Gibbs: Climategate is ‘Silly’

Environment • Views: 1,744

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs hit the nail directly on the head in a statement about the phony “Climategate” scandal: Climate-gate global warming doubts ‘silly’.

WASHINGTON - The White House on Monday dismissed as “silly” the notion that global warming science had been compromised by emails exposing a row between top climate scientists. …

“I think everybody is clear on the science,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters.

“I think scientists are clear on the science. I think many on Capitol Hill are clear on the science. I think that this notion that there is some debate … on the science is kind of silly.”

He’s right. The only reason the climate change denial industry is working so hard to promote the false idea that there’s a “debate” going on in the scientific community is to cast doubt and spread confusion among the public.

No scientific theory is ever considered to be “100% certain.” But suppose you were about to take a flight, and a mechanic told you that there was a 95%+ chance that the airplane would crash. Would you just get on the plane anyway?

That’s exactly the situation we’re in with human-caused global warming. The scientific consensus is overwhelming, and it’s supported by mountains of data from multiple sources, all of it in agreement. Does it make sense to say that because we don’t have absolute certainty, we should just sit back and do nothing — and let the problem get worse and worse until it’s too late to do anything about it?

Jump to bottom

419 comments
1 AK-47%  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:12:12am

"But suppose you were about to take a flight, and a mechanic told you that there was a 95%+ chance that the airplane would crash. Would you just get on the plane anyway?"

But what if it was a free ticket to Tahiti with a planeload of hula girls? Would you not be willling to take that chance?

2 Kragar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:13:07am

What I find interesting is how many law and order, personal privacy types seem to find nothing wrong with the case of felony computer hacking that led to this whole incident in the first place. Very telling.

3 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:14:08am

re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What I find interesting is how many law and order, personal privacy types seem to find nothing wrong with the case of felony computer hacking that led to this whole incident in the first place. Very telling.

Indeed. And they're often the same ones who screamed their heads off when Sarah Palin's email was broken into.

4 Randall Gross  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:14:09am

The fauxtrage is getting neck deep on the right.

5 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:14:53am

re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What I find interesting is how many law and order, personal privacy types seem to find nothing wrong with the case of felony computer hacking that led to this whole incident in the first place. Very telling.

Support the cause, ignore the methods.

Seems to be a running theme nowadays...

6 shutdown  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:15:28am

re: #3 Charles

Indeed. And they're often the same ones who screamed their heads off when Sarah Palin's email was broken into.

I cannot even muster low level surprise at this standard, everyday political hypocrisy. Can you?

7 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:17:24am

re: #3 Charles

Indeed. And they're often the same ones who screamed their heads off when Sarah Palin's email was broken into.

Ironically enough, it's the same attitude that they condemn so often in the Left: "When a leftist politician has a scandal, nobody cares, but when a Republican gets in trouble, it's big news!" Well, now the shoe is on the other foot, so STFD and STFU. Or rather, you SHOULD be speaking out against both incidents.

8 brookly red  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:17:48am

What is the deal with this "Danish text" stuff, I don't understand any of it...

9 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:17:52am
The only reason the climate change denial industry is working so hard to promote the false idea that there’s a “debate” going on in the scientific community is to cast doubt and spread confusion among the public.

That's the same thing the discovery institute does with evolution and intelligent design. They gin up a false sense of controversy to obfuscate the science, and then try to hoodwink people with flat out distortions of the issue.

I re-watched the Crock of the Week regarding 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' last night, and I was stunned by the number of talking points debunked in this 8 minute video that we still see bantered about on LGF threads. The end of the video is particularly shocking. If you haven't watched the video, please do so.

Youtube Video
10 KenJen  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:18:41am

Gibbs said something that made sense?

11 SteveMcG  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:19:06am

I'm not convinced climate changed is man made, but even I don't believe we can go on as if there's no consequence. It's like oil. We have plenty now, but surely the day will come when we run out. And all hell will break loose long before the wells actually run dry.

12 abbyadams  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:20:53am

It's much easier to scream "Al Gore is a hypocrite" and do nothing.

I mean, really. I agree, Al Gore is a hypocrite...but how does that do anything to solve the problem?

13 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:22:58am
Does it make sense to say that because we don’t have absolute certainty, we should just sit back and do nothing — and let the problem get worse and worse until it’s too late to do anything about it?

That seems to be the Copenhagen plan.

14 Lightspeed  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:23:35am

"But suppose you were about to take a flight, and a mechanic told you that there was a 95%+ chance that the airplane would crash. Would you just get on the plane anyway?"

Poor analogy. Flip it:

"But suppose you were about to take a flight, and a mechanic told you that there was a 95%+ chance that the airplane won't crash. Would you just get on the plane anyway?"

Just sayin'.

15 recusancy  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:24:42am

re: #14 Lightspeed

"But suppose you were about to take a flight, and a mechanic told you that there was a 95%+ chance that the airplane would crash. Would you just get on the plane anyway?"

Poor analogy. Flip it:

"But suppose you were about to take a flight, and a mechanic told you that there was a 95%+ chance that the airplane won't crash. Would you just get on the plane anyway?"

Just sayin'.

95% of scientists say we're gonna crash.

16 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:25:19am

re: #14 Lightspeed

"But suppose you were about to take a flight, and a mechanic told you that there was a 95%+ chance that the airplane would crash. Would you just get on the plane anyway?"

Poor analogy. Flip it:

"But suppose you were about to take a flight, and a mechanic told you that there was a 95%+ chance that the airplane won't crash. Would you just get on the plane anyway?"

Just sayin'.

That makes no sense at all.

17 reine.de.tout  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:26:02am

re: #10 KenJen

Gibbs said something that made sense?

LOL
I "retweeted" this; but I'll be honest, the fact that it's Gibbs' name up there gave me pause.

18 Kragar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:26:06am

re: #13 Cato the Elder

That seems to be the Copenhagen plan.

Sounds about the same as the US plan for our dependence on foreign oil.

19 badger1970  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:26:09am

re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

..or invasion of privacy of Joe the Plumber.

On the climate itself what should be done outside of paying for penance? Prevalent Attitude?

The sculpture represents an overweight Lady Justice figurine, symbolizing the rich industrialized world, sitting on the back of a thin worn-out African man

20 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:26:27am

re: #15 recusancy

95% of scientists say we're gonna crash.

in 100 years.

21 AK-47%  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:26:42am

re: #16 Charles

That makes no sense at all.

And what about those hula girls?

22 bosforus  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:27:05am

Here's something to chew on - even if 5% was intentionally withheld.
I just generated in Excel 950 random "temperatures" between 30 and 100 degrees. As you might guess, the average temperature was near 75 degrees (75.55053 to be exact). If the "withheld 5%" were 50 measurements of 30 degrees it drops the average temperature by 2 degrees.
Make of it what you will.

23 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:27:25am

One of the worst problems with the propaganda (denier and doomsday) is that it prevents constructive discussions about what we should do about it. That is where I worry. Tracking carbon and paying sin taxes will fail were subsidizing and encouraging cleaner technology and modernized infrastructure in emerging as well as developed economies.

Too much blame, not enough cooperation.

24 darthstar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:27:34am

re: #14 Lightspeed

re: "Poor analogy. Flip it:"

The problem isn't a matter of flipping the analogy. The problem is that the planet is getting hotter. What you're saying is, "Let's pretend global warming deniers aren't talking out their ass for a minute...and that all the research and science is wrong." No, pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make the problem go away.

25 darthstar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:28:19am

re: #20 rwdflynavy

Which is great if you hate your kids and hope their kids and grandkids suffer as a result.

26 Lightspeed  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:28:48am

re: #16 Charles

If 95% represents AGW, in the first example you side with AGW, in the second, you don't.

27 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:28:51am

re: #25 darthstar

Which is great if you hate your kids and hope their kids and grandkids suffer as a result.

Just trying to match the poor analogy to the facts.

28 Jeff In Ohio  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:29:23am

re: #7 thedopefishlives

How'd that work out for Bill Clinton?

29 badger1970  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:29:29am

re: #20 rwdflynavy

Would you feel comfortable building your house in a 100 year flood plain? A 200 year? A 500 year?

30 bosforus  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:29:30am

re: #22 bosforus

The terms "Alternate Hypothesis" and "Null Hypothesis" come to mind. How many data points are needed in this case to determine statistical insignificance?

31 brookly red  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:30:10am

re: #21 ralphieboy

And what about those hula girls?

/the ones who brought parachutes as carry ons?

32 Lightspeed  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:30:13am

re: #24 darthstar

re: "Poor analogy. Flip it:"

The problem isn't a matter of flipping the analogy. The problem is that the planet is getting hotter. What you're saying is, "Let's pretend global warming deniers aren't talking out their ass for a minute...and that all the research and science is wrong." No, pretending there isn't a problem doesn't make the problem go away.

Gee, I didn't say any of that, you did. I pointed out what I thought to be a poor way of making a point.

33 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:30:34am

re: #29 badger1970

Would you feel comfortable building your house in a 100 year flood plain? A 200 year? A 500 year?

I live in Florida. I know all about flooding! My point was that the analogy was pretty poor. The flight isn't going to crash today.

34 darthstar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:30:36am

re: #19 badger1970

..or invasion of privacy of Joe the Plumber.

That's what we need! (not)Joe the (not)Plumber...I'm surprised Wolf Blitzer hasn't asked for an exclusive with him yet. Did his 15 minutes of fame finally end?

Great link, by the way...making a copy of that pic.

35 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:30:45am

re: #20 rwdflynavy

in 100 years.

Wrong.

36 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:31:09am

re: #35 Charles

Wrong.


When is the crash?

37 darthstar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:31:27am

re: #32 Lightspeed

Gee, I didn't say any of that, you did. I pointed out what I thought to be a poor way of making a point.

Maybe I misunderstood you.

38 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:31:38am

As I mentioned on an earlier thread, the NYT reports that the Saudis' and other oil ticks' major worry about global warming is that they want to be compensated for any revenue loss attendant upon the world reducing its dependence on petroleum.

Like a whiskey magnate expecting alcoholics who sober up to pay him for the booze they no longer drink.

There is no end to the funny in this world.

39 badger1970  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:33:09am

re: #33 rwdflynavy

I didn't mean to get snippy. Sorry.

40 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:33:13am

re: #38 Cato the Elder


Like a whiskey magnate expecting alcoholics who sober up to pay him for the booze they no longer drink.

Screw that!!
/

41 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:33:53am

re: #39 badger1970

I didn't mean to get snippy. Sorry.

No sweat, just pay my flood insurance premium for me and all is forgiven ; )

42 son of a son  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:34:03am

My guess is that 'silly' is not the right term. It is more like 'dangerous'.

43 Kragar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:34:12am

re: #38 Cato the Elder

As I mentioned on an earlier thread, the NYT reports that the Saudis' and other oil ticks' major worry about global warming is that they want to be compensated for any revenue loss attendant upon the world reducing its dependence on petroleum.

Like a whiskey magnate expecting alcoholics who sober up to pay him for the booze they no longer drink.

There is no end to the funny in this world.

And why shouldn't they? Whats another bailout between friends?

///

44 badger1970  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:34:14am

re: #38 Cato the Elder

It's called tobacco farm subsidies, oh wait.

45 Racer X  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:34:15am

Regardless of the reality of AGW (I now believe it to be real), I am all for denying the Saudis, and others, revenue from their oil sales. The only way to accomplish this in the short term is nuclear power. No one disputes this.

Why are we not building 3 new nuke plants a week here in the U.S.?

46 Gordon Marock  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:34:22am

Sorry, Charles, I am a skeptic on AGW. I believe that humans have an impact on the environment. I believe that we must develop alternative energy sources to survive in the long run. I believe that energy conservation makes sense. However, I don't see any reliable evidence or studies that prove warming trends are caused by CO2 emissions, and even if they do, what the measurable effects are.

47 recusancy  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:34:22am

re: #33 rwdflynavy

I live in Florida. I know all about flooding! My point was that the analogy was pretty poor. The flight isn't going to crash today.

It's a flight none the less. And there's a 95% chance it crashes before we get off.

48 cliffster  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:35:00am

It became too late to do anything about it the day Mankind discovered fire.

49 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:35:33am

re: #36 rwdflynavy

When is the crash?

I don't know what you mean by "the crash."

If you're asking when the tipping point occurs when it will be too late to reverse the effects of AGW, there are different projections based on different scenarios. Some scientists believe the tipping point could come as early as the next decade.

It's not possible to be absolutely certain about it. But it is possible to be more than 90% certain that unless we start to deal with the issue we're going to be in big trouble.

50 Kragar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:36:16am

re: #48 cliffster

It became too late to do anything about it the day Mankind discovered fire.

Sure, blame the Piltdown man.

51 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:36:59am

re: #45 Racer X

I'd settle for 1 new nuclear plant every month. But we're not even getting that. NIMBY, costs, and the eco-left insisting on denying the one energy source that can provide reliable emission free power 24/7/365.

52 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:37:04am

re: #49 Charles

I don't know what you mean by "the crash."

If you're asking when the tipping point occurs when it will be too late to reverse the effects of AGW, there are different projections based on different scenarios. Some scientists believe the tipping point could come as early as the next decade.

It's not possible to be absolutely certain about it. But it is possible to be more than 90% certain that unless we start to deal with the issue we're going to be in big trouble.

Charles, I was playing off the 95% chance the flight will crash poor analogy. My point is that the flight isn't crashing today. I am not arguing about the reality of climate change.

53 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:37:18am

re: #29 badger1970

Would you feel comfortable building your house in a 100 year flood plain? A 200 year? A 500 year?

How much will the government subsidize my mortgage in each zone? /

54 badger1970  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:37:38am

re: #49 Charles

So will the proposed reductions of CO2 and time tables being proposed negotiated in Copenhagen make any difference?

55 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:37:40am

re: #46 Gordon Marock

Sorry, Charles, I am a skeptic on AGW. I believe that humans have an impact on the environment. I believe that we must develop alternative energy sources to survive in the long run. I believe that energy conservation makes sense. However, I don't see any reliable evidence or studies that prove warming trends are caused by CO2 emissions, and even if they do, what the measurable effects are.

Oh, good grief. If you "don't see any reliable evidence" it's because you're getting all your information from climate change deniers. There is a mountain of scientific evidence. It's not hard to find.

You could start here if you're really interested in learning about the subject:

[Link: www.aip.org...]

56 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:39:57am

re: #50 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Sure, blame the Piltdown man.

