to power… somewhere… today. They think that Jesus coming back and fixing everything will occur within their lifetimes so they don’t need to worry about anything else.

46 Guanxi88  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:12:41pm

re: #40 Guanxi88

No, it’s an ideologically motivated exaggeration, intended for rhetorical and comedic effect, intended primarily to underline the suggestion that the larger and more involved the “solutions” proposed, the less likely they are to attain their goals, and the more likely they are to produce effects of less-than-desirable characteristics. This is because larger systems are more subject to dynamic instability and chaotic effects than smaller ones, owing the fewer interactions in the latter versus the former.

To continue the example, consider the case of large-scale economic reforms and planning. Almost without exception, they fail to produce the intended effect, and, what is more, manage to fail to do so at tremendous expenditures of money and effort.

47 John Neverbend  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:12:51pm

re: #32 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

It means Saint James, but if somebody pays me enough, I’ll go with Ron Burgundy’s first definition.

48 Guanxi88  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:13:03pm

re: #44 DaddyG

Upding for being clever. But now I’m afraid I’m going to have to slap you for the cornyness factor. :-p

Cripes! Not ethanol, again.

49 Political Atheist  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:13:07pm

re: #18 LudwigVanQuixote

Do you recall the CATO full page had that had the list of guys that disagreed with the President on global warming?

www.cato.org/special/climatechange/cato_climate.pdf

I’m looking to see if any switched over and signed this letter.

50 Kragar  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:13:30pm

re: #35 brent

That’s all well and good, but who thinks the good folks in Beijing would ever follow recommendations like this? They’ll keep making turbine blades for our windmills, but they’ll power their plants with coal to do it. Until we run out of money they’ll accept any more.

Just throwing that out there - a large portion of the world’s industrial output is going to be cheap and dirty. I don’t trust the government to come up with a solution that won’t make us expensive and out of work.

California is a prime example of this line of thought. They passed legislation making it illegal to produce certain types of chemically treated lumber in the state due to “environmental concerns”, but you could still buy and use the wood here. The results? The companies who made the stuff closed shop in CA and moved to AZ and NV, taking their jobs and tax revenue with them. Also, they charge more for the stuff because of shipping into CA, which means costs for projects using it in CA went up.

51 DaddyG  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:14:31pm

re: #50 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
…which was a huge boon to the interstate trucking industry. /

52 Jack Burton  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:15:01pm

re: #50 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

California is a prime example of really stupid bad ideas. this line of thought. They passed legislation making it illegal to produce certain types of chemically treated lumber in the state due to “environmental concerns”, but you could still buy and use the wood here. The results? The companies who made the stuff closed shop in CA and moved to AZ and NV, taking their jobs and tax revenue with them. Also, they charge more for the stuff because of shipping into CA, which means costs for projects using it in CA went up.

FTFY

53 Kragar  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:15:11pm

re: #41 Curt

Recycled steel?

You can’t recycle steel! There is no way known to man to melt it down.

54 Political Atheist  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:15:22pm

re: #50 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

If the climate changes are as dramatic as they are said to be, modern seacoast nations will attack sources of pollution. There could easily be wars over this.

55 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:15:27pm

Noticed they are calling it Climate Change, not AGW. I thought the “scientific consensus” was past that.
Are they actually allowing for the possibility of Man-Made Global Cooling, or are they just being politically correct?
Maybe ACC, not AGW, is the scientific consensus.

56 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:15:54pm

re: #6 Conservative Moonbat

I really don’t understand why this is even a partisan issue anymore. Is it because accepting the reality of AGW will necessitate big government solutions to save our asses? Is it because the oil and coal industries will be harmed by carbon reduction plans?

How does global warming denialism synchronize with Republican ideology other than the fact Al Gore made a movie about AGW so it must be wrong.

The issue on the political end has five parts:

1. Big oil and fossil fuel producers as well many industries and as all of the alliances that go with that, do not want to see science that says we really do need to quit. In some sense, this is no different than the tobacco companies trying to crete confusion about the medical data. Interestingly enough, many of those people who worked for the tobacco propagandists are not working for the anti AGW propagandists. Go figure, these people lie to you.

Youtube Video

2. There has always been a tactic from both parties that if one party says it, then it must be wrong. Since there was already a great deal of ill will towards Al Gore on the right for a number of reasons (some valid, others less valid) it was very easy to whip up right wing sentiment against the science as a political issue. In some sense it is the whole “I hate tree huggers thing” writ large. This has a huge amount of inertia.

3. Lots of people really don’t want to believe it. No one likes to hear dire predictions or grim scientific facts - particularly if it means you have to change your own behaviors.

4. There are those on the left who really do want to shout that the sky will fall tomorrow, and there is, in the MSM a lot of shoddy reporting from both “sides.” What people don’t get about science is that there is no such thing as fair and balanced treatment of both sides. There are open questions, and then there are things we have our arms around. If it is an open question then you can report on what makes it open and about conflicting hypothesis. If we have our arms around it though, there is the science, and then there is what is wrong. Since the public does not get this, there is a lot of room to create the illusion of false controversy.

5. On the far right, there are the black helicopter people. They really do somehow think this is a commie plot to take their SUV and make them marxists or something. The shoddy reporting on the right of course panders to these people and more importantly, the guys who own those outlets are all about points 1 and 2.

57 bosforus  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:16:18pm

re: #37 avanti

The federal government kicked in $1500 for my new energy efficient unit a few months back.

So if more people buy more efficient units due to incentive, won’t the increased quantity in units undercut the units efficiency?
/devil’s advocate

58 Guanxi88  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:16:27pm

re: #54 Rightwingconspirator

If the climate changes are as dramatic as they are said to be, modern seacoast nations will attack sources of pollution. There could easily be wars over this.

If the shifts would occur rapidly, wars triggered by uncontrolled migrations would be more likely.

59 freetoken  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:16:29pm

re: #49 Rightwingconspirator

It’s called TEACH THE CONTROVERSY. The creationists come up with long lists of people who have college degrees also (heh, there is even overlap with that list you posted).

It’s a publicity stunt.

60 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:16:39pm

re: #53 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

You can’t recycle steel! There is no way known to man to melt it down.

Yeah, just ask Rosie.
/

61 middy  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:16:43pm

Why be so gloomy? Let’s think of some of the benefits of global warming… just imagine inner tubing down Bourbon street with a pitcher of kamikazes.

62 bosforus  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:16:51pm

re: #57 bosforus

So if more people buy more efficient units due to incentive, won’t the increased quantity in units undercut the units efficiency?
/devil’s advocate

“undermine” is probably a better word than “undercut”

63 freetoken  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:17:44pm

re: #55 Spare O’Lake

Noticed they are calling it Climate Change, not AGW. I thought the “scientific consensus” was past that.
Are they actually allowing for the possibility of Man-Made Global Cooling, or are they just being politically correct?
Maybe ACC, not AGW, is the scientific consensus.

Because the changes that occur are not just about temperature. AGWarming implies temperature but ignores the other changes.

64 The Sanity Inspector  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:17:55pm

re: #30 MinisterO

Greedy scientists. Everybody knows they’re only in it for the money.

That and they want a communist totalitarian socialist fascist marxist world government. /

And the girls. Everyone knows that scientists always get the girls.

65 John Neverbend  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:17:59pm

re: #54 Rightwingconspirator

There could easily be wars over this.

Only if there is a demonstrable link to Israeli settlement building.

66 DaddyG  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:18:01pm

The serious nugget inside my sarc is that when government tries to intervene in a big way they usually don’t get the effect they want with a whole lot of unintended side effects.

If congress were doctors discussing the course of treatment for a skin tumor on someones scalp the debate would be polarized between amputing the head and withholding treatment so the patient enjoy subathing.

67 Jack Burton  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:18:14pm

re: #61 middy

Why be so gloomy? Let’s think of some of the benefits of global warming… just imagine inner tubing down Bourbon street with a pitcher of kamikazes.

Although I think that New Orleans would make an excellent Venice Part Deux, I somehow think that they wont adequately prepare for it.

68 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:18:47pm

The measures currently being negotiated in Copenhagen are a farce. All sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The same is true about Cap and Trade.

69 Guanxi88  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:19:12pm

re: #66 DaddyG


If congress were doctors discussing the course of treatment for a skin tumor on someones scalp the debate would be polarized between amputing the head and withholding treatment so the patient enjoy subathing.

Applicable to just about any and every problem that comes under consideration by our Solons.

70 suchislife  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:19:38pm

re: #46 Guanxi88

I think I probably agree with the theory, also I’m sure we’d differ widely on whether it’s lessons are applicable to certain real life situations.
I’m certainly not against exaggerations to make a point. It’s just that I often had the impression that people actually believe this, but now I wonder. I suppose we are all much more inclined to get humor that fits within the characteristic biases and pet peeves of our groups.
Talking to you guys here is such a great experience for me.

71 DaddyG  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:20:51pm

re: #70 suchislife


Talking to you guys here is such a great experience for me.

Masochist.

/

72 John Neverbend  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:21:25pm

re: #64 The Sanity Inspector

And the girls. Everyone knows that scientists always get the girls.

If it were true, I might have stayed in physics.

73 reloadingisnotahobby  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:21:33pm

re: #26 DaddyG

(Collateral Damage) is the primary product of big government.


FTFY IMHO!

74 fish  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:22:31pm

re: #18 LudwigVanQuixote

By the way, this constitutes a real petition.

Just to link, here is what Steven Chu says about a number of these issues.

[Video]

These organizations represent tens of thousands of working scientists.

We are really long past the point where there is much in the way of debate in the community as to if we need to act.

You are right we are past the point of debate on the need to act. The problem is we are not even close to having a rational debate on HOW to act.

Here in Madison WI (One of the most left wing cities outside of CA) we can’t get alternative power even though the government and citizens want it let me cite the arguements:

Wind Power: Windmills were not allowed because they are big look ugly and birds kill themselves on them. (This was the actual argument made by an Enviromental group that opposed the project)

Solar Power: Takes up too much space to be effective and could cause unknown enviromental problems due to reflectivity over a large area. (A different enviromental group made this arguement) Also Farmers and the Chambers of commerce opposed Solar as ruining the landscape.

Nuclear: Supported by the right as clean renewable energy. Opposed by the left as “Not being a feasible power sorce in a non-socialized nation” (They actual made the argument that Nuclear can ONLY work in Europe)

Hydro-Electric: Harmful to fish and plants in the bodies of water.

And that was just the debate here where the vast majority of people AGREE that Climate Change is man made and want to fix it. Is it really any wonder nothing has been done about this?

75 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:22:34pm

re: #63 freetoken

Because the changes that occur are not just about temperature. AGWarming implies temperature but ignores the other changes.

OK, so AGW is a misnomer, right?

76 Guanxi88  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:22:52pm

re: #70 suchislife

I think I probably agree with the theory, also I’m sure we’d differ widely on whether it’s lessons are applicable to certain real life situations.
I’m certainly not against exaggerations to make a point. It’s just that I often had the impression that people actually believe this, but now I wonder. I suppose we are all much more inclined to get humor that fits within the characteristic biases and pet peeves of our groups.
Talking to you guys here is such a great experience for me.

Only the humorless believe that the primary effect of gov’t intervention is the creation of unintended consequences. My experience here with those with whom I disagree is that - surprise! surprise! they’re every bit as (and not infrequently more) humorous and nuanced in their views as I am on my best days.

I came to this debate a true AGW/Climate Change skeptic - why? Because the solutions proposed appeared to be a leftist wish-list in a green wrapper. I was confusing the two things - the problem exists independently of the wisdom of the solutions proposed, and it took me some time to realize it. I imagine many others are now where I was then. The evidence is clear - all that remains is to discuss what to do about it.

77 Kragar  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:23:27pm

re: #73 reloadingisnotahobby

#17: “Collateral Damage Man” is not an appropriate name for a super hero.

78 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:23:42pm

re: #68 Bagua

The measures currently being negotiated in Copenhagen are a farce. All sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The same is true about Cap and Trade.

This I agree with you on. China and India have already decided not to comply with anything much at all.

The measures that matter:
1. are switching to 4th gen nuclear
2. Solar and wind as supplements.
3. Improving the power distribution net.
4. Deploying the newest gen batteries and switching to electric vehicles.
5. Carrot and stick economically with India and China. We do not need to buy their stuff unless they go more green. We are the one’s funding their pollution ultimately.

79 Political Atheist  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:24:50pm

re: #58 Guanxi88

I think my most downdinged comment so far was when I half jokingly said a certain article made me not believe in AGW. It was an ad from an airline asking its customers to pee before flight. Well, my reaction was a long ways from the consensus here. But you make a point hard to make here on this topic.
Over the top claims beyond the facts or beyond reasonable emotional content are a factor in increasing skepticism.

And yes, AGW competes with every gloom and doom story in our collective memory. Unfair, unfortunate yet a factor. Sometimes I see AGW (either way) stuff that makes me think “with friends like this who needs enemies”.

80 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:25:29pm

re: #74 fish

You are right we are past the point of debate on the need to act. The problem is we are not even close to having a rational debate on HOW to act.

Here in Madison WI (One of the most left wing cities outside of CA) we can’t get alternative power even though the government and citizens want it let me cite the arguements:

Wind Power: Windmills were not allowed because they are big look ugly and birds kill themselves on them. (This was the actual argument made by an Enviromental group that opposed the project)

Solar Power: Takes up too much space to be effective and could cause unknown enviromental problems due to reflectivity over a large area. (A different enviromental group made this arguement) Also Farmers and the Chambers of commerce opposed Solar as ruining the landscape.

Nuclear: Supported by the right as clean renewable energy. Opposed by the left as “Not being a feasible power sorce in a non-socialized nation” (They actual made the argument that Nuclear can ONLY work in Europe)

Hydro-Electric: Harmful to fish and plants in the bodies of water.

And that was just the debate here where the vast majority of people AGREE that Climate Change is man made and want to fix it. Is it really any wonder nothing has been done about this?

You are so correct. We absolutely must get rid of the NIMBY factor.

This is one place where if the right were aware of the science, they could actually pose a check to the more crazy moonbat objections to real fixes. Of course they have to overcome their NIMBY attitudes as well once they do accept the science.

81 The Sanity Inspector  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:26:29pm

re: #45 ArchangelMichael

It’s that to some. Many hit a wall when all proposed solutions to a problem look exactly like the left’s “wish list” that they throw out as the solution to every problem. They wont get past that to look at science because they run into the smell of a left-wing bullshit power and money grab way before they get to any science. This stops a lot of otherwise rational people from being rational on this issue.[…]

Nailed it. As WFB once said, in the Thirties we were told we had to collectivize because the nation was so poor. In the Sixties we were told we had to collectivize because the nation was so rich. I remain suspicious of leftwing activists searching for a cause behind which to slipstream, in hopes of seizing the “means of production.”