White European Male. /

57 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:40:50am

re: #54 badger1970

So will the proposed reductions of CO2 and time tables being proposed negotiated in Copenhagen make any difference?

No, probably not much of a difference. But the important thing is to make a start at realistically discussing the issue. It's not going to be solved with one conference.

58 cliffster  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:41:46am

re: #55 Charles

"Courage is not a man with a gun in his hand. It's knowing you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do."
- Atticus Finch, To Kill a Mockingbird

59 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:42:20am

re: #46 Gordon Marock

However, I don't see any reliable evidence or studies that prove warming trends are caused by CO2 emissions, and even if they do, what the measurable effects are.

We believe you don't see. No need to say so.

60 badger1970  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:43:56am

re: #57 Charles

Agreed.

It's not the messenger but the message (I just wished they were a little more green when arriving).

61 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:44:25am

re: #51 lawhawk

Is it physically feasible to build nuke plants that quickly?

Who would fund that, and how much would it cost?

I fully support nuclear power as part of the solution. I do not feel it is the magic bullet it is often presented as.

62 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:44:47am

re: #53 DaddyG

They'll subsidize your flood insurance, but not your mortgage.

And if the ocean levels increase as projected, the number of people who require flood insurance will skyrocket, and should force the elimination of development in those areas - namely pretty much the entire Eastern Seaboard and all coastal development. Large parts of NYC would be underwater under these scenarios, and so would all of its infrastructure. The subways would be submerged. A hurricane surge would be catastrophic.

And there are scientists claiming that no matter what is accomplished at Copenhagen, the sea levels will rise sufficiently to inundate coastal regions.

63 Locker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:45:16am

re: #57 Charles

No, probably not much of a difference. But the important thing is to make a start at realistically discussing the issue. It's not going to be solved with one conference.

I agree completely. You have to start and you have to try. Waiting for everything to be perfect before you even begin is a sure sign of analysis-paralysis.

64 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:45:42am

re: #61 Obdicut

Is it physically feasible to build nuke plants that quickly?

Who would fund that, and how much would it cost?

I fully support nuclear power as part of the solution. I do not feel it is the magic bullet it is often presented as.

Florida Power and Light is hoping to start on one in a couple years. And they already upped our rates, although just a bit for now.

65 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:45:56am

On the OP, there is an analogous issue where we are also doing essentially nothing so far, and this one is perhaps even more certain and the effects more certain, than AGW. The only problem is we don't know if it will be tomorrow or in the next millennium. What, me worry?

Meteor. "Little" one on a major city.

66 Gordon Marock  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:46:11am

re: #59 Naso Tang

We believe you don't see. No need to say so.

I just think the system is too complex for the level of certainty some hold. I will wait and see.

67 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:46:48am

My fear with these conferences is that the unintended (or even intended) consequences of the proposed solutions will lead to wealth distribution schemes, economic indulgences and other bad ideas. Taxing and distributing blame won't solve the issue. Encouraging cleaner develpment faster will. There is no "going back" only forward and vilifying the west while allowing the developing nations to ignore the consequences will have devistating effects on the very economies where the potential solutions are likely to come from.

Perhaps this isn't even the right thread to discuss this. I'm so far beyond the debate of "if" global warming exists and even "if" mankind is to blame for excess CO2 and other pollutants. We are- how much and when and who is to blame doesn't really matter as much as what can we do about it now.

68 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:47:44am

re: #61 Obdicut

Is it physically feasible to build nuke plants that quickly?

Who would fund that, and how much would it cost?

I fully support nuclear power as part of the solution. I do not feel it is the magic bullet it is often presented as.

We can contract with the French. :-D

69 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:48:42am

re: #61 Obdicut

Is it physically feasible to build nuke plants that quickly?

Who would fund that, and how much would it cost?

I fully support nuclear power as part of the solution. I do not feel it is the magic bullet it is often presented as.

The $1Trillion stimulus might have funded a couple...

70 abbyadams  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:48:46am

re: #61 Obdicut

Agreed. It's "better" than fossil fuels, but IMO, it's trading the environmental and security issues that we have now for another set of environmental and security issues.

We should be improving solar/wind power, and focusing on innovation of other new, safe technologies.

71 Gordon Marock  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:49:00am

re: #67 DaddyG

I agree with Daddy G. It is rational to take steps to reduce emissions and seek alternative energy sources, but the idea of some 'tipping point' or catastrophe is not realistic.

72 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:49:11am

re: #66 Gordon Marock

I just think the system is too complex for the level of certainty some hold. I will wait and see.

How can you possibly take that position? You must change everything about your life, now, or your grandchildren will curse you.

Start by buying hempen clothes.

73 Racer X  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:49:16am

re: #51 lawhawk

I'd settle for 1 new nuclear plant every month. But we're not even getting that. NIMBY, costs, and the eco-left insisting on denying the one energy source that can provide reliable emission free power 24/7/365.

Yet they are the ones wringing their hands over climate change.

Can you imagine the number of jobs Obama could create by announcing a major nuclear power initiative?

74 cliffster  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:49:37am

re: #67 DaddyG

Why, because of stuff like this?

The existing "stock" of greenhouse gas emissions owes a great deal to the past actions of the United States, and many people think that the United States should do a great deal to reduce a problem for which it is largely responsible. But there are serious difficulties with both of these arguments. Redistribution from the United States to poor people in poor nations might well be desirable, but if so, expenditures on greenhouse gas reductions are a crude means of producing that redistribution: It would be much better to give cash payments directly to people who are now poor.

75 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:49:50am

re: #38 Cato the Elder

As I mentioned on an earlier thread, the NYT reports that the Saudis' and other oil ticks' major worry about global warming is that they want to be compensated for any revenue loss attendant upon the world reducing its dependence on petroleum.

Like a whiskey magnate expecting alcoholics who sober up to pay him for the booze they no longer drink.

There is no end to the funny in this world.

That's like Bloomberg raising taxes on cigarettes in NYC in order to make people quit smoking, and then when people do quit smoking, he whines about the loss of revenue to the city.

76 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:49:59am

Reposted from an earlier thread:

If you think humanity as a whole can plan ahead, I've got an alternate history book to sell you.

In it, World War I never happened because the Great Powers saw the danger of interlocking alliances and fixed mobilization plans, and took steps to extricate themselves from the trap they had set. So there were no millions of dead in France and Flanders and Russia and Italy, and no worldwide depression to follow.

Therefore, there was never a Treaty of Versailles and thus no grievance in Germany for an obscure, failed artist named Schicklgruber to latch on to. Which meant that the Second World War was also avoided, and with it the atomic bomb. There was no USSR, so no Cold War.

And the people who saw the housing balloon for what it was received earnest attention, their warnings were heeded, and we do not now have 10%+ unemployment.

All because people are good at planning ahead.

77 recusancy  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:50:19am

re: #66 Gordon Marock

I just think the system is too complex for the level of certainty some hold. I will wait and see.

If you get cancer do you wait and see? Or do you treat it with the best known methods regardless of how little we can predict how the disease will progress because of it's complexity?

78 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:51:02am

re: #62 lawhawk

They'll subsidize your flood insurance, but not your mortgage.

And if the ocean levels increase as projected, the number of people who require flood insurance will skyrocket, and should force the elimination of development in those areas - namely pretty much the entire Eastern Seaboard and all coastal development. Large parts of NYC would be underwater under these scenarios, and so would all of its infrastructure. The subways would be submerged. A hurricane surge would be catastrophic.

And there are scientists claiming that no matter what is accomplished at Copenhagen, the sea levels will rise sufficiently to inundate coastal regions.

There are even worse scenarios. The massive social disruptions caused by flooding of low-lying areas, huge numbers of poor refugees, and destruction of shipping and ports could lead to major wars between the large powers, even nuclear wars.

Check out military analyst Gwynne Dyer's Climate Wars, for example.

If you really start to look into this issue, it can get more than a little depressing.

79 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:51:09am

re: #61 Obdicut

I fully support nuclear power as part of the solution. I do not feel it is the magic bullet it is often presented as.

I've posted many times before in favor of nuclear energy. It may not be the magic bullet, but the benefits more than outweigh the detriments, even if the cost is higher at the start.

80 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:51:10am

re: #73 Racer X

Yet they are the ones wringing their hands over climate change.

Can you imagine the number of jobs Obama could create by announcing a major nuclear power initiative?


Yes. Including the amount of people with new jobs in the court system for the lawsuits.

81 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:51:12am

re: #76 Cato the Elder

Humanity has, however, successfully planned ahead before, as well. So I'm not sure what your point is.

82 brookly red  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:51:29am

re: #75 Alouette

That's like Bloomberg raising taxes on cigarettes in NYC in order to make people quit smoking, and then when people do quit smoking, he whines about the loss of revenue to the city.

it's not everyday that you can see a black market spring up over night...

83 Gordon Marock  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:51:56am

re: #77 recusancy

If you get cancer do you wait and see? Or do you treat it with the best known methods regardless of how little we can predict how the disease will progress because of it's complexity?

I don't have cancer.

84 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:52:43am

re: #83 Gordon Marock

I don't have cancer.

If you did, you might feel differently about the flight to Fiji with a 95% chance of crashing!!
//

85 Gordon Marock  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:53:19am

re: #84 rwdflynavy

If you did, you might feel differently about the flight to Fiji with a 95% chance of crashing!!
//

true dat.

86 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:53:30am

re: #81 Obdicut

Humanity has, however, successfully planned ahead before, as well. So I'm not sure what your point is.

It's that indeterminacy of texts thing again.

87 badger1970  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:53:31am

re: #82 brookly red

Reminds of the truck scene in "Beverly Hills Cops"

88 Locker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:53:33am

My idea is to stimulate both the energy and space programs by pushing forward with Nuclear and using rocket technology to shoot the waste at the sun. Hey! It could happen! :)

89 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:53:37am

re: #67 DaddyG

My fear with these conferences is that the unintended (or even intended) consequences of the proposed solutions will lead to wealth distribution schemes, economic indulgences and other bad ideas.

I posted this on the overnight thread, but perhaps it should be linked here as well- a spinoff of mine from October:

India brings new hope to global climate negotiations

Most of the attention in the lead up to the December United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen has been focused on the United States and China—the two biggest annual emitters of greenhouse gases. But India may be the country that provides the necessary breakthrough in international negotiations to help developed and developing countries reach an agreement. Indian Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh is urging the Indian government to commit to action without the promise of financial and technological assistance, and subject its domestic efforts to international scrutiny. And this change of position could not come at a more critical time.

90 Racer X  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:53:58am

re: #73 Racer X

Yet they are the ones wringing their hands over climate change.

Can you imagine the number of jobs Obama could create by announcing a major nuclear power initiative?

re: #80 Cannadian Club Akbar

Yes. Including the amount of people with new jobs in the court system for the lawsuits.

*Throws hands in the air*

Then we're screwed.

Buh-bye. Game over.

Humans destroyed the planet because we were too afraid to take action.

91 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:53:58am

re: #84 rwdflynavy

If you did, you might feel differently about the flight to Fiji with a 95% chance of crashing!!
//

Fiji? I'll take my chances.
///

92 4Deuce  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:54:12am

What is truly silly is Gibbs himself - a yakking head paid to say to the press what he is told to say by WH handlers... Yet Gibbs manages to pull off this oral puppet show with a personal brand of ego-bloated arrogance that borders on the tragically comical.

Silly he says? That's funny, "Silly" is not the word I hear from the two PhDs (climate sciences and hydrology) who I exchange thoughts with on a frequent basis. In fact, the PhD hydrologist, himself an EPA employee, sees EPA's kidnapping of the CO2 issue as a final step in the dismantling of American liberties and a perfect example of political agendas superseding science - just as pie-in-the-sky Soviet 5 year Plans hijacked agriculture in the USSR.

That science has been manipulated, bastardized and politicized by people raking in huge sums of grant money in payment and exchange for their complicity in the hijacking of the scientific method is "silly" says Gibbs? Not at all silly in my mind - it is simply stating the obvious to me - as also to those who I know hold real scientific credentials and who know the topical matter AND the scientific method as practical scientists must.

93 Soap_Man  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:54:15am

"But suppose you were about to take a flight, and a mechanic told you that there was a 95%+ chance that the airplane would crash. Would you just get on the plane anyway?"

That's a great analogy. I had a conversation with my cousin about this and used the statistic I saw that 96 to 98 percent of climatologists believe in man-made global warming.

I said, "Say you went to see a bunch of doctors about a problem you were having. You were lucky enough to get the opinions of 20 doctors. 19 of them said you had a serious condition that needed immediate, and someone expensive, treatment or it would only get progressively worse. The last doctor said the other 19 were fools who are only in it for the money, there was nothing wrong with you and you could just ignore it. Who would you listen to?"

I know it's not a prefect analogy, but it was the best I could come up with off the top of my head. Obviously the point is that you should trust the experts to be the experts, especially when you have a poor grasp of the science yourself. The only reason you don't is because somebody who is not an expert — a politician or pundit — convinced you not to trust the experts.

She dismissed me outright, as she usually does.

94 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:54:31am

re: #91 Cannadian Club Akbar

Fiji? I'll take my chances.
///

they have great...water.

95 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:55:02am

We will never make progress on the world climate until we can solve the immenent problem of the exponential growth of hyperbole on the internet. /

96 Locker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:55:11am

re: #92 4Deuce

Step to the left. The line for your tinfoil hat starts over there.

97 recusancy  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:55:14am

re: #83 Gordon Marock

I don't have cancer.

Good for you. The earth does.

98 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:55:37am

re: #90 Racer X

I wasn't disagreeing with you...

99 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:55:44am

re: #92 4Deuce

When you say you're "4Deuce" does that mean you like the LGF Deuce stalker site better than this one?

100 Soap_Man  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:55:46am

re: #93 Soap_Man

19 of them said you had a serious condition that needed immediate, and someone somewhat expensive, treatment or it would only get progressively worse.

Fixed!

101 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:56:05am

re: #90 Racer X

*Throws hands in the air*

Then we're screwed.

Buh-bye. Game over.

Humans destroyed the planet because we were too afraid to take action.

Nah, the planet'll be fine.

102 bosforus  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:56:20am

re: #83 Gordon Marock

I don't have cancer.

[The conversation takes an unexpected twist.]
LOL

103 darthstar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:56:24am

re: #83 Gordon Marock

I don't have cancer.

...as far as you know. Does that mean you won't get scoped by your doctor? After all, most scopes don't find cancer in people, so what's the point in looking? And even if you found it, it's not like it'll kill you today, so what's the worry?

Wait...I'm talking to a wall...never mind.

104 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:56:31am

re: #97 recusancy

Good for you. The earth does.

If the earth has cancer, its name is "humans".

The only way to reliably reduce human effects on the planet is to drastically cut down on the number of humans.

You first.

105 abbyadams  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:56:43am

re: #101 JasonA

"The planet's not going anywhere - we are!" ~ George Carlin

106 Gordon Marock  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:56:57am

re: #97 recusancy

Good for you. The earth does.

That is the Earth's problem, not mine.

107 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:57:01am

re: #104 Cato the Elder

If the earth has cancer, its name is "humans".

The only way to reliably reduce human effects on the planet is to drastically cut down on the number of humans.

You first.

Taking the strawman to a new level of absurdity.

108 wrenchwench  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:57:11am

re: #92 4Deuce

sees EPA's kidnapping of the CO2 issue as a final step in the dismantling of American liberties

*begins to run around in circles, screaming*

Oh. wait.

What's that smell?

109 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:57:15am

re: #104 Cato the Elder

If the earth has cancer, its name is "humans".

The only way to reliably reduce human effects on the planet is to drastically cut down on the number of humans.

You first.

You sound just like Rush Limbaugh!!!
//

110 srjh  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:57:20am

re: #46 Gordon Marock

Sorry, Charles, I am a skeptic on AGW. I believe that humans have an impact on the environment. I believe that we must develop alternative energy sources to survive in the long run. I believe that energy conservation makes sense. However, I don't see any reliable evidence or studies that prove warming trends are caused by CO2 emissions, and even if they do, what the measurable effects are.

Then you're not looking.

The planet is certainly warming, and you seem to take this as a given (?), but doubt that man is responsible for that through CO2. The facts that point to us being responsible can be broken down into a few simple points:

1) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
1b) Increases in carbon dioxide increase the greenhouse effect (i.e. it's not saturated, as some denialists claim - this is relatively simple to prove with a plot of the CO2 infrared absorption spectrum).
2) Carbon dioxide levels are undeniably increasing at an unprecedented rate.
3) Humans are responsible for recent increases in CO2 levels.

Each of these facts is very, very solidly supported by the evidence, and clearly infer a human contribution to global warming.

How bad will it be? There is some uncertainty in the estimates, as with any scientific estimate - but the first approximation will be scary enough if we don't stop dumping CO2 into the atmosphere and most of the corrections due to feedback mechanisms (CO2 feedback, more water vapour greenhouse warming, less ice albedo cooling) make the situation worse rather than better.

Uncertainty in future temperatures has far more to do with political uncertainty of our response than scientific uncertainty in global warming.

111 badger1970  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:57:25am

re: #89 Sharmuta

Has India stuck to that position or changed in favor of the subsides?

112 bosforus  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:57:32am

re: #106 Gordon Marock

That is the Earth's problem, not mine.

You're just messing with us now, aren't you?

113 Locker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:57:38am

re: #104 Cato the Elder

If the earth has cancer, its name is "humans".

The only way to reliably reduce human effects on the planet is to drastically cut down on the number of humans.

You first.

I think the planet is currently working on that solution. If I was the planet I'd want a super-sized, mega box of RID to clear off the lice.

114 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:58:19am

Funny how so many of the most irrational deniers seem to have numerous friends who are climate scientists. If they're not PhD scientists themselves.

On the Internet everyone is a rocket scientist.

115 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:58:30am

re: #113 Locker

I think the planet is currently working on that solution. If I was the planet I'd want a super-sized, mega box of RID to clear off the lice.

I'm sure that there are many Earth First!ers who regret the relative mildness of the H1N1 "pandemic".

116 MrSilverDragon  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:58:31am

re: #101 JasonA

Nah, the planet'll be fine.

Said it before, will say it again. The planet will continue to spin and spin until the sun swallows it up during its death throes. The environment on the surface may not be, but the planet will be fine... unless the Death Star gets built soon... or maybe the giant Tesla coil.

117 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:58:52am

re: #107 thedopefishlives

Taking the strawman to a new level of absurdity.


Really? Real Live Straw Man

118 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:58:58am

re: #104 Cato the Elder

The only way to reliably reduce human effects on the planet is to drastically cut down on the number of humans.

This is untrue, Cato. If we changed from oil to a non-carbon form of energy production, we would reduce human effects on the planet.

119 Gordon Marock  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:59:00am

re: #103 darthstar

...as far as you know. Does that mean you won't get scoped by your doctor? After all, most scopes don't find cancer in people, so what's the point in looking? And even if you found it, it's not like it'll kill you today, so what's the worry?

Wait...I'm talking to a wall...never mind.

No, it means that if my doctor says I have an elevated PSA and recommends that I immediately have my prostate removed and start chemo, I am going to think it a bit drastic.

120 darthstar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:59:01am

re: #92 4Deuce

In fact, the PhD hydrologist, himself an EPA employee, sees EPA's kidnapping of the CO2 issue as a final step in the dismantling of American liberties and a perfect example of political agendas superseding science

It's amazing who manages to get hired sometimes, ain't it?

121 Samita  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:59:01am

If you plan to build 400 nuke plants.. the first ones costing $4B and costs coming down to $1B though mass production efficiencies. Average cost of $2B per plant... that $800B...

How much have we spent making sure our oil supply is safe recently?

How many jobs created here?

How many Energy $ stay in the country instead of funding hostile regimes.

I've been a denier for a while, but I agree on the above.. get some local production online. These threads and this scandal had me looking into it again, and I do believe I've flipped at least to the OK... let's talk about it's truly warming and stuff...

The lack of leadership on energy in this country is horrendous.

122 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:59:02am

re: #113 Locker

I think the planet is currently working on that solution. If I was the planet I'd want a super-sized, mega box of RID to clear off the lice.

Gaia worship!//

123 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:59:36am

re: #114 Charles

Funny how so many of the most irrational deniers seem to have numerous friends who are climate scientists. If they're not PhD scientists themselves.

On the Internet everyone is a rocket scientist.

A lot of PhD's in Bullshitology going around these days.

124 Locker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 11:59:47am

re: #115 Cato the Elder

I'm sure that there are many Earth First!ers who regret the relative mildness of the H1N1 "pandemic".

I haven't really heard of them before but just the use, in context, makes me scared to even google the term. I instantly had an image from "12 Monkeys" of the guy getting on the plane to distributed lethal virus' all over the world.

125 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:00:32pm

re: #113 Locker

I think the planet is currently working on that solution. If I was the planet I'd want a super-sized, mega box of RID to clear off the lice.


Please don't equate humans with lice. I hope you were missing a sarc tag.

126 badger1970  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:00:33pm

re: #113 Locker

I'm sorry but comparing the current leaders of the evolution race as lice is just out there. The Earth's ecosystem allowed humans therefore, it's its problem. //

127 Locker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:00:46pm

re: #118 Obdicut

This is untrue, Cato. If we changed from oil to a non-carbon form of energy production, we would reduce human effects on the planet.

Well he did say "effects" and it sure seems like we are having a lot more negative effect on this planet than just global warming.

128 darthstar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:01:23pm

re: #114 Charles


On the Internet everyone is a rocket scientist.

Not me...on the internet I'm an 86 year old nun who also happens to be a champion dwarf-tosser.

129 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:01:33pm

re: #126 badger1970

I'm sorry but comparing the current leaders of the evolution race as lice is just out there. The Earth's ecosystem allowed humans therefore, it's its problem. //

Yeah, I think we're such a success that we'll end up as a failure. And it really is in our nature. Ah well.

130 badger1970  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:02:04pm

re: #127 Locker

Read "A Pale Blue Dot" then come back if you're going in the direction of population reduction.

131 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:02:50pm

re: #128 darthstar

Not me...on the internet I'm an 86 year old nun who also happens to be a champion dwarf-tosser.

And I'm an ancient Roman who eats monkey brains for breakfast.

132 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:03:04pm

re: #130 badger1970

Read "A Pale Blue Dot" then come back if you're going in the direction of population reduction.

I concur. The whole population explosion silliness is right up there with the 70's ice age a-comin silliness.

133 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:03:07pm

re: #127 Locker

There are no negative effects from the perspective of the planet. The planet doesn't care what it's like. It's not a sentient entity.

Humans should care that the planet stays within environmental conditions conducive to human civilization. The planet couldn't give a shit.

We can reduce and alter our effects on the planet, mainly through adaptation of technology. We can't entirely negate them, but that's hardly the same thing.

134 darthstar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:03:13pm

re: #119 Gordon Marock

Nobody's trying to remove the earth's prostate. They're just trying to get us to cut back on our crappy diet of fossil fuels.

135 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:03:39pm

re: #131 Cato the Elder

And I'm an ancient Roman who eats monkey brains for breakfast.


I've always been a fan of Pliny the elder, since he discovered hops!

136 enoughalready  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:03:55pm

1: Nuclear power is not a solution (although thorium would be a nice to have kind of thing) since it is pretty damn far from renewable
2: Yes. That means that investing tons of money in nuclear plants is at this point what kids would refer to as "stupid", "dumb" or even "obtuse". (Yes, I know, the kids today)
3: No, the world doesn't magically regrow uranium.
4: No, it doesn't magically make more oil either.

137 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:03:56pm

re: #125 DaddyG

Please don't equate humans with lice. I hope you were missing a sarc tag.

Lice Capades!

138 cliffster  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:04:10pm

re: #97 recusancy

Good for you. The earth does.

Actually, I promise you the earth really doesn't care what we do. It'll keep on truckin' along no matter what we do. We might even get a few new species out of it if we do raise temperatures and wipe out civilization.

139 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:04:29pm

re: #128 darthstar

Not me...on the internet I'm an 86 year old nun who also happens to be a champion dwarf-tosser.

I'm an 86 year old dwarf who also happens to be a champion nun-tosser.

140 Locker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:04:48pm

re: #126 badger1970

I'm sorry but comparing the current leaders of the evolution race as lice is just out there. The Earth's ecosystem allowed humans therefore, it's its problem. //

I tried using that argument during the Prop 8 battle here in CA. Basically if God is omnipotent and infallible then how can you criticize or hate gay folks. Blame God, he's the problem!

141 recusancy  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:04:54pm

When people say that the atmosphere is too big and we're arrogant to think we could have an effect on it just take a look at this picture or any like it. That thin layer is all we have to live in.

142 Gus  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:05:01pm

re: #134 darthstar

Nobody's trying to remove the earth's prostate. They're just trying to get us to cut back on our crappy diet of fossil fuels.

It's going to try and quit smoking.

Meanwhile, the Heartland Institute is telling them that they don't need to quit smoking because tobacco is harmless.

143 Gordon Marock  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:05:09pm

re: #134 darthstar

Nobody's trying to remove the earth's prostate. They're just trying to get us to cut back on our crappy diet of fossil fuels.

That is all well and good. However, the people proposing to be in charge of the 'save the earth' carbon three card monty don't instill any confidence in me.

144 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:05:12pm

re: #138 cliffster

Actually, I promise you the earth really doesn't care what we do. It'll keep on truckin' along no matter what we do. We might even get a few new species out of it if we do raise temperatures and wipe out civilization.

I'm hoping for squid-men, because I bet they'd have awesome musical instruments.

145 Locker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:05:16pm

re: #125 DaddyG

Please don't equate humans with lice. I hope you were missing a sarc tag.

When we stop acting like lice I'll stop equating.

146 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:05:17pm

re: #111 badger1970

Has India stuck to that position or changed in favor of the subsides?

That's a good question, and I used google to find an answer:

Carbon intensity cuts not under pressure: Saran

Critics have said that India announced recent carbon intensity cuts only in response to pressure from developed countries. But Saran, who will be returning to India on Thursday to brief Singh on the latest developments at the conference, said the cuts had nothing to do with international pressure, but were part of India’s larger domestic vision for low-carbon intensity growth.

If India meets the objectives laid out in the NAPCC it will be able to reduce its carbon intensity by 20 to 25 per cent by 2020, Saran said.

Saran ruled out binding emissions cuts. “We cannot allow our growth to be jeopardised. It is a question of providing electricity to 400 million Indians.”

147 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:05:32pm

re: #127 Locker

Well he did say "effects" and it sure seems like we are having a lot more negative effect on this planet than just global warming.


I would say the emergence of a space faring sentient life form is worth some of the cost. The trick is making good use of the resources we are blessed with and not crapping in our own lunch pail.

148 badger1970  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:06:35pm

Was that the Discovery channel a few years back had giant land walking squid as proposed future evolutionary success?

149 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:06:50pm

re: #133 Obdicut

The planet doesn't care what it's like. It's not a sentient entity.

There is a Ms. Gaia here to speak with you... and she looks pissed. /

150 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:06:50pm

re: #132 rwdflynavy

I concur. The whole population explosion silliness is right up there with the 70's ice age a-comin silliness.

Well speaking of population explosion, my 24th grandkid (who looks astonishingly like Eric Cartman) was named David, following the "ritual mutilation" of his sex organ.

/it's an ancient Zionist tradition

151 cliffster  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:06:56pm

re: #141 recusancy

When people say that the atmosphere is too big and we're arrogant to think we could have an effect on it just take a look at this picture or any like it. That thin layer is all we have to live in.

Wow, that's really cool I can do all my shopping from home. Where did you find it?

152 Locker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:07:17pm

re: #133 Obdicut

There are no negative effects from the perspective of the planet. The planet doesn't care what it's like. It's not a sentient entity.

Humans should care that the planet stays within environmental conditions conducive to human civilization. The planet couldn't give a shit.

We can reduce and alter our effects on the planet, mainly through adaptation of technology. We can't entirely negate them, but that's hardly the same thing.

Agreed. Effect on the planet should have been effect on a suitable environment for humans on the planet. Definitely not the same thing but I'm sure you know what I meant.

153 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:07:17pm

re: #147 DaddyG

I would say the emergence of a space faring sentient life form is worth some of the cost. The trick is making good use of the resources we are blessed with and not crapping in our own lunch pail.

Little late for that, no?

154 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:07:36pm

re: #150 Alouette

Well speaking of population explosion, my 24th grandkid (who looks astonishingly like Eric Cartman) was named David, following the "ritual mutilation" of his sex organ.

/it's an ancient Zionist tradition

congrats!!

155 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:07:50pm

re: #141 recusancy

When people say that the atmosphere is too big and we're arrogant to think we could have an effect on it just take a look at this picture or any like it. That thin layer is all we have to live in.

They don't like hotlinkers, do they?