But truthfully, I respect the scientific consensus that has coalesced around the fact of AGW, and I’m switched if I can come up with a free market solution or set of solutions. Hope smarter people than me are on the case.

82 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:26:30pm

re: #50 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

California is a prime example of this line of thought. They passed legislation making it illegal to produce certain types of chemically treated lumber in the state due to “environmental concerns”, but you could still buy and use the wood here. The results? The companies who made the stuff closed shop in CA and moved to AZ and NV, taking their jobs and tax revenue with them. Also, they charge more for the stuff because of shipping into CA, which means costs for projects using it in CA went up.

Exactly!

Look at steel production in Germany, once a major industry and major regional employer. The Greenie pressure shut down that nasty, polluting, coal fired steel plant plunging the area into unemployment.

China came in and bought the plant, disassembled it and rebuilt it in China. Net result, zero reduction in CO2 or pollutants, in fact, an increase as the Chinese will not update to cleaner technology. What did change is that German industry, employment and profits were transferred to China.

83 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:27:02pm

re: #49 Rightwingconspirator

Do you recall the CATO full page had that had the list of guys that disagreed with the President on global warming?

www.cato.org/special/climatechange/cato_climate.pd f

I’m looking to see if any switched over and signed this letter.

Cato is one of the biggest of the fake petition groups…

They were so seriously debunked it’s not funny.

Actually the video I had above goes into that.
Youtube Video

84 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:27:49pm

re: #74 fish

Note that the Greenies also oppose windmills in the vast plains, as a certain type of grouse doesn’t like to breed around tall structures.

85 suchislife  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:28:11pm

re: #66 DaddyG

86 Killgore Trout  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:28:55pm

British nuclear expert dies in 40-metre plunge

Police are investigating after a British nuclear energy expert involved in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme fell 40 metres to his death from a UN building in Vienna.

Officials announced today (Weds) that the man – named as Timothy Hampton – died on the spot yesterday after a fall from the 17th floor at Vienna International Centre (VIC), one of the United Nations’ (UN) main headquarters along with New York, Nairobi and Geneva.

Authorities said the 47-year-old man – a member of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) – had joined the UN’s current talks with Iran over its nuclear programme.

87 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:29:30pm

Ludwig sign that?

88 Kragar  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:29:51pm

re: #84 Bagua

Note that the Greenies also oppose windmills in the vast plains, as a certain type of grouse doesn’t like to breed around tall structures.

Can’t build solar panels in the middle of a god forsaken dessert, you might disturb the annual tumble weed migration.

89 reloadingisnotahobby  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:30:04pm

re: #77 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I like #15…
Plan B is not automatically twice as much gunpowder as plan A!!
LOL…No…seriously…It’s not?

90 KernelPanic  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:30:07pm

re: #82 Bagua


Net result, zero reduction in CO2 or pollutants …

I understand you used the term “net” but I think the residents who lived nearby the German steel plant may beg to differ on the matter of C02 and pollutants …

91 bosforus  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:30:36pm

re: #86 Killgore Trout

British nuclear expert dies in 40-metre plunge

CC security tapes. Stat.

92 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:30:40pm

re: #81 The Sanity Inspector

Nailed it. As WFB once said, in the Thirties we were told we had to collectivize because the nation was so poor. In the Sixties we were told we had to collectivize because the nation was so rich. I remain suspicious of leftwing activists searching for a cause behind which to slipstream, in hopes of seizing the “means of production.”

But truthfully, I respect the scientific consensus that has coalesced around the fact of AGW, and I’m switched if I can come up with a free market solution or set of solutions. Hope smarter people than me are on the case.

Unfortunately there is no free market solution as of yet. The oil companies clearly do not want to give up a cash cow and the coal companies don’t want to go out of business.

A great example of how the freemarket completely fails here is in car engines.

Congress mandated higher fuel efficiency in the seventies.

Engines were painstakingly made more efficient, well beyond the standards set in the seventies, yet cars did not become more efficient than those standards overall…

Why?

Because we now put a totally unneeded 500 hp engine into something. Even if it is a more efficient 500 hp engine, we still waste, because Americans always want bigger, and that is what sells.

93 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:31:39pm

re: #87 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Ludwig sign that?

Ohh the people who signed that are above my pay grade :)

94 suchislife  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:31:41pm

re: #85 suchislife

Where did my comment go?

95 Kragar  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:31:48pm

re: #89 reloadingisnotahobby

I like #15…
Plan B is not automatically twice as much gunpowder as plan A!!
LOL…No…seriously…It’s not?

That list is one of the greatest lists ever made.

28. The Goddess of Marriage chosen weapon is not the whip.

96 theheat  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:31:50pm

I wonder if stacks of these letters will be used to prop up computer monitors at the WH. Sounds like that’s what the last administration did with similar warnings.

97 Curt  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:32:42pm

re: #44 DaddyG

Upding for being clever. But now I’m afraid I’m going to have to slap you for the cornyness factor. :-p

I used to recycle electronics. Spent 4 years in the belly of the beast, seeing everything being re-used and not go to land fills. Does that remove the slap?

Anyhow, we need a little silliness all around these days as an antidote for the moments now.

98 freetoken  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:33:12pm

re: #74 fish

NIMBYism has been one of the most difficult of political forces to overcome.

99 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:33:15pm

re: #90 KernelPanic

I understand you used the term “net” but I think the residents who lived nearby the German steel plant may beg to differ on the matter of C02 and pollutants …

Yes, net result as in planet wide, and you are wrong about the nearby residents, the CO2 effect is not a regional effect, the issue is global. Pollutants on the other hand are partly regional, yet the Germans in that area would far prefer the jobs, and secondly, the Germans take measures to clean out the pollutants whereas the Chinese could care less.

100 reloadingisnotahobby  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:33:32pm

re: #86 Killgore Trout

Figures…U.N. building without ANY safety measures!
/

101 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:33:41pm

re: #92 LudwigVanQuixote

Because we now put a totally unneeded 500 hp engine into something. Even if it is a more efficient 500 hp engine, we still waste, because Americans always want bigger, and that is what sells.

It’s not just America. They do this in Asia and Europe as well wheneven they can.

102 J.S.  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:34:03pm

OT

CNN is reporting an earthquake occurred north of Kabul, Afghanistan…(according to the report, the quake lasted a “long time” — the fellow reporting, having lived in California, is accustomed to earthquakes; he thinks this one was a big one…center some where in the Hindu Kush region…Hence, Pakistan may also been affected.)

103 ryannon  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:34:22pm

re: #94 suchislife

Where did my comment go?

The same place as your up-and-down-dings.

This is getting tedious - not to mention, suspicious.

104 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:34:23pm

re: #98 freetoken

NIMBYism has been one of the most difficult of political forces to overcome.

like doing anything that is good for you, but requires a change, most people think it is so important that everyone else does it.

105 Political Atheist  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:34:27pm

What happens when no one will buy from a coal fired industrial supplier like many will not buy jeans from a company that uses child labor? That would be free market.

106 freetoken  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:35:02pm

re: #102 J.S.

magnitude 6.2

earthquake.usgs.gov

107 reloadingisnotahobby  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:35:16pm

re: #94 suchislife

Depends on what time zone your in…

108 Curt  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:35:51pm

re: #53 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

You can’t recycle steel! There is no way known to man to melt it down.

Then…I guess these guys are wrong?

109 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:36:05pm

re: #98 freetoken

NIMBYism has been one of the most difficult of political forces to overcome.

Yes but with a quibble, the Greenie agenda is not only “not in my backyard” rather it is “not anywhere”. They truly wish humans to depopulate and go back to living in caves and painting the walls.

110 Kragar  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:36:25pm

re: #106 freetoken

magnitude 6.2

[Link: earthquake.usgs.gov…]

With the average methods of construction for the region, expect mass devastation.

111 DaddyG  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:36:29pm

I’m going to run for office on the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) party platform. I will unify American politics under a common casue. I will be unstoppable.

Bwahahahahahaha!

112 Velvet Elvis  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:36:31pm

re: #74 fish


And that was just the debate here where the vast majority of people AGREE that Climate Change is man made and want to fix it. Is it really any wonder nothing has been done about this?

That’s why I’m increasingly inclined to believe that nothing is going to be done on this unless it’s crammed down peoples’ throats. Conservationists will take no answer other than cutting your power use and riding bikes everywhere. The only acceptable solution for them is to cut the demand for energy, not to change how we make it. Everyone must drasticly change their lifestyles. That’s what we’ve got on the far left. One the right we’ve got denial that there’s even a problem so the net result is nobody wants to come up with a way to cleanly meet the current demand for energy.

The far left is going to have to have nuclear power shoved down their throats by somebody sane in government and people on the right will have to concede there’s a problem in the first place.

113 Chekote  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:36:39pm

re: #3 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

BINGO!!! The money raised from “saving the environment” will be spent on paying off constituencies.

114 Kragar  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:37:10pm

re: #108 Curt

Then…I guess these guys are wrong?

Obviously.

/

115 freetoken  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:37:21pm

re: #109 Bagua

You’re painting with an overly wide brush there. “Greenie” has now become the new “commie”, I think.

116 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:37:25pm

re: #101 Honorary Yooper

It’s not just America. They do this in Asia and Europe as well wheneven they can.

Truth. It is world wide.

The point is that you will not get a free market fix to AGW, without the government kicking it off, because the average person doe not agitate for more green products or more real green solutions when push comes to shove.

no one boycotts their power company or switches to another one (if they could) because their are too many coal plants.

There is no free market pressure there even if the public could be convinced. In things like cars and housing etc… sure people like the ides in the abstract of more green, but there is as yet insufficient option to buy that is affordable without a government jump start.

117 Curt  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:37:28pm

re: #53 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

You can’t recycle steel! There is no way known to man to melt it down.

recycle-steel.org>recycle-steel.org>These guys need a memo, too…

:)

Google…Dogpile…find all kinds stuff!

118 jvic  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:37:36pm

Here is the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s announcement, which contains a link to the letter.

The American Geophysical Union is on board, but where are the rest of the physicists?

119 DaddyG  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:37:53pm

re: #100 reloadingisnotahobby

Figures…U.N. building without ANY safety measures!
/


Perhaps they should arm them like their schools in Palestine? /

120 Four More Tears  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:37:57pm

OT: Man arrested for being naked in his own home.

121 Guanxi88  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:38:12pm

re: #111 DaddyG

I’m going to run for office on the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) party platform. I will unify American politics under a common casue. I will be unstoppable.

Bwahahahahahaha!

And if elected, I will move the town sewage treatment plant, juvenile correctional facility, and land-fill into the neighboring county, and will subsidize the construction of high-speed road and rail links to these sites for our own workers through taxes levied in the next county.

122 Pavlovian Hive Mind  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:38:20pm

re: #109 Bagua

Yes but with a quibble, the Greenie agenda is not only “not in my backyard” rather it is “not anywhere”. They truly wish humans to depopulate and go back to living in caves and painting the walls.

Bit of a generalization, don’t ya think?

123 freetoken  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:38:39pm

re: #111 DaddyG

Laugh but… that is why Harry Reid is in office, I propose.

Reid came out strongly against storing nuclear waste in Nevada, so much so even Art Bell was supporting him for Senate.

124 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:39:15pm

re: #109 Bagua
But, where will the bears and bats live?

125 lawhawk  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:39:32pm

No other currently feasible energy source other than nuclear power can produce the quantity of energy without COx and other greenhouse gases.

We’ve bought some extra time as a result of the economic slowdown because demand for power has slackened, but the moment the economy finally starts growing, power demand will grow, and we’re still behind the curve. Improved efficiencies will be insufficient.

That means that you’ve got to build new power plants. Other than nuclear, none of the other power sources can provide ready supplies of power 24/7/365. Hydro is out of fashion because no one wants to submerge any new ecosystems (and water is a precious resource in any event that I’ve seen that 25% of electricity goes to moving water around these days in the US). Wind, solar, and geothermal will all remain fractional power sources, even overseas.

Yet, we’ve got Democrats like Reid standing in the way of a new generation of nuclear power that can simultaneously reduce emissions (across the board, not just COx and greenhouse gases), but improves our energy security from the likes of the Middle East, Venezuela, etc.) and can actually foster electric vehicles particularly in the urban corridors of the US where they’re feasible. Instead, they stand in the way and NIMBY-whine.

Until they (and I mean Democrats) stop obstructing and start acting - and I don’t mean pass cap n’ tax - their actions speak loudly over what kind of threat they think is coming from global warming.

126 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:39:42pm

re: #115 freetoken

You’re painting with an overly wide brush there. “Greenie” has now become the new “commie”, I think.

True, it is becoming so, almost all labels are distortions and used differently by different people. By “Greenie” I mean the radicals who have hijacked the environmental movement to further their larger political goals.

127 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:39:45pm

re: #98 freetoken

NIMBYism has been one of the most difficult of political forces to overcome.

Very true. Ran into a group of NIMBYs posing as people concerned about the environment on one job. We were building a landfill on-site to contain contaminated soils from a former refinery. We were also trucking in clean fill for the site where the contaminated soils had been removed. A group of locals whined about the project. First, they whined about their property values, then they whined about how the landfill would look on-site. Never mind that it was off at the far end of the site, away from most residences and near a forested area, and that the top of it was not much taller than the trees. Those folks turned a fairly easy site into a clusterfuck.

Hence, I’m very skeptical about the motives of a lot of environmental activists. I’ve found more of them to merely be NIMBYs.

128 Guanxi88  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:40:07pm

re: #124 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

But, where will the bears and bats live?

In the abandoned shells of the old downtown, all a part of re-wilding.

///

129 Curt  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:40:14pm

re: #124 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

But, where will the bears and bats live?

In unoccupied condos…

130 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:40:25pm

re: #125 lawhawk

I agree with you completely, but I would add that the GOP will not touch nulear either.

131 Kragar  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:40:32pm

re: #117 Curt

These guys need a memo, too…

:)

Google…Dogpile…find all kinds stuff!

Your argument is invalid.

132 lawhawk  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:40:55pm

re: #102 J.S.

6.2 according to the USGS.

133 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:40:55pm

re: #122 Varek Raith

Bit of a generalization, don’t ya think?

Of course, fully intended as a generalisation.

134 suchislife  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:41:00pm

re: #126 Bagua

Could you name some names?

135 The Sanity Inspector  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:41:17pm

re: #84 Bagua

Note that the Greenies also oppose windmills in the vast plains, as a certain type of grouse doesn’t like to breed around tall structures.

Plus, they make bats’ lungs explode. Although, there’s recent progress on that front. Aside from that, people need to accept that we live in a world of trade-offs.

136 DaddyG  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:41:27pm

re: #104 LudwigVanQuixote

like doing anything that is good for you, but requires a change, most people think it is so important that everyone else does it.


As I said upthread you cannot get people to change through measure they perceive as punitive. Taxes, credits or any other type of government intervention will be seen as interference.

Efforts to incent positive behaviors on an individual and community level will be more powerful. Finding the WIFFM for constituents will go a lot further. Your list above (affordable electric batteries for transportation coupled with nuke plants…) is the best approach. If it has to be collectivism or large scale model it on something like the TVA that brought cheap power to the appalacian states and where people see a clear retun on their investment.

137 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:41:54pm

re: #78 LudwigVanQuixote

This I agree with you on. China and India have already decided not to comply with anything much at all.

The measures that matter:
1. are switching to 4th gen nuclear
2. Solar and wind as supplements.
3. Improving the power distribution net.
4. Deploying the newest gen batteries and switching to electric vehicles.
5. Carrot and stick economically with India and China. We do not need to buy their stuff unless they go more green. We are the one’s funding their pollution ultimately.

China and India are going to be climate deal-breakers with their IMBY position.
Interesting how India just yesterday publicly announced that they have consolidated their negotiating position with China, which goes something like: AGW and pollution are the West’s fault, the West must pay, the East gets to pollute and burn as much carbon as it wants.
We are, I fear, on the verge of an economic shakedown of biblical proportions.

138 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:42:26pm

re: #109 Bagua

Yes but with a quibble, the Greenie agenda is not only “not in my backyard” rather it is “not anywhere”. They truly wish humans to depopulate and go back to living in caves and painting the walls.

Only the most radical and silly of the greenies. They are no where near the issue as much as the various vested interests that don’t want to invest in the new technologies.

Most sensibly green people get that doing nothing means massive extinctions.

139 Curt  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:42:31pm

re: #131 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Your argument is invalid.

Great pic!

140 reloadingisnotahobby  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:43:30pm

re: #139 Curt

Great pic!


NWS

141 ckb  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:43:44pm

re: #25 LudwigVanQuixote

Oh for certain. The GOP smear machine go into full gear over him and Hansen and made the whole scientific discussion into a political one for the faithful.

Hansen BTW is the most unfairly slandered and demonized scientist in recent memory.

He got that way by daring to tell Bush appointed censors to shove it.

Couldn’t disagree more on this. Hansen crossed the line from science to advocacy long before he stopped doing hard science. Science and advocacy do not mix.

By the way, why are there two LQV usernames? One with caps and one without? I’m sure there’s a good reason just wondering.

142 bosforus  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:43:54pm

re: #102 J.S.

OT

CNN is reporting an earthquake occurred north of Kabul, Afghanistan…(according to the report, the quake lasted a “long time” — the fellow reporting, having lived in California, is accustomed to earthquakes; he thinks this one was a big one…center some where in the Hindu Kush region…Hence, Pakistan may also been affected.)

Hopefully the damage is localized to the mountain caves.

143 Velvet Elvis  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:44:47pm

re: #116 LudwigVanQuixote


There is no free market pressure there even if the public could be convinced. In things like cars and housing etc… sure people like the ides in the abstract of more green, but there is as yet insufficient option to buy that is affordable without a government jump start.

There’s programs like TVA’s green power switch which is kinda like that. If you add a few bucks to your electric bill they will make sure that the amount of power you use is produced by clean means somewhere or something like that.

I’ve not read too much on it because it sounds too much like buying indulgences still. It’s the same as with buying carbon offsets or whatever the deal Gore was talking about a while ago.

144 theheat  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:44:55pm

re: #92 LudwigVanQuixote

…because Americans always want bigger, and that is what sells.

That helps explain the popularity of Enzyte.
//

145 Curt  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:45:20pm

re: #140 reloadingisnotahobby

NWS

Sorry: Not clued in here…”Naval Weapons Station?”

146 reloadingisnotahobby  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:45:22pm

re: #142 bosforus

Hopefully the damage is localized to the mountain caves.

That would ironic…
“Osama found in earthquake rubble”…Ironic or Prophetic..

147 suchislife  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:45:42pm

re: #136 DaddyG

As I said upthread you cannot get people to change through measure they perceive as punitive. Taxes, credits or any other type of government intervention will be seen as interference.

I’m assuming you mean in this particular situation, right? This is not a general point? If so, why do you think that in this context, only incentives will work, when usually, it’s a combination of the stick and the carrot?

148 reloadingisnotahobby  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:45:46pm

re: #145 Curt

Sorry: Not clued in here…”Naval Weapons Station?”

Not Work Safe…

149 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:46:36pm

re: #145 Curt

Not work safe?

150 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:46:45pm

re: #141 ckb

By the way, why are there two LQV usernames? One with caps and one without? I’m sure there’s a good reason just wondering.

ckb, the reason you see two supposed usernames is that LGF does not differentiate between upper and lower case. You can log in with either. For example, you can log in as “ckb” or “CKB”, and it is the same. Ditto for me “Honorary Yooper” is treated the same as “honorary yooper”.

151 Curt  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:46:46pm

re: #148 reloadingisnotahobby

Not Work Safe…

Ah..thanks. I usually use/see “NSFW”

152 Pavlovian Hive Mind  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:47:08pm

re: #131 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Your argument is invalid.

That pic is the Mordenkainen’s Disjunction of debates!
/:)

153 reloadingisnotahobby  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:47:11pm

re: #145 Curt

I should have known…it was KRAGER!!!
LOL

154 Kragar  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:47:14pm

re: #148 reloadingisnotahobby

Not Work Safe…

Depends on where you work

155 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:47:16pm

re: #138 LudwigVanQuixote

Only the most radical and silly of the greenies. They are no where near the issue as much as the various vested interests that don’t want to invest in the new technologies.

Most sensibly green people get that doing nothing means massive extinctions.

True. The real, sensible environmentalists are quite distinct from the radicals that have now hijacked their agenda. Sadly, I expect this to result in a vicious backlash that will endanger all the great advances we have made in such things as clean air and water, protecting eco-systems and endangered species, etc.

156 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:47:25pm

re: #137 Spare O’Lake

China and India are going to be climate deal-breakers with their IMBY position.
Interesting how India just yesterday publicly announced that they have consolidated their negotiating position with China, which goes something like: AGW and pollution are the West’s fault, the West must pay, the East gets to pollute and burn as much carbon as it wants.
We are, I fear, on the verge of an economic shakedown of biblical proportions.

Agreed and I posted a link to it even.

That is why we need to use coercive market policies ont hem to get then to switch. Right now those cultures really don’t care about the environment or their “excess populations.” It is unrealistic to think they will give up the bonanza the west has given them in manufacturing - with no environmental protections, unless the west stops buying unless they get more green.

Incidently, this is a problem that the free market generated.

Hiring workers in sweatshops with no environmental protections or real wages was cheaper.

We ended up building those factories with our own greed. We did not realize that as they destroyed their own environments, the global aspects of the issue would come to us in the end. We never really cared if our shoes were sewn by seven year olds either, but perhaps the global consequence of this may sink in.

157 reloadingisnotahobby  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:47:51pm

re: #151 Curt

That too…Ha
Damn Krager…

158 Velvet Elvis  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:48:22pm

re: #137 Spare O’Lake

China and India are going to be climate deal-breakers with their IMBY position.
Interesting how India just yesterday publicly announced that they have consolidated their negotiating position with China, which goes something like: AGW and pollution are the West’s fault, the West must pay, the East gets to pollute and burn as much carbon as it wants.
We are, I fear, on the verge of an economic shakedown of biblical proportions.

Which is ironic because India’s nuclear power industry is one of the most advanced in the world. They are one of a few nations actually trying for a closed fuel cycle.

159 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:48:25pm

NIMBY is now passe.
NIYBY is the new meme of the developing world.

160 ryannon  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:48:29pm

re: #144 theheat

That helps explain the popularity of Enzyte.
//

Is that video for real?

161 Kragar  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:48:48pm

re: #157 reloadingisnotahobby

That too…Ha
Damn Krager…

Who the hell is this Krager you keep speaking of?

162 DaddyG  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:49:05pm

re: #138 LudwigVanQuixote

Only the most radical and silly of the greenies.

Evidence would suggest they comprise an alarmingly large portion of the left if they have the power to kill so many viable alternative energy projects. Perhaps its not only the Republicans who need to clean house from radicalism?

163 suchislife  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:49:17pm

re: #155 Bagua


the radicals that have now hijacked their agenda

Could you say who you mean and how these people or groups have effectivly hijacked the agenda?

164 fish  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:49:32pm

re: #143 Conservative Moonbat

There’s programs like TVA’s green power switch which is kinda like that. If you add a few bucks to your electric bill they will make sure that the amount of power you use is produced by clean means somewhere or something like that.
I’ve not read too much on it because it sounds too much like buying indulgences still. It’s the same as with buying carbon offsets or whatever the deal Gore was talking about a while ago.

We have that option here as well. Paying extra and they PROMISE YOUR electricity is from some sort of renewable source. And to make it better they don’t tell you which renewable source it is in case you are against that particular kind…

“Carbon Offsets=Buying Indulgences” I hope you don’t mind if I steal that.

165 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:50:03pm

re: #159 Spare O’Lake

NIMBY is now passe.
NIYBY is the new meme of the developing world.

Also known as,

BANANA - Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody.
NOPE - Not on planet Earth.

166 Honorary Yooper  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:51:13pm

re: #160 ryannon

Is that video for real?

It’s Smilin’ Bob!

167 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:52:27pm

re: #141 ckb

Couldn’t disagree more on this. Hansen crossed the line from science to advocacy long before he stopped doing hard science. Science and advocacy do not mix.

By the way, why are there two LQV usernames? One with caps and one without? I’m sure there’s a good reason just wondering.

That is an issu with how the LGF page loads my name when I log in. There is one me and only one me.

As to Hansen, he never stopped doing science. He is a damned good scientist and his “advocacy” was in as much as he started telling people what the science says. While he has said some strong statements about those who block and deny the science, that does not discredit his actual science.

No. The issue politically is he was the first and the biggest climate scientist, and you really have no idea how huge he is as a scientist if you write him off as just an advocate, to stand against the GOP line.

Since the GOP could not discredit his actual science, they took to discrediting him as a man. It was a pure Rovian smear campaign.

I know from first hand experience how various Bush appointed “communications and press people” tried to stifle the science at NASA/Goddard.

It was a total smear from the start and no more true than GOP claims that there is no AGW or that ID is science.

168 ckb  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:52:38pm

re: #112 Conservative Moonbat

The far left is going to have to have nuclear power shoved down their throats by somebody sane in government and people on the right will have to concede there’s a problem in the first place.

On the contrary, you do not need to believe there is an AGW problem to be for nuclear power. The list of reasons for Nuclear is far more broad than AGW.

I would support a just as massive a shift to Nuclear if AGW was scientifically proven completely true or false.

169 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 1:56:53pm

re: #162 DaddyG

Evidence would suggest they comprise an alarmingly large portion of the left if they have the power to kill so many viable alternative energy projects. Perhaps its not only the Republicans who need to clean house from radicalism?

Clearly both houses need to be cleaned.

You will never hear me defend the anti-science crazy on the left either.

The best way to shut one of them down is to remind them that doing nothing will kill more of whatever species they are worried about than the fix.

We really are looking at mass extinction events being extremely probable.

I also only say extremely probable because it is hard to say for sure that this or that specific species is sure to go. However it is certain that many species will go. This is akin to having 100 smokers and saying it is certain that more of them will get cancer, but we can’t exactly say who.

170 DaddyG  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:00:19pm

re: #147 suchislife

I’m assuming you mean in this particular situation, right? This is not a general point? If so, why do you think that in this context, only incentives will work, when usually, it’s a combination of the stick and the carrot?

This is a general application situations. I did not take the position that insentives should be used exclusively.
My point was that using only punitive measures (or measures that people perceive as punitive) are not nearly as effective as insentives. Government intervention has historically leaned on restrictions and taxes (perceived as punitive) rather than innovation based on intrinsic rewards for the innovators and adopters of new technology.

171 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:00:59pm

re: #163 suchislife

Could you say who you mean and how these people or groups have effectivly hijacked the agenda?

That would take a long time and the thread is dying, it is a long list and I’m actually working at the moment. I’d love to come back to this later as it is a favourite topic of mine.

The short answer for now, the EU, UN, and a host of NGOs and Tranzies.

172 Athens Runaway  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:01:38pm

OT: I need help determining if something a government official is pushing anti-science horse hockey, or is he just being “fair and balanced”.

A local City Council member is pushing the removal of fluoride from the local water supply and is apparently trying to goad the state department of Health into a fight with him. He’s trying to organize a debate on the topic, and the state is refusing to send a representative because they say the science is settled.

Any ideas on how I can stop this? This seems like it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars, but I live in a town full of hippies and liberal activists and college students.

173 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:04:26pm

re: #169 LudwigVanQuixote

Damn, nothing to quibble about.

/Who has kidnapped the real Ludwig and substituted this impostor?

174 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:05:53pm

re: #172 Athens Runaway

OT: I need help determining if something a government official is pushing anti-science horse hockey, or is he just being “fair and balanced”.

A local City Council member is pushing the removal of fluoride from the local water supply and is apparently trying to goad the state department of Health into a fight with him. He’s trying to organize a debate on the topic, and the state is refusing to send a representative because they say the science is settled.

Any ideas on how I can stop this? This seems like it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars, but I live in a town full of hippies and liberal activists and college students.

Well the benefits of fluoridated water to American teeth have been very well established.

Why does this fellow want it stopped? I think if you scratch him a little you will find a Bircher or some sort of other loon with a crazy theory about fluoride.

175 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:07:06pm

re: #173 Bagua

Damn, nothing to quibble about.

/Who has kidnapped the real Ludwig and substituted this impostor?

Right provided that you understand it is certain that some species (in fact very likely many) will go when we say mass extinction event is highly probable.

176 First As Tragedy, Then As Farce  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:08:40pm

re: #172 Athens Runaway

OT: I need help determining if something a government official is pushing anti-science horse hockey, or is he just being “fair and balanced”.

A local City Council member is pushing the removal of fluoride from the local water supply and is apparently trying to goad the state department of Health into a fight with him. He’s trying to organize a debate on the topic, and the state is refusing to send a representative because they say the science is settled.

Any ideas on how I can stop this? This seems like it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars, but I live in a town full of hippies and liberal activists and college students.

Have them watch “Dr. Strangelove”.

Seriously.

177 First As Tragedy, Then As Farce  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:10:05pm

Youtube Video
Youtube Video

178 Athens Runaway  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:13:20pm

re: #174 LudwigVanQuixote

Well the benefits of fluoridated water to American teeth have been very well established.

Why does this fellow want it stopped? I think if you scratch him a little you will find a Bircher or some sort of other loon with a crazy theory about fluoride.