156 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:08:00pm

re: #150 Alouette

Good for you!!! My regards to the boy and his junk.:(

157 Neutral President  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:08:09pm

re: #123 JasonA

A lot of PhD's in Bullshitology going around these days.

"That's the beauty of college these days. You can major in GameBoy if you know how to bullshit."

158 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:08:16pm

re: #152 Locker

I do think it's important to make the distinction, because it drives home that we're being self-destructive, not planet-destructive.

159 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:09:25pm

re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What I find interesting is how many law and order, personal privacy types seem to find nothing wrong with the case of felony computer hacking that led to this whole incident in the first place. Very telling.

Partisan morality is no morality at all.

160 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:09:28pm

re: #157 ArchangelMichael

"That's the beauty of college these days. You can major in GameBoy if you know how to bullshit."

Meh. I could get a 4.0 without any BS.

161 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:09:34pm

Here's that picture -- they're blocking outside referrals, but you can get around it by using a link shortener:

[Link: bit.ly...]

162 Gordon Marock  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:09:36pm

re: #158 Obdicut

I do think it's important to make the distinction, because it drives home that we're being self-destructive, not planet-destructive.

Carbon doesn't kill planets, people kill planets. If we outlaw carbon, only outlaws will have carbon.

163 Locker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:09:41pm

re: #158 Obdicut

I do think it's important to make the distinction, because it drives home that we're being self-destructive, not planet-destructive.

You are correct. My mistake for the quick and poor choice of words.

164 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:09:59pm

re: #161 Charles

Here's that picture -- they're blocking outside referrals, but you can get around it by using a link shortener:

[Link: bit.ly...]

Still get "bandwidth thief"

165 cliffster  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:10:21pm

re: #161 Charles

Here's that picture -- they're blocking outside referrals, but you can get around it by using a link shortener:

[Link: bit.ly...]

Still doing all my shopping from home.

166 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:11:10pm

re: #118 Obdicut

This is untrue, Cato. If we changed from oil to a non-carbon form of energy production, we would reduce human effects on the planet.

And if we could change from an oil to a non-carbon form of energy production, we would be doing that.

And monkeys might fly out of my butt.

167 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:11:14pm

re: #162 Gordon Marock

Carbon doesn't kill planets, people kill planets. If we outlaw carbon, only outlaws will have carbon.

It's pretty hard to give you the benefit of the doubt when you say you "haven't seen any evidence," when your only response to people trying to engage you in a discussion is snarky comments.

168 recusancy  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:11:33pm

re: #161 Charles

Here's that picture -- they're blocking outside referrals, but you can get around it by using a link shortener:

[Link: bit.ly...]

Oh.. Didn't notice. Thanks... Anyways my point was, for everyone making fun of it, that the atmosphere isn't some huge expansive thing. If you look at it from the outside it's just a thin layer of gas hugging close to the spinning rock.

169 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:11:58pm

re: #20 rwdflynavy

in 100 years.

So, let's let the grandkids deal with it? Wait, wasn't that considered a bad idea when we put them in debt? Now they're going to be in debt AND the seas will rise? Why do we hate the grandkids so much?

170 davesax  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:12:16pm

Wouldn't more rail help?

For freight, especially?

Why does everyone have to have a car to get anywhere?

171 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:12:31pm

re: #52 rwdflynavy

Charles, I was playing off the 95% chance the flight will crash poor analogy. My point is that the flight isn't crashing today. I am not arguing about the reality of climate change.

Well just because we haven't hit the ground doesn't mean we're not on a bad glide path. If you know the plane is headed towards the mountain, or you know the wings are going to fall off, you should probably deal with things before you hit the mountain or the wings fall off, no?

Remember, jumping off a tall building doesn't kill you... landing does.

172 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:12:35pm

re: #164 Alouette

Still get "bandwidth thief"

Works for me -- but you can also get around it by copying and pasting the link into your browser's address bar.

173 Gordon Marock  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:12:37pm

re: #167 Charles

It's pretty hard to give you the benefit of the doubt when you say you "haven't seen any evidence," when your only response to people trying to engage you in a discussion is snarky comments.

You have me on that one, Charles.

174 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:12:43pm

re: #169 SanFranciscoZionist

So, let's let the grandkids deal with it? Wait, wasn't that considered a bad idea when we put them in debt? Now they're going to be in debt AND the seas will rise? Why do we hate the grandkids so much?

Go read some more of the thread.

175 Locker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:13:38pm

re: #168 recusancy

Oh.. Didn't notice. Thanks... Anyways my point was, for everyone making fun of it, that the atmosphere isn't some huge expansive thing. If you look at it from the outside it's just a thin layer of gas hugging close to the spinning rock.

It's not an unimportant observation and I think it relates to Obdicut's comments. The combination of environmental conditions which allow human life to exist and flourish on this planet seem to be rare and delicate. Ignoring this fact seems to be a metaphorical shot in one's own foot.

176 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:13:48pm

re: #61 Obdicut

Once the plans are approved - and you have a standardized reactor design, the construction could be streamlined so that reactors could be built in short order.

The US Navy managed to build out its nuclear sub fleet in a pretty swift fashion. For example, 37 Sturgeon class subs were built over a 12 year period - 3 per year. Also, the Navy built 62 Los Angeles attack submarines from 1972-1996, a period of 24 years. That means one was launched every four months and change.

Still, the problem isn't the construction, but finding qualified people to run the reactors and to qualify them to operate a new reactor design. That's time consuming.

But we haven't even gotten to that point because everything would have to get EIS approval and designs have to be set, etc. The delays are maddening, especially when the dire warnings sound about the need for moving away from oil and coal and gas.

177 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:13:55pm

re: #169 SanFranciscoZionist

So, let's let the grandkids deal with it? Wait, wasn't that considered a bad idea when we put them in debt? Now they're going to be in debt AND the seas will rise? Why do we hate the grandkids so much?

We're leaving them with some challenges. It'll build character. ///

178 srjh  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:13:58pm

For those who can't see the image mentioned above, even with link shortening... copy it, paste it into your address bar and hit enter. That worked for me:

Image: earth-atmosphere-wallpapers.jpg

179 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:14:20pm

re: #161 Charles

Here's that picture -- they're blocking outside referrals, but you can get around it by using a link shortener:

[Link: bit.ly...]

still not working

180 darthstar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:15:42pm

re: #145 Locker

When we stop acting like lice I'll stop equating.

Apparently, our parasitic relationship with our planet isn't something people like admitting. I don't understand why people are so insecure about that. It doesn't mean we're bad. It's just a fact. We live on this planet and as a result, feed off of it. Even growing food requires scratching into the planet's skin and laying seed.

181 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:16:29pm

re: #171 Cineaste

Well just because we haven't hit the ground doesn't mean we're not on a bad glide path. If you know the plane is headed towards the mountain, or you know the wings are going to fall off, you should probably deal with things before you hit the mountain or the wings fall off, no?

Remember, jumping off a tall building doesn't kill you... landing does.

The whole analogy sucks. We aren't on a twelve hour flight or a 30 second jump. We are talking about bad things happening in many years. I'm not arguing that they aren't going to happen, just figure out an analogy that makes more sense.

182 Diamond Bullet  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:17:04pm

I'd be far more on board with AGW if I didn't smell a rat with how many countries are cynically using it as a vehicle to extort funds out of wealthy nations. On one side you have the Saudis et al fretful that their one-product economy will (finally) collapse, while other countries actually want money in exchange for not cutting down their own rainforests and the like. "Awful nice rainforest I've got here...would be a shame if something were to happen to it *pats chainsaw meaningfully*."

Hell, the Copenhagen conference opened with a pre-emptive admonition that rich countries better crack open those pocketbooks to pay for the (currently) less fortunate.

[Link: greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com...]

Pushing rich-world countries like the United States and the European Union to lay money on the table for poor countries may prove to be the most significant obstacle to reaching a global agreement on curbing global warming, Connie Hedegaard, the Danish minister for the United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen, warned at an opening ceremony for the conference on Monday.

Even if the science is settled, I'm still not keen on the U.S. becoming the pinata in yet another global grievance festival. What's lacking is any sense of fairness between U.S. emissions to power, say, an advanced cancer research center or fascist-resisting army, and China's emissions to power the world's largest lead-based toxic rubber ducky plant. The apparent "all emissions are equal" assumption echoes the UN's "all types of governments are equal" assumption, and we all know how that's played out over the years. The world's breadbox and arsenal of democracy is necessarily going to generate some emissions, but I don't see it as something to apologize to (or pay) the world for. You're already benefitting when you fly in to the Mayo clinic for experimental treatment, don't have to support or fund your own military despite your proximity to malignant neighbors, or when the 7th Fleet cruises in resupply your entire country following the latest tsunami. Come up with a fair way to allocate the costs of global warming that takes into consideration the huge leaps in health, technology, international security, and other benefits from which those emissions are derived and I'm interested. But if you expect me to just start writing checks because some guy 3000 miles away can't kill his favorite brand of walrus, then you are in for a surprise.

183 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:17:35pm

Global heat, scream the doomers by rote,
Will soon have us all by the throat.
It's real scary, you bet,
But that's just what you get
Giving carbon-based life forms the vote.

Copyright 2009 Cato the Elder

184 davesax  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:17:44pm

Hey all, fantastic article about the benefits of rail for the environment.
don't know if Charles already posted it.

If so, my apologies.

185 wrenchwench  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:18:40pm

re: #180 darthstar

Apparently, our parasitic relationship with our planet isn't something people like admitting. I don't understand why people are so insecure about that. It doesn't mean we're bad. It's just a fact. We live on this planet and as a result, feed off of it. Even growing food requires scratching into the planet's skin and laying seed.

I'm sure there are other ways to express that without implying that people are vermin which the "infested" being would like to be rid of.

186 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:19:09pm

re: #184 davesax

Hey all, fantastic article about the benefits of rail for the environment.
don't know if Charles already posted it.

If so, my apologies.

You need to talk with Fenway_Nation. He is the train guru.

187 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:19:32pm

re: #180 darthstar

Apparently, our parasitic relationship with our planet isn't something people like admitting. I don't understand why people are so insecure about that. It doesn't mean we're bad. It's just a fact. We live on this planet and as a result, feed off of it. Even growing food requires scratching into the planet's skin and laying seed.

I really hope you don't talk to nursing mothers.

188 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:20:25pm

re: #181 rwdflynavy

The whole analogy sucks. We aren't on a twelve hour flight or a 30 second jump. We are talking about bad things happening in many years. I'm not arguing that they aren't going to happen, just figure out an analogy that makes more sense.

Ok - do you have fire insurance? When exactly is your house going to burn down? You don't even know that it will burn down. But I bet you still have it...

189 davesax  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:20:27pm

re: #186 Cannadian Club Akbar

Cool. Good to know someone's on it.

190 Haole  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:20:29pm

Oh. Good. Lord. Gibbs? Really?

191 recusancy  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:20:42pm

Can you guys view this one?

Image: EarthFromSpace.jpg

192 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:20:59pm

The G-d damn plane has crashed into the mountain!

-The Big Lebowski

193 bosforus  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:21:08pm

re: #184 davesax

Hey all, fantastic article about the benefits of rail for the environment.
don't know if Charles already posted it.

If so, my apologies.

Salt Lake has a very ambitious rail plan for the next few years. By 2012/13 it's supposed to get down to Provo (40 miles south of Salt Lake). Of course, by then, I'll have moved to Salt Lake, where my work is.
[Link: utahrails.net...]

194 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:21:09pm

re: #188 Cineaste

Ok - do you have fire insurance? When exactly is your house going to burn down? You don't even know that it will burn down. But I bet you still have it...

I have that and flood insurance.

195 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:21:18pm

re: #191 recusancy


Yup. Very pretty. Thank you.

196 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:21:45pm

re: #181 rwdflynavy

The whole analogy sucks. We aren't on a twelve hour flight or a 30 second jump. We are talking about bad things happening in many years. I'm not arguing that they aren't going to happen, just figure out an analogy that makes more sense.

You don't like the analogy because you're a climate change "skeptic."

The point is that if a mechanic told you there was a 95% certainty that your plane was going to crash, you'd be crazy to ignore the warning and just get on the plane.

Climate scientists around the world say there is 95%+ certainty that humans are causing global warming. It's crazy to ignore the warning and focus on the 5% doubt as an excuse to do nothing.

It's really not hard to see the point of the analogy, unless you're determined to misinterpret it.

197 jdog29  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:22:07pm

re: #194 rwdflynavy

I have that and flood insurance.

what about earthquake insurance?

Pretty soon we'll all be health insurance poor.//

198 bosforus  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:22:24pm

re: #192 Ben Hur

The G-d damn plane has crashed into the mountain!

-The Big Lebowski

What's a mountain goat doing way up here in a cloud bank?
-Gary Larson

199 davesax  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:22:40pm

re: #193 bosforus

That's awesome.

I haven't owned a car since I was 21. Though I kvetch about NYC all the time, I like it that I don't need a car to go everywhere.

Would be great if we could connect the country.

200 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:22:42pm

re: #182 Diamond Bullet

Well since we're 1/5 of all carbon emissions on the planet right now, should we not shoulder some more of the cost? Heck, we shoulder the cost of defending most of the free world with our military and very few on the right (barring the Ron Paul set) bat an eye at that.

201 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:23:21pm

re: #184 davesax

Hey all, fantastic article about the benefits of rail for the environment.
don't know if Charles already posted it.

If so, my apologies.

Good article. Makes some excellent points.

202 wrenchwench  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:23:36pm

re: #196 Charles

You don't like the analogy because you're a climate change "skeptic."

The point is that if a mechanic told you there was a 95% certainty that your plane was going to crash, you'd be crazy to ignore the warning and just get on the plane.

Climate scientists around the world say there is 95%+ certainty that humans are causing global warming. It's crazy to ignore the warning and focus on the 5% doubt as an excuse to do nothing.

It's really not hard to see the point of the analogy, unless you're determined to misinterpret it.

You can't trust mechanics! They're just in it for the money!

///

203 davesax  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:24:01pm

Evenre: #201 Charles

Thanks, man. Got it via Jeffrey Goldberg.

204 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:24:32pm

re: #194 rwdflynavy

I have that and flood insurance.

Well what percentage probability are you putting on the likelihood that your house will burn down or be consumed by a flood?

205 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:24:34pm

re: #202 wrenchwench

You can't trust mechanics! They're just in it for the money!

///

No, shit. $120/hr?
//

206 recusancy  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:24:35pm

re: #184 davesax

Hey all, fantastic article about the benefits of rail for the environment.
don't know if Charles already posted it.

If so, my apologies.

Which is why it's good to have a rail evangelical in the white house. (Biden)

...and begin with the Biden jokes.

207 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:25:13pm

Man's need for water from the Jordan River is having quite an impact on the Dead Sea's environment:

Dead Sea needs world help to stay alive

Jordan decided in September to go it alone and build a two-billion-dollar pipeline from the Red Sea to start refilling the Dead Sea without help from proposed partners Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

However, that project is controversial and Mahasneh stressed that Jordan alone is not capable of solving the Dead Sea's problems.

The degradation began in the 1960s when Israel, Jordan and Syria began to divert water from the Jordan River, the Dead Sea's main supplier.

208 davesax  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:25:17pm

re: #206 recusancy

Is he? I didn't know that about him.

Sadly, according to that article, noone is really running with it the way we should.

209 cliffster  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:25:43pm

re: #206 recusancy

Which is why it's good to have a rail evangelical in the white house. (Biden)

...and begin with the Biden jokes.

Here's one for you... Biden.

210 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:25:55pm

re: #196 Charles

You don't like the analogy because you're a climate change "skeptic."

The point is that if a mechanic told you there was a 95% certainty that your plane was going to crash, you'd be crazy to ignore the warning and just get on the plane.

Climate scientists around the world say there is 95%+ certainty that humans are causing global warming. It's crazy to ignore the warning and focus on the 5% doubt as an excuse to do nothing.

It's really not heard to see the point of the analogy, unless you're determined to misinterpret it.

I don't have to be a "skeptic" to think it is a lousy analogy.

211 Cannadian Club Akbar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:25:56pm

re: #206 recusancy

Which is why it's good to have a rail evangelical in the white house. (Biden)

...and begin with the Biden jokes.

Palin said the other day if Biden wrote a book it would be called "Going Rogaine." Funny.

212 Neutral President  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:26:04pm

re: #182 Diamond Bullet

The leftist commie "solutions" and the normal graft and nonsense associated with anything period, are independent of the science and/or reality behind it. Commies will use every crisis, real or imagined, as an excuse to push a leftist agenda. Crooks and slimeballs will turn everything into a racket. It's just the way it is. Because some people are less than noble in their reasons for supporting something does not make it something to dismiss out of hand. We need to propose solutions which are not on a Communist wishlist somewhere, and that will keep other shenanigans to a minimum.

213 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:26:33pm

re: #204 Cineaste

Well what percentage probability are you putting on the likelihood that your house will burn down or be consumed by a flood?

pretty low. Can I get AGW insurance?
//

214 darthstar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:26:41pm

re: #185 wrenchwench

I'm sure there are other ways to express that without implying that people are vermin which the "infested" being would like to be rid of.

I suppose. But as the tsunami in 2004 showed, the planet is much more powerful than we are, and a big 'shrug' of its shoulders can shake off quite a few of us at a go. Personally, I find our insignificance kind of fascinating...we're significant to ourselves, obviously, but the planet would be a planet with or without us...and that's pretty cool when you think about it.

Somewhere along the ocean floors are bacteria and algae that will be the seeds of whatever life-forms replace us in a million years or so. It sure would be interesting to see what that is.

re: #187 DaddyG

I really hope you don't talk to nursing mothers.

Ha! Touché.

215 davesax  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:27:23pm

Carlin's "The Planet's Fine" was really funny.

But he got so bitter...I hope I never have his cynicism.

216 recusancy  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:27:36pm

re: #208 davesax

Is he? I didn't know that about him.

Sadly, according to that article, noone is really running with it the way we should.

Really? He won't shut up about Amtrak most of the time. :)

217 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:27:50pm

re: #212 ArchangelMichael

Didn't you see the Cap & Trade video Charles put up a few days ago? Do you think Capitalists aren't trying to use this to their ends, too?

218 darthstar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:27:54pm

re: #211 Cannadian Club Akbar

Palin said the other day if Biden wrote a book it would be called "Going Rogaine." Funny.

Great...now she's got Jay Leno ghost-writing her stand-up routine?

219 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:27:55pm

re: #207 Sharmuta

Man's need for water from the Jordan River is having quite an impact on the Dead Sea's environment:

Dead Sea needs world help to stay alive

Or look at what's happened in the American west where once the Colorado river reached the Sea of Cortez and now barely crosses the Mexican border. Strongly recommend reading the phenomenal book Cadillac Desert for those interested in water management in the west.

220 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:28:04pm

re: #211 Cannadian Club Akbar

Palin said the other day if Biden wrote a book it would be called "Going Rogaine." Funny.

Yeah, it's funny when a woman makes a joke out of a man's appearance.

If I were to say something about her increasingly crepey neck and incipient jowls, I'd be called a misogynist.

Oh, I just did that. Have at me!

221 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:28:42pm

re: #215 davesax

Carlin's "The Planet's Fine" was really funny.

But he got so bitter...I hope I never have his cynicism.

One man's cynicism is another's realism.

222 wrenchwench  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:29:04pm

re: #205 Cannadian Club Akbar

No, shit. $120/hr?
//

Well, maybe the ones who are not bicycle mechanics are in it for the money.

223 Neutral President  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:29:06pm

re: #217 JasonA

Didn't you see the Cap & Trade video Charles put up a few days ago? Do you think Capitalists aren't trying to use this to their ends, too?

Hence "crooks and slimeballs will turn everything into a racket". Carbon credit trading is the racket they are setting up right now.

224 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:29:37pm

Wow, the hate mail I'm getting over this subject is just incredibly deranged.

Someone just told me I should learn myself sumpin' and go read Chuck Norris's latest article on Copenhagen at World Net Daily.

225 Bagua  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:29:44pm

Ah well, if Gibbs has spoken then that's the end of it. Settled. Let's move on to Cap and Tax.

226 nordink  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:29:45pm

As I've mentioned here before, I am a Dennis Prager listener. I think he is intelligent and well-intentioned -- as are you, Charles.

Dennis and Charles make up the majority -- if not the entirety -- of the opinion I read on climate change. And the opinions are almost completely in opposition.

It's my task, therefore, to weigh both sources and come to some sort of conclusion for myself. I hope not to sound overly dim, but I find this very difficult.

I will say that respecting and preserving the environment seem absolutely necessary to me.

I will also say that Al Gore -- for me -- is not a good advocate of addressing climate change. He has almost singularly ruined that cause for me. I admit that I find him cold and self-important. The media has pointed out many times that he does not exactly practice what he preaches -- that is, he expends quite a bit of energy. I also admit that, despite my personal view of him, he (and his supporters) may well be correct.

I also have to admit that Sarah Palin and Saudia Arabia are also not sources that I find at all credible -- or "teams" I want to join.

The material you link to, Charles, does not leave any room for "gray." It is very black and white about climate change. The material Dennis Prager references bolsters the opposite point of view. He mentions Bjorn Lomborg frequently, who does seem credible to me.

So I am confused. I will continue to keep up on the subject -- and I hope (as I'm sure we all do) for some very compelling, conclusive evidence one way or another.

(And I should just say -- to be clear and careful -- that I don't mean to demean any of the evidence currently being presented by any scientist. I know that you, Charles, report that there is overwhelming evidence in support of the climate change problem. It's just that the "other side" [i.e., Prager] presents seemingly plausible scientific evidence, too.)

227 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:29:54pm

re: #213 rwdflynavy

pretty low. Can I get AGW insurance?
//

Well you are willing to pay money to protect your home from something you think is pretty unlikely but your not willing to protect your home from something that thousands of scientists tell you has a 95% likelihood of adversely affecting you?

228 Kragar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:30:34pm

re: #224 Charles

Wow, the hate mail I'm getting over this subject is just incredibly deranged.

Someone just told me I should learn myself sumpin' and go read Chuck Norris's latest article on Copenhagen at World Net Daily.

Ah yes, the noted climatologist Chuck Norris.

229 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:31:05pm

re: #227 Cineaste

Well you are willing to pay money to protect your home from something you think is pretty unlikely but your not willing to protect your home from something that thousands of scientists tell you has a 95% likelihood of adversely affecting you?

Where did I say that?

230 bosforus  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:31:08pm

re: #224 Charles

Wow, the hate mail I'm getting over this subject is just incredibly deranged.

Someone just told me I should learn myself sumpin' and go read Chuck Norris's latest article on Copenhagen at World Net Daily.

As much as his fan boys would like to pretend, Chuck Norris cannot roundhouse CO2 emissions into submission.

231 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:31:19pm

re: #223 ArchangelMichael

Hence "crooks and slimeballs will turn everything into a racket". Carbon credit trading is the racket they are setting up right now.

Oookay. You're still going with the "Leftist agenda" thing though, right? And you mentioned commies three times.

232 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:31:46pm

re: #224 Charles

Wow, the hate mail I'm getting over this subject is just incredibly deranged.

Someone just told me I should learn myself sumpin' and go read Chuck Norris's latest article on Copenhagen at World Net Daily.

Anthropogenic Global Warming doesn't happen to Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris happens to Anthropogenic Global Warming...

___/

233 wrenchwench  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:31:50pm

re: #226 nordink

You may like to know that you can look at the same sources that Dennis and Charles look at. You are not required to use filters.

234 badger1970  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:31:58pm

re: #228 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Ah yes, the noted climatologist Chuck Norris.

Hey, he counted to infinity and back, twice. ///

235 Soap_Man  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:32:10pm

re: #224 Charles

Wow, the hate mail I'm getting over this subject is just incredibly deranged.

Someone just told me I should learn myself sumpin' and go read Chuck Norris's latest article on Copenhagen at World Net Daily.

Chuck Norris is an expert on climate change now? I can't wait for his new show, "Chuck Norris, PhD" (It sounded more exciting when I said it in my head and added dramatic background music)

236 davesax  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:32:20pm

Noone would know more about blowing hotair out of his *(^ than Chuck Norris.

So, he might be onto something.

//

237 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:32:25pm

re: #226 nordink

Lomborg isn't a climatologist, or much of a scientist at all, though.

Why do you consider him credible compared to 97.5% of all publishing climatologists?

238 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:32:29pm

re: #226 nordink

The material Dennis Prager references bolsters the opposite point of view. He mentions Bjorn Lomborg frequently, who does seem credible to me.

About Bjorn Lomborg -- anyone tempted to believe he's a credible "expert" should read through the material on this website:

Lomborg Errors

His books are amazingly full of errors and misleading statements. He's not a climate scientist -- in fact, the only academic training he has is in political science and game theory, and he's published a grand total of exactly ONE scientific paper -- on game theory, not climatology.

More on Lomborg's background and climate change denial claims:

The Lomborg Story

239 gamark  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:32:47pm
The only reason the climate change denial industry is working so hard to promote the false idea that there’s a “debate” going on in the scientific community is to cast doubt and spread confusion among the public.

The debate is over because debate is not tolerated. A long time ago, this issue moved beyond science and became political. The only reason the democratic party (and leftist politicians in the world generally) are so vociferous is that they see it as an issue they can use as leverage to further their wealth distribution anti-business goals. Why is it that co2 emission restrictions and carbon credits are the only things being trumpeted as a "solution"? There are no shortage of absolutely ridiculous statements being made by both sides of this argument. Its all being driven by money. The ones in it to save the world are being played for suckers. Useful idiots. I personally believe we are in a long term warming trend and I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that human activity is playing a possibly large part in it. What I'd like to see is a stop to all the us vs them BS and some serious discussion and study of reasonable steps we can take to live with the climate issues that are coming. To me, taking measures to deal with the effects can be done piecemeal without having to have buyin from everyone. Measures to cut emissions in any meaningful way would require everyone to cooperate globally. When has that ever happened?

240 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:32:50pm

re: #226 nordink

So I am confused. I will continue to keep up on the subject -- and I hope (as I'm sure we all do) for some very compelling, conclusive evidence one way or another.

There is no need to be confused. This is an excellent resource to help you understand the issue, and it's based on the scientific evidence:

The Discovery of Global Warming

I would start here with the introduction. This alone will give you a good idea of just how well established the science supporting AGW really is. Cheers.

241 darthstar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:33:56pm

re: #224 Charles

Wow, the hate mail I'm getting over this subject is just incredibly deranged.

Someone just told me I should learn myself sumpin' and go read Chuck Norris's latest article on Copenhagen at World Net Daily.

Chuck Norris? Oh, man...I didn't know Huckabee read your blog. Sorry.
/

242 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:34:04pm

re: #236 davesax

Noone would know more about blowing hotair out of his *(^ than Chuck Norris.

So, he might be onto something.

//

There's that "Noone" person again. Must be a really special guy.

243 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:34:06pm

re: #207 Sharmuta

Man's need for water from the Jordan River is having quite an impact on the Dead Sea's environment:

Dead Sea needs world help to stay alive

Juice stole arr mud!

244 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:34:34pm

re: #226 nordink

As I've mentioned here before, I am a Dennis Prager listener. I think he is intelligent and well-intentioned -- as are you, Charles.

Dennis and Charles make up the majority -- if not the entirety -- of the opinion I read on climate change. And the opinions are almost completely in opposition.

What? That's like saying: I only listen to two people about whether evolution exists. Charles Johnson and Charles Dobson. Apparently the world is evenly split between those two views...

Ignoring the fact that there are thousands and thousands of scientists who support only one side is not being "open", it's being closed minded.

245 davesax  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:34:44pm

re: #242 Cato the Elder

He is.

246 darthstar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:34:56pm

re: #235 Soap_Man

I thought it would be "Walker: Carless Ranger"

247 Kragar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:35:02pm

A buddy just came over to ask me who was singing the butchered version of "Sympathy for the Devil" I was listening too. I enjoyed telling him the Rolling Stone, live, in 1969. He does that a lot. I got him last month listening to the Clash live.

248 cliffster  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:35:18pm

re: #245 davesax

He is.

That guy never does shit.

249 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:35:19pm

re: #229 rwdflynavy

Where did I say that?

So you think we should do something about AGW... great - we're agreed.

250 darthstar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:36:17pm

re: #247 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

A buddy just came over to ask me who was singing the butchered version of "Sympathy for the Devil" I was listening too. I enjoyed telling him the Rolling Stone, live, in 1969. He does that a lot. I got him last month listening to the Clash live.

I didn't know the Rolling Stone did a solo album.
/ :)

251 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:36:55pm

re: #249 Cineaste

So you think we should do something about AGW... great - we're agreed.