Well, there IS a Bircher in town who did start the anti-fluoride movement, but the City Council member took up the Bircher’s cause. The City Council member who took up the mantle describes himself as a “Progressive Democrat.” He also did a lot of work for Howard Dean’s Presidential campaign and worked for MoveOn.org too, if that helps to establish the kind of liberal that I’m dealing with here: crazy and wild-eyed.

He made a statement to me about vaccinations that interested me too:
“I am a biochemist and molecular biologist. Vaccines have played a crucial role in fighting disease, for example, vaccines eradicated Smallpox. I am concerned that vaccines are sometimes preserved with organic mercury (thimerosol), which is probably not ideal for something that is injected directly into the veins of children.”

Is that the mark of an anti-vaxxer?

179 Athens Runaway  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:14:04pm

re: #176 negativ

Have them watch “Dr. Strangelove”.

Seriously.

I know. That’s my default reaction. It goes over their heads 10 times out of 10.

180 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:21:09pm

re: #178 Athens Runaway

Well, there IS a Bircher in town who did start the anti-fluoride movement, but the City Council member took up the Bircher’s cause. The City Council member who took up the mantle describes himself as a “Progressive Democrat.” He also did a lot of work for Howard Dean’s Presidential campaign and worked for MoveOn.org too, if that helps to establish the kind of liberal that I’m dealing with here: crazy and wild-eyed.

He made a statement to me about vaccinations that interested me too:
“I am a biochemist and molecular biologist. Vaccines have played a crucial role in fighting disease, for example, vaccines eradicated Smallpox. I am concerned that vaccines are sometimes preserved with organic mercury (thimerosol), which is probably not ideal for something that is injected directly into the veins of children.”

Is that the mark of an anti-vaxxer?

Honestly, I am a physicist and not an MD. I tend to trust the medical community and the fact that the FDA does extremely thorough safety tests of all new vaccines.

That said, I do not know enough about the ant-vax movement to know the marks of an ideal anti-vaxer from the get go, however, simply saying such things without reams of supporting data is almost always the mark of a junk scientist.

181 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:24:20pm

re: #175 LudwigVanQuixote

Right provided that you understand it is certain that some species (in fact very likely many) will go when we say mass extinction event is highly probable.

Indeed, worded that way your point is indisputable and accurate.

182 Athens Runaway  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:24:47pm

re: #180 LudwigVanQuixote

Clicky teh blue, we can discuss this over e-mail. There’s more details that I left out for brevity. That said, I would not be surprised if this guy turned out to be a vaxxer.

183 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:27:25pm

re: #182 Athens Runaway

Clicky teh blue, we can discuss this over e-mail. There’s more details that I left out for brevity. That said, I would not be surprised if this guy turned out to be a vaxxer.


Actually, I’d prefer if you clicked me.

My browser does not like the interface.

184 Athens Runaway  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:28:37pm

re: #183 LudwigVanQuixote

Right-o.

185 Purpendicular  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:29:41pm

Maybe there is AGW, maybe there isn’t.

One thing that is certain that there is a lot of nonsence from the “Climate Change” side.

If AGW heats the planet, then the poles will (according to what Marcel Leroux wrote) heat up more quickly than the tropics. Say +4°C at the North pole and +0.5°C at the equator. “Extreme wheather” is largely driven by temperature differences. Therefore, if there is AGW going on, there will be less extreme wheather.

Secondly, the hotter the world, the more it rains in the tropics. The Sahara had almost disappeared 5-7000 BC.

186 Hadith Harry  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:30:23pm

re: #2 Thanos

LOL. You’re joking, correct? You think it is going to get warmer?

187 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:32:16pm

re: #178 Athens Runaway

Well, there IS a Bircher in town who did start the anti-fluoride movement, but the City Council member took up the Bircher’s cause. The City Council member who took up the mantle describes himself as a “Progressive Democrat.” He also did a lot of work for Howard Dean’s Presidential campaign and worked for MoveOn.org too, if that helps to establish the kind of liberal that I’m dealing with here: crazy and wild-eyed.

He made a statement to me about vaccinations that interested me too:
“I am a biochemist and molecular biologist. Vaccines have played a crucial role in fighting disease, for example, vaccines eradicated Smallpox. I am concerned that vaccines are sometimes preserved with organic mercury (thimerosol), which is probably not ideal for something that is injected directly into the veins of children.”

Is that the mark of an anti-vaxxer?

Absolutely, first of all, vaccinations are intra-muscular or sub-cutaneous not intravenous. Secondly, thimerosol is perfectly safe, nevertheless it has been substituted in most pediatric vaccines so as to side step and appease the anti-vaxxer psychosis.

188 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:33:46pm

re: #185 Purpendicular

Maybe there is AGW, maybe there isn’t.

One thing that is certain that there is a lot of nonsence from the “Climate Change” side.

If AGW heats the planet, then the poles will (according to what Marcel Leroux wrote) heat up more quickly than the tropics. Say +4°C at the North pole and +0.5°C at the equator. “Extreme wheather” is largely driven by temperature differences. Therefore, if there is AGW going on, there will be less extreme wheather.

Secondly, the hotter the world, the more it rains in the tropics. The Sahara had almost disappeared 5-7000 BC.

Respectfully, you are very confused here.

You are confusing an equilibrium state with one which is is perturbed and seeking a new equilibrium. For certain you will have more storms.

Tiyr second point is dependent on water and air currents. Those shift too along with the climate.

If you look at the models, some places are predicted to get more rain - and are getting it now. However, very many other places will become desert.

189 suchislife  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:34:11pm

re: #171 Bagua

Ok, later!

190 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:34:12pm

re: #156 LudwigVanQuixote

Agreed and I posted a link to it even.

That is why we need to use coercive market policies ont hem to get then to switch. Right now those cultures really don’t care about the environment or their “excess populations.” It is unrealistic to think they will give up the bonanza the west has given them in manufacturing - with no environmental protections, unless the west stops buying unless they get more green.

Incidently, this is a problem that the free market generated.

Hiring workers in sweatshops with no environmental protections or real wages was cheaper.

We ended up building those factories with our own greed. We did not realize that as they destroyed their own environments, the global aspects of the issue would come to us in the end. We never really cared if our shoes were sewn by seven year olds either, but perhaps the global consequence of this may sink in.

Here’s the problem:
1. Western addiction to cheap Eastern goods is as strong as ever and underpins the West’s standard of living to a considerable extent.
2. If the West did threaten extreme protectionist measures it would probably trigger hyperinflation and social unrest which we can ill afford.
3. We could have an international trade war on our hands, with markets crashing all over the place.
Quite a high stakes game of poker to play with a shitty hand, don’t ya think?

191 Jack Burton  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:34:42pm

re: #186 Hadith Harry

Youtube Video

192 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:36:09pm

re: #190 Spare O’Lake

Here’s the problem:
1. Western addiction to cheap Eastern goods is as strong as ever and underpins the West’s standard of living to a considerable extent.
2. If the West did threaten extreme protectionist measures it would probably trigger hyperinflation and social unrest which we can ill afford.
3. We could have an international trade war on our hands, with markets crashing all over the place.
Quite a high stakes game of poker to play with a shitty hand, don’t ya think?

Gien the other option, I don’t see the choice. If AGW goes unchecked their economy and ours crashes in a much more real way.

By a more real way, I mean that inflation and economies are human constructs. The need for food, water, shelter and such is not.

193 DaddyG  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:40:13pm

re: #183 LudwigVanQuixote

Actually, I’d prefer if you clicked me.

My browser does not like the interface.

Typical Liberal, asking everyone else to do the work for you…

//

194 freetoken  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 2:40:17pm

re: #185 Purpendicular

Maybe there is AGW, maybe there isn’t.


Please start reading here:
The Discovery of Global Warming

195 Korla Pundit  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:10:38pm

I remain convinced that AGW claims are the result of a mixture of bad science, biased computer modeling (both intentional and involuntary), and funding-hungry research groups who know on which side the grant bread is buttered. But who cares what I think? I have no sway in such matters. This conclusion is being pushed as a “consensus.” That’s fine. We’ll let history decide whether “deniers” or “alarmists” were wrong.

What I can’t stand, however, are the over-the-top chicken littles who literally cry that we have 5 years or some such tiny timeframe to “save the planet.” That is ridiculous, and if they are counting on the U.S., let alone China and India, to cut carbon emissions by even 5% (let alone 20% or more) within 5 years, then we should just admit we’re doomed, and don’t bother doing anything, because that is not going to happen.

Beyond that, a large contingent of anti-capitalist groups are eager to latch onto the AGW bandwagon to use it as a Macguffin to push a punitive socialist agenda. This part of the program is the most disturbing.

If pro-AGW scientists can be serious about their claims, however, I would look to them to propose some actions that might actually have some effect on the subject. Taxing people and redistributing wealth, to the serious detriment of the world economy (but mostly the U.S.) does not address the climate in any way. Why aren’t scientists coming out with suggestions that don’t involve taxes and fines?

Why are they deferring to Congress to come up with solutions to a problem that they at least claim is based on science? Congress! The least scientific body this side of the Flat Earth Society.

196 freetoken  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:13:14pm

re: #195 Korla Pundit

I remain convinced that AGW claims are the result of a mixture of bad science, biased computer modeling (both intentional and involuntary), and funding-hungry research groups who know on which side the grant bread is buttered.

Ahh… yes, they are “in it for the gold.”

Did you bother to read the information at the link I posted just before your entry?

197 Political Atheist  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:14:29pm

re: #49 Rightwingconspirator

What happened top my link to CATO’s PDF? Was this edited for a reason I should take not of?

198 freetoken  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:15:28pm

re: #195 Korla Pundit


If pro-AGW scientists can be serious about their claims, however, I would look to them to propose some actions that might actually have some effect on the subject.

Dr. Hansen wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to start a crash program for the next generation nuclear reactor. Does that count?

199 Political Atheist  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:16:18pm

re: #65 John Neverbend

Sediment building? LOL

200 freetoken  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:18:00pm

re: #197 Rightwingconspirator

You put in a space before the last “f”.

201 Political Atheist  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:20:53pm

re: #200 freetoken

Maybe. I thought it was in and working but I may have been multi tasking.Oh well if its bad info who cares.

202 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:21:13pm

Well isn’t that interesting, all these supposed “scientists” trying to tell Congress what to do. But isn’t there is a name missing from those listed as supporting this “global Warming Hoax”, hmm? I’m really not surprised though, how could you fool people into supporting you if the first name on that list was…

SATAN!

/church lady

203 Political Atheist  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:21:59pm

re: #202 ausador

I did not see Freeman Dyson either. :)

204 Purpendicular  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:29:12pm

re: #188 LudwigVanQuixote

I agree that I am confused. I started reading Marcel Leroux’ “Global warming-Myth or reality” and will finish it one day I hope. As an ex-physicist in a completely unrelated subject, I find a few of his ideas very convincing. He claims that the worlds climate is so complex that there is no way that one can trust any predictions based on computer models. Looking at the maps and weather patterns, I must say that I am convinced.

I worked with experimental magnetism in my research days. Colleagues in another research group made ab-initio (from first principles) calculations of magnetic structures in crystalline compounds. They could calculate most structures this way. There was one problem though. All calculations are made at 0 K. As soon as temperature (i.e. movement of atoms) is introduced, the size of the problem explodes and it cannot be calculated.

If the problem of modelling the climate of the earth was a 1/100 of the size that Leroux presents, I would still have doubts about the accuracy of the predictions.

Apart from currents in the sea and air, according to Leroux (who was a real climatologist actually) one does not even agree about whether the effect of CO2 on the largest green house gas, water vapour is positive or negative with regards to temperature. If increased CO2 levels heat the globe, and this increases the amount of water vapour evaporation, will this lead to an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, and therefore give positive feedback and even more global warming? Or will it instead results in increased cloud cover and therefore net global cooling?

My take is that a lot more observation and less modelling should be going on.

There is an incredible amount of BS around in the debate. Here is France where I live, journalists talk about “sea levels rising due to global warming” as if this was an undisputed fact.

The hockey stick… Viking graves on Greenland are still in permafrost. As a Swede with some experience, I can assure you that nobody digs graves in permafrost. Therefore, at least on Greenland, it must have been substantially warmer than it is today. Maybe due to weather patterns rather than global temperatures, but then these supposed weather patterns would be well worth modelling.

205 Purpendicular  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:35:38pm

re: #194 freetoken

Looks like a whole book… Bookmarked for reading after Leroux.

206 Achilles Tang  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:40:07pm

re: #195 Korla Pundit

I remain convinced that AGW claims are the result of a mixture of bad science, biased computer modeling (both intentional and involuntary), and funding-hungry research groups who know on which side the grant bread is buttered. But who cares what I think? I have no sway in such matters. This conclusion is being pushed as a “consensus.” That’s fine. We’ll let history decide whether “deniers” or “alarmists” were wrong.

Deniers or alarmists? That is your take on the whole issue?

Presumably if AGW is the result of bad science and other biases, then the “deniers” base their conclusions on good science and unbiased positions. You of course belong to the latter, but are adopting the creationist argument; meaning attack the other argument, but offer nothing of your own.

As to history deciding, it will do that as always, unless someone chooses to rewrite it and say it was the other guy’s fault.

207 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:47:45pm

Love the deniers trying to get the last word.

208 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:49:22pm

re: #109 Bagua

Yes but with a quibble, the Greenie agenda is not only “not in my backyard” rather it is “not anywhere”. They truly wish humans to depopulate and go back to living in caves and painting the walls.

This is the dumbest thing I have read today. Congratulations!

209 Pavlovian Hive Mind  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 3:54:10pm

re: #207 WindUpBird

Love the deniers trying to get the last word.

Of course! It’s a proven fact that ‘getting in the last word’ can alter the very fabric of reality.
/

210 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 4:03:50pm

re: #208 WindUpBird

This is the dumbest thing I have read today. Congratulations!

How considerate of you to stop by a dead thread and drop your turd.

211 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 4:13:08pm

re: #204 Purpendicular

I’ll try to respond to your questions one at a time.

I agree that I am confused. I started reading Marcel Leroux’ “Global warming-Myth or reality” and will finish it one day I hope. As an ex-physicist in a completely unrelated subject, I find a few of his ideas very convincing. He claims that the worlds climate is so complex that there is no way that one can trust any predictions based on computer models. Looking at the maps and weather patterns, I must say that I am convinced.

First off, I can appreciate that there is a lot of dust in the air if one looks in the various popular accountings of AGW. I have not read or seen the book you mention, but I do take strong objection to the claims you have mentioned it makes.

I am a physicist professionally. My field is non-linear dynamics and chaos, I work in problems of fluid turbulence. It’s a closely related field and I have been actively following the literature on AGW for years.

First off the models, are not nothing. But before I get into a technical discussion of the models, I would strongly point out that the basic mechanisms of AGW are actually quite simple. You can back of the envelope calculate that given the output of the sun, increasing CO2 concentrations must increase temperature. There is no disputing energy conservation. There is no disputing the basic QM that makes things into GHGs.