I do. I think we should subsidies carbon-neutral energy like solar, wind, and nuclear. I think we should work to wean ourselves off petroleum in a way that won't destroy our economy. I think the Copenhagen conference should have been a VTC.

252 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:37:25pm

re: #235 Soap_Man

Chuck Norris is an expert on climate change now? I can't wait for his new show, "Chuck Norris, PhD" (It sounded more exciting when I said it in my head and added dramatic background music)

Another expert on TV, on this subject, is Ben Stein.

Any port in a storm, as they say.

253 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:37:29pm

re: #249 Cineaste

So you think we should do something about AGW... great - we're agreed.


and I think we should come up with a better analogy.

254 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:37:33pm

re: #96 Locker

Step to the left. The line for your tinfoil hat starts over there.

The one marked "167" is his.

255 Kragar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:37:37pm

re: #235 Soap_Man

Chuck Norris is an expert on climate change now? I can't wait for his new show, "Chuck Norris, PhD" (It sounded more exciting when I said it in my head and added dramatic background music)

I heard his next project has him playing the roll of Heathcliff for Wuthering Heights.

/

256 davesax  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:37:51pm

re: #251 rwdflynavy

My dad built a windmill in my parents backyard to power the shower.

Showers burn lots of energy.

257 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:38:06pm

re: #253 rwdflynavy

and I think we should come up with a better analogy.

Looks like I struck a nerve.

258 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:38:17pm

re: #239 gamark

I agree with part of this. There is no shortage of people and constituencies who are going to use the issue as a way to get gain for themselves. Al Gore is a great example.

That doesn't mean there isn't a problem or that the science an global warming is bad just because some have pushed what to do about it it hard into the political realm.

Granted there will always be a WIIFM (whats in it for me) for all parties involved. So the solution isn't to hand over the reins to the watermelons or the oil ticks... It is to find measures we can take that will forward the implementation of clean(er) technology and better stewardship of resources in a way that benefits all parties. The Indian government showed great courage today in saying they will try to find solutions without demanding subsidies.

259 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:38:38pm

re: #106 Gordon Marock

That is the Earth's problem, not mine.

You know, one can actually take this rugged individualism business too far.

260 Kragar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:38:39pm

re: #250 darthstar

I didn't know the Rolling Stone did a solo album.
/ :)

Yeah, its a rare find.

261 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:39:15pm

re: #257 Charles

Looks like I struck a nerve.

It was ralphieboy's lame analogy.

262 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:40:18pm

re: #70 abbyadams

Agreed. It's "better" than fossil fuels, but IMO, it's trading the environmental and security issues that we have now for another set of environmental and security issues.

We should be improving solar/wind power, and focusing on innovation of other new, safe technologies.

The problem is that the alternatives you mention are not ready for prime time, and won't be for the foreseeable future. Until they become practical in terms of supplying sufficient quantities of energy, nuclear power provides and extremely clean and safe energy source that's ready to be used right now, with nothing in the way of development required. It buys important time to bring other sources that aren't yet ready online.

If you want reductions in CO2 now, nuclear is clearly the only way to go. None of the alternatives, individually or combined, can produce the quantity of energy developed countries or even developing countries require, nor are they as cheap.

263 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:40:19pm

re: #114 Charles

Funny how so many of the most irrational deniers seem to have numerous friends who are climate scientists. If they're not PhD scientists themselves.

On the Internet everyone is a rocket scientist.

I have no friends who are climate scientists, although I do know one lady who is a great reader on the subject, and lots of lizards, ditto. I do not have a PhD.

/Being different

264 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:40:56pm

re: #252 Naso Tang

Another expert on TV, on this subject, is Ben Stein.

Any port in a storm, as they say.


He did clear up me irritated red eyes. /

265 Bagua  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:41:25pm
"I think scientists are clear on the science. I think many on Capitol Hill are clear on the science. I think that this notion that there is some debate ... on the science is kind of silly."

Gibbs spoke hours before President Barack Obama was due to meet climate change campaigner and former vice president Al Gore at the White House, as he prepares to head for Copenhagen next week.

LOL, it's comforting to know Gibbs and Obama are consulting with real scientists like Al Gore.

266 Locker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:41:31pm

re: #180 darthstar

Apparently, our parasitic relationship with our planet isn't something people like admitting. I don't understand why people are so insecure about that. It doesn't mean we're bad. It's just a fact. We live on this planet and as a result, feed off of it. Even growing food requires scratching into the planet's skin and laying seed.

I actually use those sorts of idea when discussion vegetarianism with my daughter. As far as it seems the entire universe seems to work on a parasitic basis. Everything seems to live off something else.

267 nordink  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:41:46pm

re: #238 Charles

Yep, I see that Lomborg is not the expert I had thought. This does help your case. Game theory is not climatology.

268 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:41:50pm

re: #224 Charles

Wow, the hate mail I'm getting over this subject is just incredibly deranged.

Someone just told me I should learn myself sumpin' and go read Chuck Norris's latest article on Copenhagen at World Net Daily.

Maybe he meant, Chuck Norris, PHD.

269 srjh  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:42:10pm

re: #228 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Ah yes, the noted climatologist Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris's tears can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere...

270 Gordon Marock  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:42:12pm

re: #252 Naso Tang

Another expert on TV, on this subject, is Ben Stein.

Any port in a storm, as they say.

I lost all respect for Stein when he voted Mandy Lynn off of America's Next Top Model.

271 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:42:23pm

re: #235 Soap_Man

Chuck Norris is an expert on climate change now? I can't wait for his new show, "Chuck Norris, PhD" (It sounded more exciting when I said it in my head and added dramatic background music)

Sh*t.

Didn't see that.

272 exelwood  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:42:28pm

re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What I find interesting is how many law and order, personal privacy types seem to find nothing wrong with the case of felony computer hacking that led to this whole incident in the first place. Very telling.

I've found in my internet travels there is great deal of interest on the right about the perpetrator(s). They seem to feel the lack of information available at this point indicates it was an inside whistleblower situation.

I wish the authorities would spare no effort to get to the bottom of this, it's just one more unanswered question to cause unnecessary delays in dealing with "climategate".

273 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:42:40pm

re: #150 Alouette

Well speaking of population explosion, my 24th grandkid (who looks astonishingly like Eric Cartman) was named David, following the "ritual mutilation" of his sex organ.

/it's an ancient Zionist tradition

Mazal tov!

274 Mark Pennington  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:42:43pm

I think the debate has proven once and for all why academics prefer to keep themselves sequestered in academia because politicians, lobbyists, the media, and the public are so proficient at twisting their words without the need for accuracy or credibility.

275 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:42:46pm

re: #269 srjh

Chuck Norris's tears can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere...

It's too bad he never cries...

276 Neutral President  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:42:57pm

re: #231 JasonA

Oookay. You're still going with the "Leftist agenda" thing though, right? And you mentioned commies three times.

And your point? They use every crisis as on opportunity to push big government whether it is warranted or not. I'm not going to pretend thats not the case. They have a hammer and everything looks like a nail.

The reality of AGW is independent of this and I do not let my dislike of their solutions to turn me into a denier. Many do and that's the problem.

If you want someone to harp on the Wall Street assholes and Corporations who are the "Green bandwagon" for the wrong reasons, look elsewhere because, although it bothers me, it bothers me far less than big government does.

277 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:43:00pm

Any climate scientists here?

278 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:43:13pm

re: #266 Locker

I actually use those sorts of idea when discussion vegetarianism with my daughter. As far as it seems the entire universe seems to work on a parasitic basis. Everything seems to live off something else.


E Coli eats shit!

279 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:43:51pm

re: #247 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I like Jane's Addiction's cover of it. Pretty clever of them to combine it with Lou Reed's (or was it Velvet Underground's?) Rock and Roll.

280 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:44:08pm

L8R.

281 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:44:36pm

OT: Students, militia clash in 2nd day of Iran protest

Hard-line militiamen firing tear gas and throwing stones stormed a crowd of thousands of university students protesting for a second day Tuesday, as Iran threatened a tougher crackdown on the opposition after the biggest anti-government demonstrations in months.

More than 200 people were arrested in Tehran on Monday during protests by tens of thousands at universities nationwide, and Iran's top prosecutor warned further unrest would not be tolerated. He hinted authorities could even pursue the top opposition leader, Mir Hossein Mousavi, an escalation the government has so far balked at in Iran's postelection turmoil.

282 Gus  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:45:03pm

re: #259 SanFranciscoZionist

You know, one can actually take this rugged individualism business too far.

Yeah. Don't attend Copenhagen. Bury our head in the sand. Chant "drill here drill now" while Exxon/Mobil holds hands with their OPEC suppliers. Hold a secret "classified" meeting on the subject of oil but call it an "energy summit." Classify and redact any scientific data that may contradict your energy policy. Warn of the internationalists and eat Freedom Fries.

//

283 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:45:34pm

re: #201 Charles

I've recently read this book on passenger rail travel and it hits on some of the same issues. Money is the big factor, but so is choosing the right infrastructure to upgrade and how to balance all the competing interests.

Electrification sounds great, but requires new power generating capacity. The NE Corridor is electrified, but it's 100 year old infrastructure badly in need of upgrading in many locations. Upgraded catenary lines would allow higher speeds. That's billions in cost by itself.

Most rail lines are not electrified nationally.

Then again, separate passenger and freight lines would allow for still higher speeds. Problem is acquisition costs in urban corridors is prohibitively expensive.

NY also had a situation where the railroads wanted to upgrade, but wouldn't do so if they were going to be taxed for their troubles. So, those rail lines languished for years.

Still, if you want a coordinated energy policy, here's a start:

1) Institute construction of new nuclear reactors.
2) Update and upgrade electrified lines and spread electrified lines nationally - make the improvements tax exempt or provide tax credits to spur the development.
2a) Update existing infrastructure and bring Amtrak infrastructure into current standards (many facilities fail, including bridges and tunnels - limiting capacity and can pose safety hazards).
3) Expand capacity at choke points.
4) Use the railway right of ways for power distribution on smart grid.
5) Improve intermodals.
6) Colocate new rail lines with interstate highways, provide park n' ride opportunities, and reduce shared burden on land acquisition.
7) Enhance existing mass transit rail options by expanding service in high traffic corridors to improve farebox. Provide more off-peak transit options, allowing more people to ride mass transit than having no choice but to drive to destinations.

Building up our rail infrastructure could have rejuvenated manufacturing domestically, but most rail systems are built overseas.

Oh, but don't think about that cost. It probably would run in the neighborhood of the stimulus package.

284 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:46:16pm

It's official. The White House has confirmed. I have something in common with Climategate!

285 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:46:32pm

re: #211 Cannadian Club Akbar

Palin said the other day if Biden wrote a book it would be called "Going Rogaine." Funny.

Funny, but she gets mad if people talk about HER sex-linked physical characteristics.

286 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:47:03pm

re: #276 ArchangelMichael

And your point? They use every crisis as on opportunity to push big government whether it is warranted or not. I'm not going to pretend thats not the case. They have a hammer and everything looks like a nail.

The reality of AGW is independent of this and I do not let my dislike of their solutions to turn me into a denier. Many do and that's the problem.

If you want someone to harp on the Wall Street assholes and Corporations who are the "Green bandwagon" for the wrong reasons, look elsewhere because, although it bothers me, it bothers me far less than big government does.

If governments isn't going to contribute towards a solution for something this big then what the hell do we need a government for?

Please, share the free market's answer with me. I really don't see it moving us forward without some prodding from "big gov't."

287 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:47:05pm

re: #213 rwdflynavy

pretty low. Can I get AGW insurance?
//

I don't know. You can get Rapture Insurance.

288 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:47:39pm

re: #224 Charles

Wow, the hate mail I'm getting over this subject is just incredibly deranged.

Someone just told me I should learn myself sumpin' and go read Chuck Norris's latest article on Copenhagen at World Net Daily.

Chuck Norris?!?! I actually loled at that.

Maybe next we can call up former Family Ties child star Tina Yothers and ask her about cap and trade.

289 bosforus  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:47:56pm

re: #259 SanFranciscoZionist

You know, one can actually take this rugged individualism business too far.

I'm sure he's got several planets up his sleeve he could move to if this one doesn't work out.

290 reine.de.tout  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:47:56pm

re: #287 SanFranciscoZionist

I don't know. You can get Rapture Insurance.

Why would anyone need Rapture Insurance?

291 Bagua  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:48:00pm

re: #284 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

It's official. The White House has confirmed. I have something in common with Climategate!

You're both silly?

292 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:48:11pm

re: #287 SanFranciscoZionist

I don't know. You can get Rapture Insurance.

Sweet!

293 NorthWhale  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:48:22pm

re: #238 Charles

About Bjorn Lomborg -- anyone tempted to believe he's a credible "expert" should read through the material on this website:

Lomborg Errors

His books are amazingly full of errors and misleading statements. He's not a climate scientist -- in fact, the only academic training he has is in political science and game theory, and he's published a grand total of exactly ONE scientific paper -- on game theory, not climatology.

More on Lomborg's background and climate change denial claims:

The Lomborg Story

Thank you for those Lomborg links, Charles. Lomborg do not have the education nor the expertise to evaluate scientific research. He was even declared scientific dishonest by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, and was only later cleared because the climate deniers in the danish government intervened. He is a political figure, that's all.

294 Locker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:48:24pm

re: #270 Gordon Marock

I lost all respect for Stein when he voted Mandy Lynn off of America's Next Top Model.

I thought he was funny on that game show of his but once he started with the Creationist babble it was all over for Stein.

295 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:48:28pm

re: #283 lawhawk
Sounds like a hell of a stimulus package to me.

296 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:49:03pm

re: #294 Locker

I thought he was funny on that game show of his but once he started with the Creationist babble it was all over for Stein.

I think that creationism schtick was Ben Stein looking for a payday. ;-)

297 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:49:22pm

re: #269 srjh

Chuck Norris's tears can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere...

Too bad he has never cried.

298 srjh  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:49:37pm

re: #272 exelwood

I've found in my internet travels there is great deal of interest on the right about the perpetrator(s). They seem to feel the lack of information available at this point indicates it was an inside whistleblower situation.

How on earth would a "whistleblower" legitimately have access to private emails?

The lack of information doesn't suggest much other than the fact that the perpetrator knows enough to cover their tracks - not surprising given the fact that they managed to break into the server in the first place.

"Inside job", maybe... but it looks like they didn't actually know what they were looking for, or at least that's what the quote-mining of 13 years of data look like to me.

299 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:49:49pm

re: #288 WindUpBird

Chuck Norris?!?! I actually loled at that.

Maybe next we can call up former Family Ties child star Tina Yothers and ask her about cap and trade.

Or Kirk Cameron and evolution.

300 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:50:01pm

re: #291 Bagua

You're both silly?


And it's official!

301 bosforus  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:51:21pm

I think I've only ever enjoyed Chuck Norris (aside from his karate, which is undeniable) on the Conan O'Brien "Walker Texas Ranger lever" segments.

302 darthstar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:51:21pm

re: #290 reine.de.tout

Why would anyone need Rapture Insurance?

I got it in the ninth grade...even called it that. Being a good young catholic boy shoved into a baptist school for a year, I was told repeatedly that I'd burn in hell as an idol-worshipper who didn't accept Jesus. So one day I did, to the joy of the teachers and students present. When they asked me how it felt to be 'saved' I told them, "Great, now I've got eternal insurance and I'm free to sin!" Needless to say, they didn't find my sense of humor all that funny.

303 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:51:43pm

re: #290 reine.de.tout

Why would anyone need Rapture Insurance?

The idea is that some atheist agrees to take care of your pets and such after you are raptured. Guy will be pissed if it happens!!!

304 Bagua  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:52:00pm

re: #300 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

And it's official!

We are a team then!

305 Locker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:52:19pm

re: #296 WindUpBird

I think that creationism schtick was Ben Stein looking for a payday. ;-)

That's a pretty big trade off for some cash, that would be for sure. Just reading this since we were talking about it:

[Link:scientificamerican.com - Ben Stein's Expelled - No Integrity Displayed ]

306 Mark Pennington  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:52:27pm

re: #288 WindUpBird

Chuck Norris?!?! I actually loled at that.

Maybe next we can call up former Family Ties child star Tina Yothers and ask her about cap and trade.

lmao!

307 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:52:46pm
308 darthstar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:53:29pm

re: #303 rwdflynavy

The idea is that some atheist agrees to take care of your pets and such after you are raptured. Guy will be pissed if it happens!!!

The fundies at my baptist school (circa 1979) said that animals are without sin and that god would take care of them.

309 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:53:41pm

re: #290 reine.de.tout

Why would anyone need Rapture Insurance?

For non-Christian loved ones, and to take care of your pets when you're gone. Google it. Honest to God.

310 Digital Display  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:54:09pm

I see issues with climate change..Seasons seem to be changing in Indiana..Old timers tell me it always snowed here by thanksgiving..last year we didn't get real snowfalls till mid January. It seems the seasons are moving..Spring comes later, Summer moves back...
I fear in the future this will effect farming and planting seasons.
This could be bad news for our food production..
Any farmers here?

311 darthstar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:54:58pm

re: #309 SanFranciscoZionist

For non-Christian loved ones, and to take care of your pets when you're gone. Google it. Honest to God.

How much money are rapture-ready people willing to pay for this? I might just have to start a side-business.

312 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:55:06pm

re: #277 Ben Hur

Any climate scientists here?

No but I can read their minds. /

313 S'latch  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:55:12pm

I suspect that it is already too late to do anything about climate change, and that there will be no concerted and consistent effort worldwide to do anything about it anyway. In the future, human adaptation to climate change will be large part of a haphazard and uneven response to it.

314 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:55:15pm

re: #299 Mad Al-Jaffee

Or Kirk Cameron and evolution.

Apparently there's some video going around Kirk Cameron versus some college students about evolution? Trolling Kirk Cameron on video would probably be the ultimate feather in the cap of some 4chan guy.

315 Kragar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:55:21pm

re: #290 reine.de.tout

Why would anyone need Rapture Insurance?

To get money from suckers.

OH, you meant why would anyone buy it, I was thinking why someone would sell it.

316 cliffster  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:55:21pm

re: #310 HoosierHoops

Simple. Move the dates around. Daylight Savings Date.

317 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:55:30pm

re: #309 SanFranciscoZionist

Wouldn't that fall under Acts of God exemptions? ///

And I had to check a few times to see if there was an April Fools Joke somewhere in there.

318 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:55:52pm

re: #308 darthstar

The fundies at my baptist school (circa 1979) said that animals are without sin and that god would take care of them.

Are they sure? My dog humps anything that moves! (and some things that don't)

319 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:56:03pm

later lizards

320 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:56:26pm

re: #310 HoosierHoops

No. They're out working their asses off.

321 Locker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:56:37pm

re: #314 WindUpBird

[Link:tmz.com... ]

322 lostlakehiker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:56:49pm

re: #226 nordink

As I've mentioned here before, I am a Dennis Prager listener. I think he is intelligent and well-intentioned -- as are you, Charles.

Dennis and Charles make up the majority -- if not the entirety -- of the opinion I read on climate change. And the opinions are almost completely in opposition.

It's my task, therefore, to weigh both sources and come to some sort of conclusion for myself. I hope not to sound overly dim, but I find this very difficult.

I will say that respecting and preserving the environment seem absolutely necessary to me.

I will also say that Al Gore -- for me -- is not a good advocate of addressing climate change. He has almost singularly ruined that cause for me. I admit that I find him cold and self-important. The media has pointed out many times that he does not exactly practice what he preaches -- that is, he expends quite a bit of energy. I also admit that, despite my personal view of him, he (and his supporters) may well be correct.

I also have to admit that Sarah Palin and Saudia Arabia are also not sources that I find at all credible -- or "teams" I want to join.

The material you link to, Charles, does not leave any room for "gray." It is very black and white about climate change. The material Dennis Prager references bolsters the opposite point of view. He mentions Bjorn Lomborg frequently, who does seem credible to me.

So I am confused. I will continue to keep up on the subject -- and I hope (as I'm sure we all do) for some very compelling, conclusive evidence one way or another.

(And I should just say -- to be clear and careful -- that I don't mean to demean any of the evidence currently being presented by any scientist. I know that you, Charles, report that there is overwhelming evidence in support of the climate change problem. It's just that the "other side" [i.e., Prager] presents seemingly plausible scientific evidence, too.)

Dennis Prager is a good and upright man. But being upright is not the same as being right. I think his philosophy nudges him toward discounting evidence that man is that powerful, to be doing what the climate scientists say we're doing.

We have seen that kind of thinking before. There's plenty of passenger pigeons. There's an infinitude of bison. Oops. And almost oops. It's hard to believe that things that have been one way from time before history, can all of a sudden be the other way, just because we now have shotguns, long rifles, and kick-ass coal mining technology.

Can we at least agree to accelerate the licensing of nuclear power plants, and the construction of windmills and the power lines from where the wind blows to the cities they'll serve? This means taking well understood moderate risks as a hedge against a potentially much bigger danger. Potentially, from your point of view. Coming like a freight train, from mine. But this freight train has more momentum, and less speed, than a real train. It will take years, or decades, to get here. Maybe a century or more before the really spectacular part of the smashup. Conversely, it will take decades applying the brakes to avert the smashup. Or avert the worst of it.

From where we now stand, I think a bit of a smashup has become all but inevitable. However, just as with auto accidents, when you know you're going to hit, that's no time to let off the brakes. A smashup at half the speed is one fourth as destructive.

As to Al Gore, I agree with him on one point and one point only: AGW is for real and we need to do something. His apocalyptic warnings are not based on sound science. His solutions aren't either. He's getting insanely rich off this, but carbon offsets are meaningless nostrums. With friends like him, our camp doesn't need enemies.

323 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:57:04pm

re: #249 Cineaste

So you think we should do something about AGW... great - we're agreed.

re: #251 rwdflynavy

I do. I think we should subsidies carbon-neutral energy like solar, wind, and nuclear. I think we should work to wean ourselves off petroleum in a way that won't destroy our economy. I think the Copenhagen conference should have been a VTC.

But think of all the callgirls and -boys in Denmark who would have to make do with the usual repressed Germans and Muslim immigrants instead of earning big bucks off of Fijian statesmen for two weeks!

As for doing something: Here in Western Massachusetts they can't even build a carbon-neutral biomass plant because it's not solar, it burns stuff and the NIMBYs and fear-mongers hold sway. The man behind the project in Greenfield was recently threatened with "wanted: dead or alive" posters (with his picture and personal details) from some eco-terrorist for "crimes against the planet".

But we can't have solar in any significant quantity either, because it 1) doesn't really work in these climes on anything bigger than a water-heater and 2) - what is more important to the NIMBYs - it spoils the look of south-facing hillside meadows. Same goes triple for wind farms - they ruin the view of those beautiful ridge-tops.

The fact is, nothing of import will be done until people are frying and dying. That is human nature.

324 Gus  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:57:08pm

The Truth-O-Meter Says: Monckton's Pants are on Fire

British climate-change skeptic says Copenhagen treaty threatens "democracy," "freedom"

Christopher Monckton — a British hereditary peer and high-profile skeptic of both global warming and international agreements — caused a stir on Oct. 14, 2009, with a forceful denunciation of the upcoming international talks on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark, scheduled for Dec. 7-18, 2009.

In a speech in St. Paul, Minn., Monckton called the pending agreement a "dreadful treaty" and said, among other things, that the parties "are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He's going to sign. He'll sign anything."

SNIP

Even so, we find Monckton's claims to not only be unsupported but preposterous. First, it's impossible to know what agreement will come out of Copenhagen, and when. Second, the U.S. procedure for ratifying treaties requires consent by a supermajority of the Senate — a steep hurdle. Third, it's hard to envision anything coming out of Copenhagen that would change the United States' bedrock principles of freedom and democracy. And fourth, contrary to what Monckton says, the United States can leave an international agreement. So while it pays to be vigilant about threats to U.S. sovereignty, this one is not the threat that Monckton's rhetoric suggests. So Lord Monckton earns a special ruling — Britches on Fire!

There is no treaty. Of course that's not stopping the unstable bloggers from calling it an "act of treason."

325 Neutral President  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:57:11pm

re: #286 JasonA

It is not my job to come up with solutions, but I can give you a few that are guaranteed to be losers: A bureaucrat putting all of your daily energy use under scrutiny, using "conservation" as a euphemism for rationing, and forcing alternative energy schemes that are not capable of generating enough power to run society as it exists now, not to mention how it will be in 2050 or 2100.

You seem to be getting the notion that I am some laissez faire kook or anarchocapitalist, I'm not. I know the government will have to be involved, but there is a productive/stimulative way and an excessive/oppressive way. I prefer the former.

326 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:57:21pm

re: #290 reine.de.tout

Why would anyone need Rapture Insurance?

The whole city's been built on the floor of the ocean and it's populated with genetically modified ubermensch, damn right I'd be getting Rapture insurance!

/Bioshock

327 ckb  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:57:33pm

re: #200 Cineaste

Well since we're 1/5 of all carbon emissions on the planet right now, should we not shoulder some more of the cost? Heck, we shoulder the cost of defending most of the free world with our military and very few on the right (barring the Ron Paul set) bat an eye at that.

We're also 1/4th of the world's economy with about 1/20th of its population. It's not like we're wasting it.

328 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:57:59pm

re: #307 borgcube

I wish global warming would just get on with it if the doomsday predictions are correct and take Bangladesh off the planet. Then we could move forward.

I was already supposed to be dead in no particular order from ice sheets enveloping North America, starved to death because of acid rain destroying all crops, 6 ft. under from AIDS, room temperature from Mad Cow, living like a caveman from Y2K, sprouting wings from Bird Flu, stung to death by swarms of killer bees, burned alive from the shrinking ozone layer, compressed beyond recognition from overpopulation, floating in the Pacific from the "Big One," playing dodgeball with meteors, gasping for air because the rain forests were turned into beautiful flooring, and powering my car like Fred Flintstone since we were going to run out of oil in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, ???.

You are like, the luckest SOB alive. Can I touch you?

329 Kragar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:58:00pm

re: #288 WindUpBird

Chuck Norris?!?! I actually loled at that.

Maybe next we can call up former Family Ties child star Tina Yothers and ask her about cap and trade.

Followed up with Timothy Van Patten's stunning insights into the healthcare debate

330 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:58:13pm

Exxon Mobil eyes bigger role for natural gas

It would be nicer if Exxon would stop funding denial and put that money towards research and development.

331 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:58:30pm

re: #308 darthstar

The fundies at my baptist school (circa 1979) said that animals are without sin and that god would take care of them.

I like that. My grandma (Catholic) would certainly have agreed.

332 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:58:54pm

re: #307 borgcube

Can't really blame the researchers for sensationalized news coverage, though. It's hard to cram all the necessary caveats and qualifications of science into a four-word headline.

Me, I've finally decided to bow to power of aggregate knowledge and accept the reality of AGW. It isn't because I understand the science, at all. My grasp of statistics is too weak. Rather, I accept it for the same reason I accept that there's such a place as New Zealand: enough responsible, honest people tell me so.

333 borgcube  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:59:29pm

re: #313 Lawrence Schmerel

I suspect that it is already too late to do anything about climate change, and that there will be no concerted and consistent effort worldwide to do anything about it anyway. In the future, human adaptation to climate change will be large part of a haphazard and uneven response to it.

That's how mankind has always been and why we're even here now. Good post.

334 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 12:59:45pm

re: #307 borgcube

You forgot the Year of the Shark, the BTK killer, and cell phone cancer. 8-)

335 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:00:17pm

re: #309 SanFranciscoZionist

For non-Christian loved ones, and to take care of your pets when you're gone. Google it. Honest to God.

That's as good as the old joke about what kind of Jew will the Messiah be? He'll be Orthodox, so that everyone can eat in his kitchen.

336 DaddyG  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:00:31pm

re: #309 SanFranciscoZionist

For non-Christian loved ones, and to take care of your pets when you're gone. Google it. Honest to God.


I believe we have found common ground between Al Gore and the Religious Right. No cause is to sacred not to make a quick buck off of it.

337 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:00:42pm

re: #324 Gus 802

I'll point out again, that Kyoto didn't get the job done - as emissions increased precipitiously during the period it was in effect, and Europe, which signed off on Kyoto, missed its targets. Copenhagen isn't likely to do any better.

Lots will be promised. Little will be delivered.

338 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:00:44pm

re: #311 darthstar

How much money are rapture-ready people willing to pay for this? I might just have to start a side-business.

There are a number of small Rapture industries out there. I saw a TV show episode that revolved around the idea that you could have an e-mail message sent out to all of your left-behind friends and family post-rapture. I don't know if that's real, but it's definitely a possible niche.