While we are at it, it is easy to understand the largest feedbacks. Ice reflects more than water. energy is conserved. warmer planet means less ice means less reflection of solar energy back to space, means warmer planet.

Again, this is not so hard to see or think about.

The methane trapped under the bogs is a similar mechanism.

Now as to modeling all of the interactions and feedbacks over the entire world, taking all complicating factors into account, you are correct that there are still open issues. There just aren’t open issues about where it ends up, because the ultimate driving mechanisms are so simple to understand.

The debates are about how bad and when. Incidentally, most of the time that models are wrong these days it is because the actual indicators, ice loss, temp changes current shifts etc… are happening faster than predicted.

The hockey stick… Viking graves on Greenland are still in permafrost. As a Swede with some experience,

The hockey stick is quite well vindicated as are the hockey team of other data sets. The National Academy published a full review of those papers.


It is in these links that I replied to someone else about.
littlegreenfootballs.com


In the mean time, an entire history of the field from AIP with all references to original journal entries is here:

aip.org

A complete albeit freshman level course from UCSD is here:
aip.org

And a professional review of the major issues and the tipping elements that are some of the biggest concerns from PNAS: is here.

pnas.org

212 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 4:14:56pm

re: #211 LudwigVanQuixote

link error, this is the UCSD link: It is a quick good primer if simplistic.:
earthguide.ucsd.edu

213 Tiny alien kittens are watching you  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 4:45:19pm

re: #109 Bagua

Yes but with a quibble, the Greenie agenda is not only “not in my backyard” rather it is “not anywhere”. They truly wish humans to depopulate and go back to living in caves and painting the walls.

Well, except for those that want nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal energy harvested. Who know that we will need oil to keep manufacturing plastics and fertilizers in the future and therefore want to save as much as we can for those purposes. Those strange people that acknowledge that we could create millions of jobs here in the U.S. developing, implementing, and even exporting alternate energy technology, if we had it.

Actually living in a cave (underground) isn’t such a bad idea, the temperature fluctuations are reduced decreasing the heating and cooling energy needed to keep it comfortable. :p

214 alethalpunk  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 4:50:40pm

AGW is a crock of crap. Every article in favor of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) completely neglects to mention water vapor. The atmosphere is composed of approximately 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen with the remaining 1% composed of of other gases. Of this 1%, water vapor makes up the largest percentage and CO2 coming in second at 0.04% of the total composition of the atmosphere. The remaining gases are mostly methane and nitrous oxide.

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that water vapor makes up 95% of identified greenhouse gases and of that amount, less than 0.001% is attributable to man-made causes. This fact is ignored by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and AGW proponents. Why? Because we can’t regulate water evaporation.

On top of that, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that 97% of CO2 production is from natural sources. So of all of the CO2 in the atmosphere, 0.04% of the total volume of all of the gases in the atmosphere, only 3% of that is attributable to man-made causes. That amounts to 0.0012 of the total volume of gases in the atmosphere. Put all of this together and what do you get, man-made CO2 causes less than 0.12% of Earth’s greenhouse gas effect. WOW, 1/10 of 1 percent of all greenhouse gases are man-made!

If that isn’t enough for you, how is it that the Vikings were able to cultivate crops in Greenland over a thousand years ago (well before the industrial revolution) and now their settlements are found under two feet of permafrost? Hmmm, could it be that global climate cycles are driven by changes in SOLAR ACTIVITY!!! Duh.

Go green, CO2 is plant food.

215 Political Atheist  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 4:52:04pm

re: #214 alethalpunk


Got links to this information?

216 Political Atheist  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 4:56:00pm

re: #212 LudwigVanQuixote

Is there any consensus on where we would be if man made gases etc were factored out? Still warming if less so? Cooling as we used to hear in 1960’s school?

217 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 5:03:44pm

re: #213 ausador

Well, except for those that want nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal energy harvested. Who know that we will need oil to keep manufacturing plastics and fertilizers in the future and therefore want to save as much as we can for those purposes. Those strange people that acknowledge that we could create millions of jobs here in the U.S. developing, implementing, and even exporting alternate energy technology, if we had it.

Actually living in a cave (underground) isn’t such a bad idea, the temperature fluctuations are reduced decreasing the heating and cooling energy needed to keep it comfortable. :p

Yes, what you are referring to is the true environmentalist agenda, the sane one that we should all support. The derisory term “Greenie” refers to the extremists whose radical agenda will not accept the sensible things you have mentioned. Theirs is to oppose everything, especially nuclear, but also alternatives.

218 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 5:06:21pm

re: #214 alethalpunk

You are way behind the curve with your simplistic talking points.

219 freetoken  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 5:08:02pm

re: #214 alethalpunk

Every article in favor of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) completely neglects to mention water vapor.


That is just a bald face lie. And several of you other “points” aren’t any better.

220 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 5:09:39pm

re: #219 freetoken

Some people just never read the memo before giving their opinion.

221 freetoken  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 5:10:42pm

re: #218 Bagua

They’re not just simplistic, they are flat out wrong.

222 Charles Johnson  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 5:15:33pm

re: #214 alethalpunk

Registered almost a year and your first comment is that kind of crap.

223 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 5:45:50pm

re: #222 Charles

Registered almost a year and your first comment is that kind of crap.

Now that I have made it past 50 posts and can rate again, I have a question to ask. Does it serve a any useful purpose to allow lizards who have somehow managed to make it past 50 comments with negative net karma rate? Just wondering.

224 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 5:51:51pm

re: #222 Charles

Registered almost a year and your first comment is that kind of crap.

Hi Charles,

I’m curious why my comment was downdinged?
I down dinged alethalpunk and criticized him twice.

225 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 5:56:38pm

re: #221 freetoken

They’re not just simplistic, they are flat out wrong.

Agreed, “behind the curve with your simplistic talking points” implies the poster knew not of which he spoke, “never read the memo” implies he is uninformed on the subject and did not even read the thread before commenting.

226 korla pundit  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 6:02:52pm

re: #206 Naso Tang

You of course belong to the latter, but are adopting the creationist argument; meaning attack the other argument, but offer nothing of your own.

It is those making extraordinary claims that need to provide extraordinary evidence. End-of-the-world scenarios that apparently call for major sacrifices by their nature require extraordinary evidence. All the evidence I’ve ever seen is not of the concrete nature. It is nebulous, often tainted, and relies heavily on conjecture and computer models, which by their nature are GIGO (garbage-in-garbage-out).

Accurate temperature measurements for most of the world have only been recently available via satellite data. You can’t scientifically compare that to calculations extrapolated from ancient ice samples. Also, too many inaccuracies have crept into even modern measurements. Beyond that, you can’t just measure the surface of the ocean. The ocean is very deep indeed, and the surface is relatively inconsequential.

If you want to measure a trend scientifically, you must compare the same measurements taken under identical circumstances, using the same measurement techniques. You can’t take a bit of data here, another there and compare them. Try doing that with a pharma trial, and see if it passes muster as the FDA. They’d hand you your popo.

227 Charles Johnson  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 6:13:32pm

re: #223 goddamnedfrank

Now that I have made it past 50 posts and can rate again, I have a question to ask. Does it serve a any useful purpose to allow lizards who have somehow managed to make it past 50 comments with negative net karma rate? Just wondering.

That’s an interesting point. I will ponder it.

228 Pianobuff  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 6:44:22pm

re: #224 Bagua

Hi Charles,

I’m curious why my comment was downdinged?
I down dinged alethalpunk and criticized him twice.

Why would you be concerned about being downdinged? You state your points sincerely… why should that bother you?

229 korla pundit  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 6:52:04pm

May I ask what is the purpose of either up- or down-dinging? What does it do, actually?

230 Pianobuff  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 6:56:44pm

re: #229 korla pundit

May I ask what is the purpose of either up- or down-dinging? What does it do, actually?

Everyone has their own reasons. With me, I’m happy to have someone talk to me so I’ll up-ding them just for responding. For many, I believe it’s a way for registering agreement/disagreement.

231 swamprat  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 6:58:13pm

re: #229 korla pundit

May I ask what is the purpose of either up- or down-dinging? What does it do, actually?

You can trade the points for unique and fun items, like the old “green stamps” and merchandise coupons…No. It just gives people a headsup as to if you’ve posted a clunker, or are a full time asshole.

232 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 6:59:38pm

re: #228 Pianobuff

Why would you be concerned about being downdinged? You state your points sincerely… why should that bother you?

Not bothered, just curious if my comment was misunderstood.

233 korla pundit  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 7:03:14pm

re: #231 swamprat

You can trade the points for unique and fun items, like the old “green stamps” and merchandise coupons…

Oh, geez! Green stamps! You’re old. Not that I remember them at all, oh no.

234 Pianobuff  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 7:05:14pm

re: #232 Bagua

Not bothered, just curious if my comment was misunderstood.

Maybe it was understood and not liked. No sweat either way. I enjoy your comments.

235 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 7:13:25pm

re: #234 Pianobuff

Thankyou Pianobuff, likewise I enjoy your posts.

Some times my humour falls flat, in #220 it may have read as though I was saying freetoken did not get the memo, what I meant was that alethalpunk did not get the memo and was agreeing with freetoken, I reckoned this was misunderstood.

236 swamprat  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 7:13:45pm

re: #214 alethalpunk

water vapor makes up 95% of identified greenhouse gases and of that amount, less than 0.001% is attributable to man-made causes.

Cities in Arizona have changed the historic humidity percentages…That is pretty significant.

On top of that, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that 97% of CO2 production is from natural sources

link please. From the USDE, or a reliable source.
Also, name at least three of these natural sources.

Go green, CO2 is plant food.

“Common knowledge” has only one accurate word out of the two words used the phrase.When you sit down to a hearty meal of oxygen, we’ll talk.

237 [deleted]  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 7:20:27pm
238 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 7:43:28pm

re: #226 korla pundit

This is the Watts-McIntyre premise. All climate data, past and present, are hopelessly inaccurate. Once you accept the premise you automatically win all your arguments on the subject. Any scientist’s attempt to extract signal from the noise yields only meaningless confirmation of the scientist’s own biases.

Brilliant!

Bullshit through and through, but brilliant all the same.

239 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 8:01:42pm

re: #235 Bagua

Thankyou Pianobuff, likewise I enjoy your posts.

Some times my humour falls flat, in #220 it may have read as though I was saying freetoken did not get the memo, what I meant was that alethalpunk did not get the memo and was agreeing with freetoken, I reckoned this was misunderstood.

I read it the same way Charles did at first glance, but then read back through the nested references and got your intent.

240 Bagua  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 8:30:32pm

re: #239 goddamnedfrank

Yea, I could see when I looked at it again it read like I was taking issue with freetoken.

241 Korla Pundit  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 9:11:42pm

re: #238 MinisterO

re: #238 MinisterO

Bullshit through and through, but brilliant all the same.


To quote MadTV: “…and the truth!”

Accuracy in measurements is the number one requirement of science. Reliance on tree rings and precambrian air bubbles in ice is too weak a method to base such dire conclusions upon.

It doesn’t help when concerns about documented inaccuracies and tainted measurements are dismissed out of hand. Any serious researcher would take such data out of their calculations and recalibrate. Just ignoring the problems with the measurements makes the whole AGW argument suspect.

My own take, and I already know most of you don’t share it, is that there is no such thing as a global temperature, and trying to measure a trend in such a concept is unscientific at the start. Every year is either warmer or cooler, but region to region. It goes up some places, down in others. But to average out select points and declare that average a “global” temperature does not reflect the true nature of climate. Saying the global temperature rose 1 degree is like saying that the Earth’s average woman is 5 percent more pregnant this year than last.

With so many other factors coming into play, notably the sun, volcanoes (including undersea volcanos), deforestation, and the bottom of my old iBook, picking CO2 as the root of a warming planet makes my BS detector go off.

But I know I’m outvoted, and I don’t anticipate changing any minds. But science is not a democracy.

242 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 9:39:11pm

re: #216 Rightwingconspirator

Is there any consensus on where we would be if man made gases etc were factored out? Still warming if less so? Cooling as we used to hear in 1960’s school?

Yes of course. The consensus is that if we had not been dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere, we would not currently be warming.

243 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 9:41:41pm

re: #241 Korla Pundit

This is nonsense.

If you wish to look, honestly look at how the measurements are taken and just how accurate they are please read the papers in these links.

If you do not read those papers and learn the actual methodologies used, then you have no basis for a complaint at all.

Since the business of science is measurement - of course we know how well things are measured and to what accuracies. These things are always clearly reported.
littlegreenfootballs.com

244 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 9:42:59pm

re: #227 Charles

That’s an interesting point. I will ponder it.

I don’t like the idea. Maybe if the person is way way negative, but not just net negative. It is all too easy to misspeak and take a beating.

245 lostlakehiker  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 10:46:09pm

re: #3 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I’m sure that Congress will take this information and use it to fuel cap and trade debates and working on a system of tax incentives and loopholes for the lobbyists, rather than actually providing solutions like desalinization plants, irrigation systems and emergency response.

Those things you list aren’t actual solutions. They remind me of a joke: what’s the difference between fundamental research and applied research? Applied research gives you iron lungs, fundamental research gives you polio vaccine.

An “actual solution” would be a move to much greater percentage of wind and solar and nuclear power, coupled with better efficiency in our use of energy from whatever source. The arguments against wind and solar fail when the two are combined: when it’s dark and windy, you don’t get any solar. OK, use wind. When it’s quiet and sunny, you don’t get any wind. OK, solar. One or the other will be functioning a much larger fraction of the time than any one taken in isolation. For that irreducible minimum, just in case the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing, nuclear. For the rest, we can have easy on-and-off natural gas fired “peak demand” generators.

246 Mr_J  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 10:47:16pm

I will go back to lurking in a moment but in case this hasn’t been shared on this site (only been lurking for a few months now)…

Your text to link…

It’s about an hour long, but it’s a very video on the history and the evolution of the Climate Change Debate, and opposition to it.

247 MinisterO  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 10:48:55pm

re: #241 Korla Pundit

The Watts-McIntyre premise guarantees that any argument against it must be flawed. That same feature is present in every religion.

We have a greenhouse gas theory of CO2, over a hundred years old and independent of the data in question, that matches recent observations pretty well. Watts-McIntyre adherents conclude that recent observations must be wrong.

Wow.Just.Wow.

248 freetoken  Thu, Oct 22, 2009 11:09:36pm

re: #246 Mr_J

Oreskes did a good job… but it is now two years later and there is a definite turn up in intensity by the right-o-sphere against anything to do with AGW science.

249 Purpendicular  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 12:04:49am

re: #238 MinisterO
Dismissing all data is a cop-out. But it would appear that the observed data is not necessarily agreeing with the models. If a model is good, it should be able to fit the data.

Both sides seem to dismiss data though. Suppose that the Hockey Stick is true. We then have data that says that the earth’s temperature is flat. OK, has it been flat forever? If it not always was flat, what are the reasons that the temperature of the globe has ever changed? Or has the temperature been flat for 4 billion years? What about the Ice ages?

Maybe this one has been discussed already, but the BBC is wondering why there currently is global cooling:
Your text to link…

Glanced briefly at one of the papers regarding the “Hockey Stick” referenced in Your text to link…, but it only plotted data from 1850 onwards.

Everyone(?) agrees that the climate has warmed up since 1850. However, it used to be said that the Little Ice Age ended then. After 2000, the Little Ice Age, has suddenly disappeared. To some, it would appear that it is because the belief in AGW and the Hockey Stick trumps scientific reasoning.

I would really appreciate if someone could link to a publication that reconciles the historical records and the “Hockey Stick”. Just a simple link please, not one buried in the references of other publications. The issue must certainly be serious enough to warrant independent study.

As to what was believed to be history until recently…

In the UK, there was the “Frost Fair” Your text to link… on the Thames.

Our (I’m Swedish) Charles X marched across the Belts in 1658 March across the belts.

Another Charles, Charles XII, spent the winter 1708-1709 in the Ukraine with the army during the campaign against Peter the Great. This we are told was the coldest winter in the second millennium. The canals froze in Venice that winter.

Finally, as a Swede, we play ice hockey and bandy, both of which were invented by the British but one cannot play them there now (outside that is), because there is no ice.

From wikipedia:
As a winter sport, British bandy originated in the Fens of East Anglia where large expanses of ice formed on flooded meadows or shallow washes in cold winters, and skating was a tradition. Members of the Bury Fen bandy club published rules of the game in 1882, and introduced it into other countries.

250 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 12:22:18am

re: #249 Purpendicular

The short form is, as a physicist, you know not to trust the MSM for science reporting.

The long form is the thermohaline conveyer. Seriously, that is a major component in cooling and warming events.

Also just because past epochs had cycles driven by various natural causes does not mean we are not currently driving the present one. On the contrary, it shows that small things really can and have affected the climate.

251 Purpendicular  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 1:32:48am

re: #250 LudwigVanQuixote

I really need to brush up on these things.

Regarding the MSM and the “common man”, I agree with you. I’ve told myself that I should spend time on this since the early 90-ies. When sitting on trains in the UK, one got the reaction “Ah, you’re a physicist. It’s been awfully hot and dry lately, it must be global warming.” This was during the warm and hot years of 93-96 if I remember correctly. Then it rained a lot of 3-4 years and the debate disappeared. The conservative government decided to reduce the consumption of petrol by increasing the price by 5% above inflation. Then Labour came to power in 1997 and continued the policy. At the very end of the “rainy era”, there were massive fuel protests in 2000. The conservatives forgot conveniently that it was their own policy and jumped on the fuel protest band-wagon.

If I understand the argument correctly, the Hockey Stick authors claim that the temperature of the globe was flat until recently, and that the “Little Ice Age” must have been a local phenomena. Is this what you are saying?

However, a flat temperature should be as difficult to explain as a fluctuating one. Even more difficult really since a flat temperature means that there are likely a larger number of unknown factors balancing out one another.

If I dare say so, your argument that “small things really can and have affected the climate” is precisely my point. You say that your field is non-linear dynamics and chaos. I am safely retired from physics (telecoms now) but I know that in your field, the inputs to the models are critical to the outcome of the calculation. At some point one must say, the uncertainty is too large to be able to provide an answer.

I worked with heavy fermion compounds. The energies involved are in the order of mK. Electronic band calculations are (were?) only precise to a K. High TC superconductivity is a gigantic effect compared to the “normal” metallic superconductivity. The latter is well understood. The former is some huge barn door of an effect that is straight in front of us but that we cannot see.

I think both sides of the argument should be looking forward to the result of the CLOUD experiment.

If it turns out that cosmic rays do not influence cloud cover, then that should exclude one hypothesis in the best scientific tradition.

252 freetoken  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 2:46:00am

re: #249 Purpendicular

re: #251 Purpendicular

For someone who claims to not have studied this topic, you do seem to have dug up many of the talking points common in the denial-o-sphere, from the BBC poorly written article to cosmic rays.

I realize English is not your first language, so some of what you have written can be dismissed as being awkward translations, yet some of your other claims are either wrong or misleading.

Let’s touch on some of them:

But it would appear that the observed data is not necessarily agreeing with the models. If a model is good, it should be able to fit the data.

On the contrary. Current models do a very good job of reproducing the nature of the observed record. Inherently, the climate system is a chaotic system, which also receives both non-random and random inputs from outside.

As such, any physical model that attempts to replicate the real world must include such qualities, and that means that any given run of the model will turn out different than the others. Thus climate models are run many times, and the composite of the runs give a distribution of possible outcomes. To “fit” the observed data the model runs only need to be within the error of the observations as well as the observed data being within the distribution of the model runs. Furthermore, there are several different large coupled climate models, and comparing the output of the different models is not uncommon, and the outputs can be combined into a larger set from which to determine likelihoods.

When done so, comparing the observed data versus the model runs show that the models do very well.

Indeed, over time the models have become better, as more detail of the physical world is included. An over view of this, with a comparison of first, second, and third generation models can be found here:

www.inscc.utah.edu/~reichler/publications/papers/Reichler_07_BAMS_CMIP.pdf

—-

Suppose that the Hockey Stick is true. We then have data that says that the earth’s temperature is flat. OK, has it been flat forever? If it not always was flat, what are the reasons that the temperature of the globe has ever changed? Or has the temperature been flat for 4 billion years? What about the Ice ages?

This is confusing. First, there is no single “hockey stick”… there are many. Secondly, it is called a hockey stick simply to provide a mental image to people who aren’t looking at the actual graphs. Thirdly, the graphs of the various physical quantities never, ever have claimed to cover “forever”, whether in regard to “flat”-ness or any other quality. All physical measurement graphs has specific time periods that they cover. There are many reasons climates might change, and given 4.3 billion years one would reasonably expect to see all sorts of phenomenon.

None of which precludes what is known about what humans are indeed doing to the planet, which is directly measurable.

—-

I would really appreciate if someone could link to a publication that reconciles the historical records and the “Hockey Stick”.

You’re confused. The “hockey stick” graphs are the graphs of the physical data, from records of various sorts!

As a starting point, I encourage you to read the AIP website Discovery of Global Warming, which is my customary primer for this subject, for it will answer many beginning questions.

253 Purpendicular  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 3:29:44am

re: #252 freetoken

OK, so my mother tongue is not English.

Talking abut confusion, I must say that I find the Discovery of Global Warming web site very confusing. I will eventually get the book, but the web site is not the best advertisement I’ve seen. Steve Krug’s book “Don’t make me think” is a good read.

Having spent 10 years doing research I do know how to fit data, but also how easy it is to go wrong, fool people etc. Also, I know how you write a grant application to follow the current wind direction.

I also do not pretend to understand much of this. However, you must understand that as a PhD, I set fairly high standards before I claim I understand something.

One or many hockey sticks… The one I am referring to is the one that was presented at the IPCC 2001 as shown here on WikipediaHockey stick controversy.

Henceforth, I shall call it “Hockey Stick IPCC 2001”. If you prefer another label for this particular curve, please tell. However I do believe, that this is the curve that is commonly referred to as simply “the Hockey Stick”.

In your opinion, was there a “Little Ice Age” or not?

254 freetoken  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 4:08:19am

re: #253 Purpendicular


Talking abut confusion, I must say that I find the Discovery of Global Warming web site very confusing. I will eventually get the book, but the web site is not the best advertisement I’ve seen.

You don’t need the book… the website is sufficient.


Having spent 10 years doing research I do know how to fit data, but also how easy it is to go wrong, fool people etc. Also, I know how you write a grant application to follow the current wind direction.

Ah yes, the old “they’re in it for the gold” talking point…


One or many hockey sticks… The one I am referring to is the one that was presented at the IPCC 2001 as shown here on WikipediaHockey stick controversy.


You might as well update to the 2007 graphs. Why stay with the 2001 presentation?

Again, I don’t know what your issue is with “the” “hockey stick”… it is simply a graph of temperatures.

In your opinion, was there a “Little Ice Age” or not?

I don’t know why you are asking this question. All temperature reconstructions show a slight temperature decline for a few centuries. What is normally argued about is the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and whether or not that was a global phenomenon.

255 Purpendicular  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 4:32:53am

re: #254 freetoken

They are in it for the gold talking point…

You obviously haven’t been a PhD student or researcher trying to get funding. For a PhD student, it is more the “if I get this grant then I can finish my thesis with some good data and possibly get a job in research afterwards” talking point.

If this is a debunked “talking point”, maybe you could publish a link? A direct link please to a publication, not to a web site where one has to click around.

I use the 2001 curve because that is the one that is the one that by Joe Public, the media, basically everyone, is called “The Hockey Stick”

I don’t know why you are asking this question. All temperature reconstructions show a slight temperature decline for a few centuries.

Unless I am blind as a bat, the 2001 Hockey Stick shows no such dip “for a few centruries”. Hence, the “controversy”.

Hockey stick controversy

If you look at the other curves in the wikipedia article, you see one that has a minima of -0.9°C compared to the present.

256 freetoken  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 5:02:37am

re: #255 Purpendicular

They are in it for the gold talking point…

You obviously haven’t been a PhD student or researcher trying to get funding. For a PhD student, it is more the “if I get this grant then I can finish my thesis with some good data and possibly get a job in research afterwards” talking point.

If this is a debunked “talking point”, maybe you could publish a link?

If by “this” you mean your accusation that AGW science is flawed because starving grad students and postdocs are merely writing up papers to feed some grant mill… then no, I’m not going to give a link to debunk that because I don’t need to link to anything to point out an ad hominem fallacy, which is all your posts on this thread have turned out to be.

And, FWIW, I used to work for the government, first doing work and getting funding, then eventually managing it and sending money out the door, so it’s not like I’m unfamiliar with your attempts to smear researchers.

You’ve gone from one well worn denier script to another, which is why you are intentionally ignoring any relevant information given to you, and why you complain about the links that are given to you.

You have demonstrated well that you are not interested in anything but smearing the reputations of others.

257 alethalpunk  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 5:47:15am

re: #219 freetoken

re: #219 freetoken

Can you be more specific regarding what I lied about?

the composition of the atmosphere?
the failure of AGW believers mentioning the contribution of water vapor to green house gas effects?
the Vikings and Greenland?
the contributions of the Sun to global warming?
which one?
or is it easier just to attack me call me a liar without a debate?

As far as these 18 so called leaders of scientific organizations, how many of them are on the receiving end of government research grant money to study “Global Warming”? After all, it can be very profitable, just ask Al Gore.

258 Purpendicular  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 6:25:35am

re: #256 freetoken

What is an “ad hominem fallacy”? I asked my English wife who also happens to be a scientific editor, but she didn’t know.

Firstly, I must say that I find that accusing someone of following scripts, and therefore refuse to answer questions sounds like a very non-scientific attitude to me. If my questions, or those of someone else, are so common, there must surely exist ready-made answers somewhere, in an easily digestible form?

Or must I go to the web site you refer to, the one I found fairly confusing, and read everything I can find there before I am worthy of an answer? From Amazon I gather that it is around 200 pages worth of material.

Secondly, to refuse to answer specific questions because of perceived slight seems contrary to scientific best practices.

Both of these attitudes would lead to a failed PhD at my alma mater.

alethalpunk: you ask good questions. I would give you karma if I had reached my 50 posts.

259 MinisterO  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 7:48:49am

re: #257 alethalpunk


Can you be more specific regarding what I lied about?
…
the failure of AGW believers mentioning the contribution of water vapor to green house gas effects?

Bing!

260 MinisterO  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 7:59:36am

re: #258 Purpendicular


Firstly, I must say that I find that accusing someone of following scripts, and therefore refuse to answer questions sounds like a very non-scientific attitude to me. If my questions, or those of someone else, are so common, there must surely exist ready-made answers somewhere, in an easily digestible form?

Your appear to be JAQing off.

261 Purpendicular  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 9:14:44am

re: #260 MinisterO

Thanks for that, hadn’t heard of JAQing off, learned something new. Still don’t think I do that.

Here is how I would answer my questions, and those from alethalpunk:

The 2007 “Hockey Stick” can be found here…

Actually, there are several “Hockey Stick” plots. They cover… and differ in the following respects… You will find a layman’s discussion of them here… and a more serious treatment here… There is a very good book on the subject that you should find on Amazon by X, called Y.

The fact that Vikings are buried in permafrost on Greenland is not a valid argument because… This is discussed here…

The Little Ice Age is not a valid argument against global warming because… (local phenomena/ Our models show clearly that we can explain the cold whether in Europe…/There was no cool whether…, skating on the Thames was possible because… and is not in any way proof of colder wheather…)

You don’t see the little ice age that clearly in the 2001 IPCC publication of the “Hockey Stick” plot because… Actually, in the amended 2007 version you find…

Funding for climate research is completely unbiased with regards to the skepticism or not with regards to AGW. In the US XY panel has been set up to verify that there is no bias with regards to applications that are popular with the public, the MSM or the scientific community. We do our utmost to allow all sides of the argument a fair hearing. After all, intellectual conflict is necessary to ensure scrutiny and progress. Other countries have similar mechanisms, for example Elbonia…

alethalpunk is wrong because the effect of water vapour is discussed at great length in the articles by X, Y and Z. For the seminal work in this area, please get the book by Q.

262 alethalpunk  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 9:43:11am

re: #259 MinisterO

Show me where “Believers” account for the contributions of water vapor?

… and what about my other questions?

It’s easier to ignore and dismiss them rather than answer them.

“Oh, just ignore him honey, he’s one of those simplistically minded, SUV driving “non-believers”. Here, let’s just look at this (bogus) “hockey stick” graph, it proves everything.”

Just like Al Gore and his goons, ignore the truth and baffle them with fear mongering “Chicken Little, The Sky is Falling B.S”.

Speaking in front of the Society of Environmental Journalists, Al Gore fields a question from Phelim McAleer, an Irish filmmaker who asked Gore to address nine errors in his film identified by a British court in 2007. Instead of addressing him, Gore has his microphone cut off. Now that’s being truthful and honest.

Don’t believe me, see for yourself.

Youtube Video

And regarding the “hockey stick” graph, look at the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment Report. The graph showing the second millennial climate history includes the Medieval Warming Period (~1000 AD ~1350 A.D) followed by the Little Ice Age (~1400 A.D. - ~1850 A.D).

This graph doesn’t fit with the “Believers” message because “Global Warming” apparently happened without human intervention so the “Hockey Stick” was created to fit the message.

Here are a few more simple minded questions,

How did polar bears survive the Medieval Warming period? I mean with average global temperatures well above what they are today, the Arctic Ocean must surely have been ice-free. No pack ice = no seals= no food = extinct polar bears.

If I have a glass of ice water filled to the brim, does it spill all over the table when the ice melts? If not, then how can melting sea ice raise ocean levels?

What ended the last ice age 12,000 years ago? Was it buffalo farts on the prairie?

What causes the ice caps on Mars to melt?

What happens to the climate on Earth when the Sun’s output varies over time?

263 MinisterO  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 10:21:50am

re: #262 alethalpunk

Show me where “Believers” account for the contributions of water vapor?

Realclimate addresses your claim directly.

Water vapor is discussed at length in IPCC report WG1 AR4.

Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 discuss the role of water vapor in theory and models.

264 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 11:29:01am

re: #261 Purpendicular

But I already gave you that purpendicular…

Download the PDF from the National Academy. This is the complete report on all the major proxie data sets, their methodologies and their findings.

nap.edu

The science is kosher.

I must confess I am starting to become frustrated with you in that, I really have given you all the information you would want on your various issues, yet you seem to refuse to look at it.

265 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 11:32:53am

re: #261 Purpendicular

Also, the funding canard is very disappointing to see from anyone who was once a professional.

You know full well that the legitimate skeptical papers of the seventies and the eighties got the same funding from the same sources :NSF, DOE, NASA,NOAA etc.. as the papers that supported the hypothesis. The evidence came in for the support of the hypothesis.

The reason you don’t see much in the way of skeptic papers anymore is because most of the skeptics had their claims answered 20 years ago. Those people now overwhelmingly support the evidence of AGW because they were convinced.

266 Purpendicular  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 11:35:15am

re: #264 LudwigVanQuixote

Sorry I will look. I had a brief look before, but feeling a bit stressed with other things in my life, I wasn’t paying attention I guess.

I am sure we will get back to this subject on LGF not long from now, by then I hope to be better read.

Cheers.

267 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 11:43:15am

re: #262 alethalpunk

You’ve been spewing so much ignorant nonsense in this thread that I feel compelled to make a statement — this person does not speak for me or for LGF.

You should be embarrassed to spout off on a subject that you so clearly don’t have a clue about — but I know you aren’t.

268 Purpendicular  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 11:47:14am

re: #264 LudwigVanQuixote

Just wanted to tell you that is good stuff, I am 10 pages through. Thanks. Reads like proper scientific literature.

The curves do not resemble the 2001 Hockey Stick for sure though. There is no almost flat 900 year period.

269 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 11:55:10am

re: #268 Purpendicular

Just wanted to tell you that is good stuff, I am 10 pages through. Thanks. Reads like proper scientific literature.

The curves do not resemble the 2001 Hockey Stick for sure though. There is no almost flat 900 year period.

!. You are welcome.

2. That is a function of the axis. The key point is that we have not just a hockey stick, but rather a whole hockey team now.

270 Synesius  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 12:32:12pm

Funny thing is, this experiment has already been done. CO2 was at twice current abundance for 18 million years during the Miocene, when peak temps were maybe +3 degrees over current — about what the modelers claim will result from our exceedingly modest contribution to the CO2 budget. Also, if you toss out the El Nino spike of 1998, the temperature anomaly delta from 1970-2008 has only a slightly steeper slope as that from 1900-1940, which makes it hard to believe anything particularly alarming is going on. It’s unfortunate that the alleged remedies for the alleged crisis dovetail so beautifully with a Leftist politico/religious agenda. Sane environmentalism has been set back decades because of the politicization of this issue.

271 Purpendicular  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 12:32:58pm

re: #269 LudwigVanQuixote

The reason why the 2001 curve was called the “Hockey Stick” was that it was almost a flat horizontal line followed by a linear rise. The other curves do not behave like this and do not look like any hockey stick I have ever seen. I should know, got half a tooth knocked out when I was seven.

The other curves could maybe be called “Kant curves”, as in

Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.

As the figure text says (Fig. O-4, p. 15) “This figure has sometimes been referred to as the “hockey stick.” SOURCE: IPCC (2001). Reprinted with permission; copyright 2001, IPCC.”

Maybe this is a solid enough reference for freetoken.

272 Charles Johnson  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 12:34:28pm

Once again, we see that odd phenomenon in which climate change deniers do their best to get the last comment in an old thread, as if by posting propaganda as the final comment they’ll somehow be able to change the reality.

Or maybe they’re just trying to fool the gullible. It’s often hard to tell the difference.

273 Purpendicular  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 1:05:12pm

re: #272 Charles

For my part I really like discussing and arguing points. I thought that this was what this forum was all about. I have picked up a few points, in particular from LudwigVanQuixote, sharpened my ideas, so I am happy.

I am all in favour of your points on the evolution, but I disagree with you it would seem regarding AGW. I cannot jump in and discuss any candidates in the US, as I am a Swede living in France. Evolution and the global warming debate I find interesting. Your work on pointing out racists where you find them is also very commendable and attracts me to this site.

I know there is some solid science in the AGW debate, I would say on both sides of the argument. A problem I have, is the amount of rubbish that is said, again on both sides. I do recognise some BS when I see it, but not all.

A problem I have with the discussion is how much it resembles the nuclear power debate we had in Sweden in the 70-80ies, and then the “Acid rain” debate in the 80-90ies. The signal to noise ration was very low then, and with the media involved as it is now, so it is with the AGW debate.

MSM journalists running around like headless chickens does not advance the debate. Here in France, journalists discuss everyday how the rising seas are threatening low lying lands as if the sea was already rising 5-10 cm per year. 1.8 mm per year is what I remember, probably steady since a few thousand years back. If it will rise faster in the future is another matter.

As I see it, to call someone a denier is not really a helpful way to settle an argument. Appeals to authority isn’t either. When I hear that a paper has 800 citations, I think of my thesis supervisor who joked that, with refererence to Fleischmann-Pons’ paper on “cold fusion” that one of the best ways to get ahead in academia is to publish something that is spectacularly wrong. Your citation index explodes.

My Moroccan friends (where 10-20%, at most, believe in evolution) mis-quote Einstein, the Pope, Bob and his uncle to prove that evolutionary theory is wrong.

Thanks for a good web site.

274 Purpendicular  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 1:51:22pm

One more thing:
I live in Europe and I enjoy my “paper” and now blogs in the morning. By the time I get to your site at 08h00 in Paris, there are 600 comments in some threads. I had to read through around 150 before I could post in the present one.

Similarly, I waited two years to be able to register in the first place at what I believe was in the middle of the night in Morocco on a trip.

275 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 2:15:47pm

re: #271 Purpendicular

What are you talking about?

Look at the graphs on page two of the reports in brief.

If you want to argue about the platonic ideals of hockey sticks that’s fine, but not the subject of science. I suppose that belongs more in art or philosophy.

If you want to talk about the science what you see from multiple data sets involving tens of thousands of different measurements, collected by thousands of independent researchers, is the following:

Temperatures steadily cooling for the past 100 years until the advent of the industrial age.

Then there is a sharp upturn in temperature that surpasses the past maximums by a facto of tow and is still growing. This coincides with industrialization.

Look at page two of the NAS report in brief.

dels.nas.edu

Further, Mann’s data is there. It is the red line. It does show a flat decrease and then a sharp rise and the same report from the NAS vindicated his results.

I am all for vigorous debate of the science and all for discussing the points. However, you seem to have some difficulty looking at the science itself. I believe this portrays a very strong bias, particularly as you continue to bring red herrings like Pons and Flieshman.

That is a case that is the opposite of what we have in AGW.

With cold fusion, two guys made a wild claim that was roundly debunked by the general community almost from the start. They had no reproducible results and their evidence was and hypothesis were quite shoddy from the get go.

With AGW, mounting evidence of a very basic set of easily understood mechanisms - even if the interactions are complex, the underlying principles are not - has been collected by thousands for over 50 years.

The data are not so easily refutable and they do tell a consistent story with an obvious explanation.

You seem to be very strongly in a camp that has made up its mind.

I like you a lot more than the normal denier propagandist types we get here (you are not one of them) because you are at least looking at the evidence that is being brought to you. However, I ask you go one step further and imagine that you have no bias when looking at it.

276 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 2:17:14pm

re: #275 LudwigVanQuixote

PIMF:

If you want to talk about the science what you see from multiple data sets involving tens of thousands of different measurements, collected by thousands of independent researchers, is the following:

Temperatures steadily cooling for the past 1000 years until the advent of the industrial age.

277 Purpendicular  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 3:15:08pm

re: #275 LudwigVanQuixote

I can see from the legend that data from Mann and Jones, from 2003, are included in the plot on page two.

However, the plot that is commonly referred to as “the Hockey Stick” is presented on page 15. You may call it what you like, but most people refer to it as the Hockey Stick plot.

This plot was presented in 2001. Therefore, the Mann data on page 2 and 15 are not the same. They are probably similar, but they are not identical. How similar they are is difficult to see on the screen, in particular as there are 7 plots overlayed. I will press on in the book.

Apart from oscillations with an amplitude that seems to be about 0.15°, the 2001 “hockey stick plot” shows a very slight decline of about 0.1° between 1000 and 1900 followed by a 0.8° increase between 1900 and 2000. It does not show a 3-400 year dip for the Little Ice Age. You may remember that this, and the lack of a Medieval warm period, is the reason that it caused such a sensation.

This is also why some, like me, are skeptical. Before AGW became a heated subject, the Medieval warm period, the Little Ice Age, the cold period a few hundred years BC that were supposed to have driven “barbarians” from the Scandinavian peninsula so that they invaded Italy (a first time), were all uncontroversial “facts”.

When the last 1000 years of history is suddenly remodeled by a few physicists, this does breed skepticism.

If you reread what I wrote, you will see that I used Fleischmann-Pons to illustrate that the number of citations of a paper is not a measure of its truthfulness. Risking another misunderstanding I can also add that the Bible probably has a higher citation index than the Evolution of the species.

Unfortunately, the human brain is so constructed that we as humans suffer from cognitive biases. I try my hardest to look into the evidence with a skeptical mind. I know I often fail.

However, I do get the feeling that you my friend have fairly settled beliefs.

278 alethalpunk  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 3:58:16pm

re: #267 Charles

Dear Charles,

I guess I must be an ignoramus and a mouth breather for asking such clueless simple-minded questions. Yet, you and the rest of the AGW believers citing this study and that graph and these ice core samples and these tree rings and these respected scientists have yet to answer my simplest questions. Make me a believer but first answer these questions:

What caused the last ice age?

What ended the last ice ace?

What happens to Earth’s climate when the Sun’s energy output fluctuates over time, as in a cyclic fashion?

And no Charles, I don’t speak for you nor LGF, but for myself. I am an independent free thinker and I just don’t buy the whole AGW BS. So, demeaning me and calling me an outsider still doesn’t qualify as answering the questions. So, instead of spewing your vitriol at me to cover up for how uncomfortable my questions make you, please just answer them.

279 MinisterO  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 4:40:43pm

re: #278 alethalpunk

I answered two of your questions, more politely than you deserved.

Now you’re gonna flounce without thanking me?

280 alethalpunk  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 7:40:14pm

re: #279 MinisterO

Minister O,

I will check out the links you mentioned in #263 and get back to you. I’m still waiting for answers regarding what caused and ended the last ice age and how fluctuations in solar output impacts the climate on Earth.
So far all I hear are crickets.

281 freetoken  Fri, Oct 23, 2009 10:28:51pm

re: #280 alethalpunk

Please read the “Discovery of Global Warming” link I have posted in this thread. It answers your questions.

282 Purpendicular  Sat, Oct 24, 2009 12:35:29am

re: #280 alethalpunk

I appreciate your efforts.

For my part I will read the recommended literature twice and then come back here, or rather the next round.

I should be an interesting read, I suspect there will be a few gaps in the “logic”. In particular in the “Discovery of global warming” since it is so warmly recommended by freetoken, with his, shall we say “reluctance” to answer any specific questions.

The NAS report reads like a legitimate entry in the debate.

Over and out.

283 alethalpunk  Sat, Oct 24, 2009 6:10:39am

re: #281 freetoken

Freetoken,

I don’t want you or any other AGW beleiver to point me to some link that will answer all my questions. I want simple direct answers that any of you can pound out on your keyboards, but for some reason are unable to bring yourself to do it.

What caused the last ice age?

What ended the last ice age?

What happens to Earth’s climate when the Sun’s energy output fluctuates over time, as in a cyclic fashion?

… and if you can get past these three simple ones, here’s one more. If you have a glass of water full to the brim with ice water and all of the ice melts, how much water spills on the table? The answer is none.
So how can melting sea ice, which floats just like an ice cube in a glass, cause ocean surface levels to rise?

284 MinisterO  Sat, Oct 24, 2009 8:43:18am

re: #283 alethalpunk

Why should anyone spend time answering questions for someone who opens his argument with an easily disprovable claim like this?

Every article in favor of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) completely neglects to mention water vapor.

285 MinisterO  Sat, Oct 24, 2009 9:00:07am

Every climate topic on LGF brings new idiots armed with denier talking points and demanding that people “just answer my questions”.

re: #258 Purpendicular

Firstly, I must say that I find that accusing someone of following scripts, and therefore refuse to answer questions sounds like a very non-scientific attitude to me.

You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You haven’t asked any novel questions. It reflects a very non-scientific attitude on your part to demand that someone spoon-feed you answers.

286 Purpendicular  Sat, Oct 24, 2009 1:34:19pm

re: #285 MinisterO

It is very condescending of you to assume that just because you know something, everyone else should know it too.

287 MinisterO  Sat, Oct 24, 2009 1:47:01pm

re: #286 Purpendicular

Numerous resources have been provided to address your questions. You need to do the work of digging through them, following references, etc.

That’s how science works.

288 goddamnedfrank  Sat, Oct 24, 2009 3:40:25pm

re: #262 alethalpunk

What causes the ice caps on Mars to melt?

Mars has a highly eccentric orbit, with perturbations that regularly cause the ice caps to sublime (not melt) and reform. It’s a seasonal thing.

re: #283 alethalpunk

What happens to Earth’s climate when the Sun’s energy output fluctuates over time, as in a cyclic fashion?

Sigh, not this shit again. A direct satellite record of solar irradiance for the last thirty years shows a total variance of only 0.1%, or 1.3W/m**2. Solar variance may have played a major role in driving climate on pre-industrial earth, over geologic timescales, but modern industrial era human inputs totally overwhelm the current, measurable, very consistent 11 year solar cycle. Deal with it.

289 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:47:14pm

re: #286 Purpendicular

Except that you do have a habit of asking things and not knowing things that a physicist should know already f he had minimally looked into the actual scientific literature.

290 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sat, Oct 24, 2009 7:48:00pm

re: #283 alethalpunk

You were actually answered in multiple places. Does it really matter if we retype it to you again and again if you will not read it, or think about it at all?

291 greensoccer  Sat, Oct 24, 2009 10:18:02pm

Please see the article about scientific research entitled:

“North Pole: ice 100% thicker than expected”

motls.blogspot.com

292 freetoken  Sat, Oct 24, 2009 10:59:10pm

re: #291 greensoccer

It’s been posted here before… not too long ago, and it is interesting that story keeps popping up, especially since it’s from last april. I wonder who is pushing it.

You can go to the German site of the research institute itself and look at their English pages… as opposed to relying on automatic translations.

awi.de

Another focal point of the campaign were large-scale measurements of ice thickness in the inner Arctic, which were conducted in close collaboration of the Alfred Wegener Institute together with the University of Alberta. An ice-thickness sensor, the so-called EM-Bird, was put into operation under a plane for the first time ever. To conduct the measurements, Polar 5 dragged the sensor which was attached to a steel cable of eighty metres length in a height of twenty metres over the ice cover. Multiple flights northwards from various stations showed an ice thickness between 2.5 (two years old ice in the vicinity of the North Pole) and 4 metres (perennial ice in Canadian offshore regions). All in all, the ice was somewhat thicker than during the last years in the same regions, which leads to the conclusion that Arctic ice cover recovers temporarily. The researchers found the thickest ice with a thickness of 15 metres along the northern coast of Ellesmere Island.

293 freetoken  Sat, Oct 24, 2009 11:01:12pm

re: #291 greensoccer

BTW, Motl (whom you linked) is a notorious ideologue, both within his field and outside of it. Within high energy physics, he has run afoul several times of Prof. Woit, who discusses it in his blog Not Even Wrong.

294 alethalpunk  Sun, Oct 25, 2009 6:07:35am

You AGW beleivers crack me up. You still refuse to directly answer my questions?

If you want to throw your BS at me how bout y’all look up the followin’:

Milankovitch cycles

and then look at this:

420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station

Image: Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

What does it show? Wow, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are cyclic over time as is solar insolation. Where are we currently in that CO2 cycle? Well, Heaven’s to Besty, we’re near a peak.

As I asked earlier and still have not been answered. I want you to explain to me why MSM keeps spewing the fear-mongering crap about melting sea ice raising ocean levels.

As I explained earlier 4th graders, if you take a glass full to the brim with ice water and the ice melts, how much water spills on the table. None.

If melting sea ice raising ocean levels isn’t true, yet I’m still being bombarded with this LIE, then why should I believe any of the other crap about AGW?

Why? Because you say so? If you don’t believe then you’re not one of us?

Dig deeper into the question people. Why is it so important for your message, as wrong as it is, to get across? What is the end result that is being sought by AGW instigators and their followers?

One word.

Control.

295 Purpendicular  Sun, Oct 25, 2009 1:19:04pm

re: #289 LudwigVanQuixote

I have been encouraged to look around a bit the last three days, and it appears that the science that you refer to is not as uncontested as you state.

Because, surely, you cannot define “scientific” as “agrees with my beliefs”, can you?

First of all, what really gets my BS detector going is an “absolute truth” in any area. Any scientist should be a skeptic at heart.

Secondly, I notice some people are investing an awful amount of money in the CLOUD experiment at CERN. This is to see to what extent cosmic rays are responsible for cloud formation and therefore to what extent the solar activity could be responsible for temperature variations. (Beyond the simple W/m2 that reach the earth.)

I am sure US tax payers money is partly invested in this experiment, which must be a complete waste of time and money if the science is as settled as you state.

Secondly, over at Climate-skeptic.com, I found a very good question regarding the many “hockey sticks” as you call them. Someone there called them “spaghetti” instead.

This got me thinking a few thoughts of my own whilst driving my son to a badminton competition:

a) Why on earth are these data not consolidated into a single line? Seems like a subject PhD students the world over should jump at. Imagine the fame. Finally, the proper temperature history of the last millenium, instead of the one the IPCC produced in 1990 that showed a Medieval warm period that was warmer than the present.

b) Since these over 10 curves disagree, there is no reason to trust any one of them.

Now, you might say that some kind of weighted average should be performed. If so, with what weights? Based on what data? And why wasn’t it done by the IPCC instead of them presenting the current mess?


Thirdly, I have read about 100 pages in Marcel Leroux’ “Global Warming, Myth or Reality”. He was a climatologis (died in 2007), mainly working on the Sahel climate. Leroux claims that the worlds climate system is far too complex to be accurately modeled to any degree necessary to treat global warming. Furthermore, he claims that the role of CO2 in the atmosphere is also far too complicated to be modeled.

With the help of Marcel Leroux, I have falsified any statement that there is full agreement about global warming. I just need 1 (one) dissenting voice to achieve that.

Surely, you cannot honestly believe that anyone disagreeing is bought by the oil or coal industry? If Leroux was bought, what on earth was he doing spending decades in such a God-forsaken region?

Finally, I looked up Histoire de France, Les origines from 1984. There on, pp. 139-140 I find a discussion of the “refroidissment brutal” (sudden cooling) that took place 600-400 BC. The author claims that the agricultural zone contracted in Scandinavia from 68° north to 60° north (Kiruna to Uppsala in Sweden which is 1250 km by road) because of a fall in the average temperature of 2 °C. I would assume that this has been confirmed through archaeological evidence since it must be straightforward to look for the evidence of what grew and didn’t grow.

We even have memories of this in the Edda and from Pytheas of Marseille (2nd half of third century BC) regarding the ice in the northern seas. Was he also bought by oil money?

All of this was as uncontroversial as the Medieval warm period up until roughly 2000. A plausible theory is that the arrival of the plagues around 650 AD and 1350 AD coincided with cooler weather.

296 swamprat  Sun, Oct 25, 2009 1:37:39pm

re: #283 alethalpunk

I don’t want you or any other AGW beleiver to point me to some link that will answer all my questions.

Thank you for explaining that you have a reading comprehesion problem. We will work with you.

I want simple direct answers that any of you can pound out on your keyboards, but for some reason are unable to bring yourself to do it.

What caused the last ice age?

Would you believe a volcano? How about a milkovich cycle?

What ended the last ice age?

Vocano/cycle ended.

What happens to Earth’s climate when the Sun’s energy output fluctuates over time, as in a cyclic fashion?

Things change. This would be an excellent arguement if we were at a peak point in a milankovitch cycle. Pity.

… and if you can get past these three simple ones, here’s one more. If you have a glass of water full to the brim with ice water and all of the ice melts, how much water spills on the table? The answer is none.
So how can melting sea ice, which floats just like an ice cube in a glass, cause ocean surface levels to rise?

Because the ice is formed from precipitation?

297 swamprat  Sun, Oct 25, 2009 1:55:50pm

re: #294 alethalpunk

You AGW beleivers crack me up. You still refuse to directly answer my questions?

If you want to throw your BS at me how bout y’all look up the followin’:

Milankovitch cycles
we are not there yet
and then look at this:

420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station

[Link: upload.wikimedia.org…]

What does it show? Wow, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are cyclic over time as is solar insolation. Where are we currently in that CO2 cycle? Well, Heaven’s to Besty, we’re near a peak.

Yes it appears the graph you show illustrates we are just coming off a peak. Pity.
As I asked earlier and still have not been answered. I want you to explain to me why MSM keeps spewing the fear-mongering crap about melting sea ice raising ocean levels.
It sells papers. Just because powerful forces that for their own reasons wish to exclude or build nuclear powerplants are playing information games, does not nullify the fact that we might have been screwing up our atmosphere. Well, we know we have. The question on the table is how much and in what manner.
As I explained earlier 4th graders, if you take a glass full to the brim with ice water and the ice melts, how much water spills on the table. None.
And that analogy does not apply to precipation deposits.
If melting sea ice raising ocean levels isn’t true, yet I’m still being bombarded with this LIE, then why should I believe any of the other crap about AGW?
You are confused, but you are welcome to do your own reseach
Why? Because you say so? If you don’t believe then you’re not one of us?
Believe as you wish.
Dig deeper into the question people. Why is it so important for your message, as wrong as it is, to get across? What is the end result that is being sought by AGW instigators and their followers?
Nuclear Power
One word.

Control.
One more word.
Paranoia.

298 swamprat  Sun, Oct 25, 2009 1:59:04pm

Sleeper one:


alethalpunk
Karma -18
Registered since: Dec 2, 2008 at 6:22 pm
No. of comments posted: 7
No. of links posted: 0

299 swamprat  Sun, Oct 25, 2009 2:00:15pm

Sleeper two:

Karma: -20
Registered since: Nov 20, 2008 at 1:30 pm
(Logged in)

No. of comments posted: 21
No. of links posted: 0

300 swamprat  Sun, Oct 25, 2009 2:02:09pm

Sleepers acting in pairs on a dead thread. I have never seen this pattern before.

/ sarc


‘Night boys.

301 swamprat  Sun, Oct 25, 2009 2:08:34pm

re: #295 Purpendicular


I doubt you have “looked up” or thought about any of these points. A better bet is that you have some website that is spoon feeding you talking points. And By the way, plagues and diseases are normally associated with warmer weather.

302 swamprat  Sun, Oct 25, 2009 2:09:33pm

Teh stupid, it burns.

303 alethalpunk  Sun, Oct 25, 2009 11:14:52pm

Swampre: #297 swamprat

SwampRat,

I am in total agreement with you that we are screwing up our atmosphere by spewing out millions of tons of pollution, excluding CO2, that needs to be controlled and/or reduced. However, I do not believe that our minute contribution to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is cause for concern regarding climate change.

As far a being paranoid, I believe the AGW believers are the paranoid ones. People are waking up to their lies and fewer people are taking them seriously so they are beginning to sound shrill and panicked.

304 Purpendicular  Mon, Oct 26, 2009 12:54:34am

I wish life was so easy that there were ready made talking points.

With regards to the plague, I see that some people believe that warm and wet weather favors the plague.

However, at the beginning of the year I read Rosen’s Justinian’s Flea that I thoroughly enjoyed. The book is a mixture of advanced popular science and history. You will see that some reviewers found it too difficult, but they seem to have missed some of the product description.

You get deeper insights into the arms of the plague bacterium than you might wish.

Rosen argues that wet and cold weather favored the plague, in particular the Yersinia pestis-flea-rat cycle. The plague arrived in the Roman empire (Byzantium we now say, but they thought they were Roman at the time) in 541. Up until 700 it wiped out 50-60% of Europe’s population. It completely disappeared after 750.

Rosen then goes on to state that the plague, combined with a few other factors, for example that the Romans and the Persians were smashing each other to pulp at the same time essentially turned the Middle East and North Africa desolate and ripe for the picking when the Arabs arrived. The Arabian peninsula was spared the plague because the Yersinia pestis-flea-rat store of decease cannot maintain itself there.

I read Rosen’s book together with the Great Arab Conquests and the two complement each other very nicely.

The Black Death arrived in Western Europe in 1348 and killed maybe a third of the population. Europe then suffered repeated outbreaks of plague, the last large one was Marseille in 1720. Stockholm lost 1/3 of the population just before then, Helsinki 2/3.

It could be a coincidence of course, like many things are, but the time of the plague coincides with (was believed…) cooler climate after the fall of the Roman empire. It then disappears during the Medieval warm period, and comes back with a vengeance during the Little Ice Age.

305 Purpendicular  Mon, Oct 26, 2009 2:45:08am

Another thing:

I thought this was an “Anti-idiotarian” site. And yet, freetoken, swamprat and others divide the world up into two major camps:

1) Themselves, where reason reigns.

2) Their opponents who are mindless parrots, endlessly repeating “talking points”.

In #301 swamprat writes:

I doubt you have “looked up” or thought about any of these points. A better bet is that you have some website that is spoon feeding you talking points.

This, and the deluge of web links instead of answers, remind me of the Koran. My own copy is in French, but here is a quote from the web that restates the argument of freetoken, swamprat and a few others:

Ta Ha

1. [20.133] And they say: Why does he not bring to us a sign from his Lord? Has not there come to them a clear evidence of what is in the previous books?

It would thus appear that not only alethalpunk and myself are following old script(ure)s in our argumentations.

306 alethalpunk  Mon, Oct 26, 2009 6:17:48am

Am I truly being paranoid about AGW being a front for control, “One World Government”? Read for yourselves in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

unfccc.int

A Chuck Norris commentary found here,

wnd.com

points out several references to this “Global Governace”.

The UNFCCC document is 181 pages long, so it’s going to take me a few hours to read through it to verify what he point out in his article.

307 Boyo  Mon, Oct 26, 2009 6:20:05am

re: #306 alethalpunk

Am I truly being paranoid about AGW being a front for control, “One World Government”? Read for yourselves in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

[Link: unfccc.int…]

A Chuck Norris commentary found here,

[Link: www.wnd.com…]

points out several references to this “Global Governace”.

The UNFCCC document is 181 pages long, so it’s going to take me a few hours to read through it to verify what he point out in his article.

why yes,you are being paranoid.

308 MinisterO  Mon, Oct 26, 2009 8:02:01am

DenialDepot brilliantly explains the sleeper’s sophisticated philosophy:


We stand unimpressed by “textbooks”, “peer review journals” and so-called “facts”. There are no facts, just dissenting opinion. We are infinitely small compared to nature and can’t grasp anything as certain as a fact.

Nothing is settled and we should question everything. The debate is NOT over Gore! When so-called “experts” in their “peer reviewed journals” say one thing, we dare the impossible and find imaginative ways to believe something else entirely.

309 Purpendicular  Mon, Oct 26, 2009 9:26:59am

OK, you guys, you made me google. There are some good sites out there.

Found this link today The Kaufman Corrigendum. Turns out that the AGW proponents turned some Finnish data upside down (and conveniently trunkated it), and the original authors were not impressed. Looks like good peer reviewing to me. Not in the original journal, mind you, but in the best Fauxtography tradition of the LGF.

As you are filled with reason, pure at heart and incorruptible, I guess a swarm of small snafus like that are unfortunate mistakes that do not matter.

It is us, the unthinking mass of opponents, paid by the oil industry, mad with greed that have to be fought.

310 MinisterO  Mon, Oct 26, 2009 11:06:04am

re: #309 Purpendicular

Nice choices of reading material. Garbage in, garbage out.

311 alethalpunk  Mon, Oct 26, 2009 12:01:32pm

re: #310 MinisterO

Typical of AGW believers. Don’t like the messenger or the truth so be dismissive of both without first checking it out for themselves.

More info about a new “World Government” that may result from the global environmental conference in Copenhagen this December and more evidence to make AGW believers uncomfortable about the lies they spread can be found here at the website for Science and Environmental Policy Project.

sepp.org

312 MinisterO  Mon, Oct 26, 2009 1:19:30pm

re: #306 alethalpunk

A Chuck Norris commentary found here

You’re priceless!


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 125 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 287 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1