339 Stanley  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:00:50pm

So let's accept that AGW is on the move. There is nothing to be done about the warming that's been put into motion. Flooding. Creation of dust bowls from cropland. Changes in weather patterns dramatically reducing crop yields.

That makes Obama a monster. He should outlaw all internal and external combustion engines. No fossil fuel power generation. And no cooking of food. (Even wood fires release CO2) That's the ONLY way to slow and eventually reverse AGW. If you don't agree, your not really a human being.

And since we're not going to use petroleum based fertilizers or pesticides...crop yields will be too low to support 6 billion people. Let's implement the philosophy of the zero pop growth people. Kill off 4 out of every 6 people on the planet.

Finally. Sustainable environment on the Earth!

340 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:00:58pm

re: #328 SanFranciscoZionist

You are like, the luckest SOB alive. Can I touch you?

You owe me a laptop.

341 Digital Display  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:01:19pm

re: #316 cliffster

Simple. Move the dates around. Daylight Savings Date.

Nothing like having an ice storm in july to kill all the crops...Just moving planting season back assumes you know what is going to happen during harvest...But with climate change..who would know?

342 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:01:29pm

re: #307 borgcube

I wish global warming would just get on with it if the doomsday predictions are correct and take Bangladesh off the planet. Then we could move forward.

I was already supposed to be dead in no particular order from ice sheets enveloping North America, starved to death because of acid rain destroying all crops, 6 ft. under from AIDS, room temperature from Mad Cow, living like a caveman from Y2K, sprouting wings from Bird Flu, stung to death by swarms of killer bees, burned alive from the shrinking ozone layer, compressed beyond recognition from overpopulation, floating in the Pacific from the "Big One," playing dodgeball with meteors, gasping for air because the rain forests were turned into beautiful flooring, and powering my car like Fred Flintstone since we were going to run out of oil in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, ???.

You left out "poisoned by Alar"

343 borgcube  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:01:49pm

re: #334 WindUpBird

You forgot the Year of the Shark, the BTK killer, and cell phone cancer. 8-)

I can't keep up! Year of the Shark, forgot about that one.

344 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:01:55pm

re: #342 Alouette

You left out "poisoned by Alar"

And red M&M dye!

345 sillyallah  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:02:13pm

re: #57 Charles

... the important thing is to make a start at realistically discussing the issue. ...

I couldn't agree more. I'm tired of people jumping to "but cap and trade doesn't work," and then following that up with AGW nonsense. The two points, problem and solution, are separate.

346 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:02:47pm

re: #338 SanFranciscoZionist

The email message reads.

"See? I told ya!"

347 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:03:13pm

re: #310 HoosierHoops

I see issues with climate change..Seasons seem to be changing in Indiana..Old timers tell me it always snowed here by thanksgiving..last year we didn't get real snowfalls till mid January. It seems the seasons are moving..Spring comes later, Summer moves back...
I fear in the future this will effect farming and planting seasons.
This could be bad news for our food production..
Any farmers here?

No, but I garden. Here in Michigan, the date of first and last frost hasn't changed any. Actually, the first frost this year was a couple weeks earlier than the average date, after an abnormally cool summer, but such year to year variation is normal.

I haven't noticed any changes in winter minimum temperatures, either, which place limits on what will grow around here. Frankly, I'd love to gain an extra half-zone of hardiness, since it would open up the opportunity for a lot of perennials that thrive a state or so to the south, but freeze out up here.

Problems would be most obvious in marginal areas, where crops are grown close to their climatic limits. For example, oranges used to be grown all over the Florida panhandle and up into southern Georgia in the early 20th century. Now, orchards aren't normally found north of Tampa. Citrus is extremely frost-sensitive, and can't withstand even a degree of frost without artificial aid, so these areas right on the border of the permanent frost-free zone are going to be the ones where changes are most apparent.

348 borgcube  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:03:28pm

re: #342 Alouette

You left out "poisoned by Alar"

Don't like apples, except for apple pie.

Oh, I forgot the Comet Kohoutek too!

349 exelwood  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:03:54pm

re: #298 srjh

How on earth would a "whistleblower" legitimately have access to private emails?

The lack of information doesn't suggest much other than the fact that the perpetrator knows enough to cover their tracks - not surprising given the fact that they managed to break into the server in the first place.

"Inside job", maybe... but it looks like they didn't actually know what they were looking for, or at least that's what the quote-mining of 13 years of data look like to me.

I'm not sure the term "whistleblower", always has to reference legally acquired information at least it hasn't historically. I will concede one man's whistleblower can be another man's felon.

350 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:03:58pm

re: #307 borgcube

Up-ding for style.

351 gamark  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:04:08pm

Its quite obvious from personal experience that the climate is warming. I remember as a kid that I could stay outside in the hot summer sun all day without skipping a beat. Now, 35 years later, I find I sweat more in the hot sun, can't stay out as long and tire faster. It must be warmer. What else could it be?

352 ckb  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:05:03pm

re: #196 Charles

You don't like the analogy because you're a climate change "skeptic."

The point is that if a mechanic told you there was a 95% certainty that your plane was going to crash, you'd be crazy to ignore the warning and just get on the plane.

Climate scientists around the world say there is 95%+ certainty that humans are causing global warming. It's crazy to ignore the warning and focus on the 5% doubt as an excuse to do nothing.

It's really not hard to see the point of the analogy, unless you're determined to misinterpret it.

The analogy fails because if you replace 95% with 1%, the answer is the same. You would be crazy to get on the plane if the mechanic told you there was a 1% chance it would crash.

If 1% of scientists said there was AGW, we would not be talking about it.

353 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:06:34pm

re: #330 Sharmuta

Exxon Mobil eyes bigger role for natural gas

It would be nicer if Exxon would stop funding denial and put that money towards research and development.

Actually the oil and gas companies are probably spending more on R&D than any other entity on the planet. They take peak oil and cost-of-recovery issues very seriously. It's their business. They want to be leaders in whatever comes after petroleum products.

So quit whining.

354 Gus  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:06:55pm

re: #337 lawhawk

I'll point out again, that Kyoto didn't get the job done - as emissions increased precipitiously during the period it was in effect, and Europe, which signed off on Kyoto, missed its targets. Copenhagen isn't likely to do any better.

Lots will be promised. Little will be delivered.

I agree. Not that it should be unproductive to that degree. I'm just perplexed at the hysteria coming from the opponents making Copenhagen out to be an international conspiracy. Even after reading the Kyoto Treaty itself which I found to be a rather moderate proposal.

It's a long road ahead and there will be many more conferences, meetings and studies along the way. Of course that won't stop the anti-AGW alarmists from crying out the impending end of the free world and the beginning of global communism. This is nothing of the sort.

355 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:06:57pm

re: #330 Sharmuta

Exxon Mobil eyes bigger role for natural gas

It would be nicer if Exxon would stop funding denial and put that money towards research and development.

Why? They're making good money off petroleum, and are improving shareholder value by doing what they're doing.

When the time comes for them to diversify, they'll be sitting on a big pot of cash they can use to diversify through acquisition of other companies that got there first but didn't have the profits to build up similar resources.

356 ckb  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:07:30pm

re: #330 Sharmuta

Exxon Mobil eyes bigger role for natural gas

It would be nicer if Exxon would stop funding denial and put that money towards research and development.

Who's funding denial? The coming prominece of Natural Gas was the focus of the latest Technology Review, MIT's magazine. It's actually squarely on the boards as a green bridge techhnology.

357 Bagua  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:07:54pm

re: #353 Cato the Elder

Actually the oil and gas companies are probably spending more on R&D than any other entity on the planet. They take peak oil and cost-of-recovery issues very seriously. It's their business. They want to be leaders in whatever comes after petroleum products.

So quit whining.

Correct, what they spend on public relations is a pittance of what they spend on industry research.

358 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:08:57pm

re: #342 Alouette

You left out "poisoned by Alar"

And "dying in human snowdrifts from SARS."

359 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:10:24pm

re: #355 SixDegrees

Why? They're making good money off petroleum, and are improving shareholder value by doing what they're doing.

When the time comes for them to diversify, they'll be sitting on a big pot of cash they can use to diversify through acquisition of other companies that got there first but didn't have the profits to build up similar resources.

They're already doing that, and it will only accelerate.

My Moonbat Brother (MMB™), though, thinks oil execs ought to be put on trial at The Hague for crimes against humanity.

As if they forced us to buy all this stuff made of plastic, and drive cars, and take plane rides to Cancun to cheat on our spouses.

Bleh.

360 nordink  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:10:35pm

re: #322 lostlakehiker

All good points. From upright vs. right, to the car smash-up analogy.

And anyone on the AGW side who doesn't deify Gore gets points (and respect) from me, too.

My question, though, is: assuming AGW is real and a bad road wreck on its way, can any government really do anything about it? I wouldn't think either this administration or the previous one would be up to the task.

And I'm all for nuclear power, as you suggest. But -- if one believes the information Dennis Prager cites -- the AGW crowd is by-and-large on the Left, which -- in this country -- fears nuclear power.

361 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:16:05pm

re: #290 reine.de.tout

Why would anyone need Rapture Insurance?

In case one is Left Behind, there will be destruction galore.

362 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:19:04pm

re: #361 Naso Tang

In case one is Left Behind, there will be destruction galore.

And, presumably, a lot of insurance agents.

363 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:22:16pm
No scientific theory is ever considered to be “100% certain.” But suppose you were about to take a flight, and a mechanic told you that there was a 95%+ chance that the airplane would crash. Would you just get on the plane anyway?

In truth a 1% chance of immediate death would be more than enough to ground me.
But with all due respect the scientific projections of massive global death and destruction are not nearly so immediate or certain. We should not confuse the substantial scientific concensus for climate change with the far less certain forecasts for the consequences.

364 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:25:12pm

re: #290 reine.de.tout

Why would anyone need Rapture Insurance?

To leave your Left Behind loved ones a Get Out Of Hell Free card.

365 Gus  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:25:36pm

re: #307 borgcube

I wish global warming would just get on with it if the doomsday predictions are correct and take Bangladesh off the planet. Then we could move forward.

I was already supposed to be dead in no particular order from ice sheets enveloping North America, starved to death because of acid rain destroying all crops, 6 ft. under from AIDS, room temperature from Mad Cow, living like a caveman from Y2K, sprouting wings from Bird Flu, stung to death by swarms of killer bees, burned alive from the shrinking ozone layer, compressed beyond recognition from overpopulation, floating in the Pacific from the "Big One," playing dodgeball with meteors, gasping for air because the rain forests were turned into beautiful flooring, and powering my car like Fred Flintstone since we were going to run out of oil in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, ???.

The ice age meme was based largely on a faulty article by Newsweek. There was no consensus. It is a constant topic presented by the anti-AGW factions.

Acid rain is a real threat. However over time it has been mitigated to a large degree in North America including coal scrubbing and Flue gas desulfurization. Automobile emission control also helped in reducing nitrogen oxides.

AIDs has come under control by way of research and medical care including prevention. HIV drugs have been more effective over the years.

Mad Cow Disease or Bovine spongiform encephalopathy was a serious threat to cattle production and human populations. It has been brought under effective control through various measures. This applies similarly with Bird Flu.

You suggest other but will stop with the above. I believe you are suggesting that these doomsday scenarios had no effect on your life and in retrospect not worth considering. To the contrary, these problems you list would have proven to be rather serious had the not been identified and mitigated through science, technology and policy or regulatory changes.

In many cases perhaps you would not have been left diseased or dead from these incidents and ecological states, many others would have across the nation.

366 darthstar  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:31:06pm

re: #364 The Sanity Inspector

To leave your Left Behind loved ones a Get Out Of Hell Free card.

That was the other thing I called my 'salvation' in ninth grade...my 'Get out of hell free' card...ha!

367 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:34:10pm

re: #365 Gus 802

The ice age meme was based largely on a faulty article by Newsweek. There was no consensus. It is a constant topic presented by the anti-AGW factions.

Acid rain is a real threat. However over time it has been mitigated to a large degree in North America including coal scrubbing and Flue gas desulfurization. Automobile emission control also helped in reducing nitrogen oxides.

AIDs has come under control by way of research and medical care including prevention. HIV drugs have been more effective over the years.

Mad Cow Disease or Bovine spongiform encephalopathy was a serious threat to cattle production and human populations. It has been brought under effective control through various measures. This applies similarly with Bird Flu.

You suggest other but will stop with the above. I believe you are suggesting that these doomsday scenarios had no effect on your life and in retrospect not worth considering. To the contrary, these problems you list would have proven to be rather serious had the not been identified and mitigated through science, technology and policy or regulatory changes.

In many cases perhaps you would not have been left diseased or dead from these incidents and ecological states, many others would have across the nation.

Nonetheless, he's correct that scientists did make most of these proclamations, and the press ran with the stories. The result of such constant predictions of falling skies is that, after a while, they become part of the background noise because of their poor track record when compared with reality.

One of the more recent such panics, and one of my favorites, was the Millenium Bug Catastrophe that was supposed to bring on something between major inconvenience lasting for many months to the full scale collapse of civilization, but instead produced...well, pretty much nothing at all discernible. West Nile virus was another. And it looks as though H1N1 will turn out to be yet another, although that hasn't quite played itself out yet.

The point is that predicting the end of the world is a pretty sure way of getting yourself ignored.

368 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:35:33pm

re: #367 SixDegrees

No, he's not right that scientists made most of those proclamations.

The media does often distort things said by scientists.

369 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:41:43pm

re: #368 Obdicut

No, he's not right that scientists made most of those proclamations.

The media does often distort things said by scientists.

Actually, he is. There may not have been much of a consensus for many of them, but most had their supporters within the scientific community.

The canard that "no one in the scientific community" predicted global cooling, for example, is not correct. There were several papers published in peer-reviewed journals that made exactly that prediction; someone posted a link yesterday (Sharmuta?) to a study that found a total of, I believe, 7 such papers published over the period of the decade in question. The same study also found, I believe, 29 papers predicting warming from the same sources. But the point is that there wasn't unanimity, and such claims did indeed have a basis in the scientific literature. And that same is true for most of the other cases cited, as well - possibly all of them, but there are some I'm simply not familiar with.

That much of North America was gripped with an bitterly and unusually cold winter in the late 70s pushed this subset onto the front page. But it didn't come out of nowhere.

370 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:43:31pm

re: #369 SixDegrees

The difference is between overwhelming scientific consensus and it being the pet theory of one or two scientists. Scientists, plural, did not, as a group, represent any of those things.

Climatologists, as a group, are in consensus about AGW.

There is no comparison.

371 abbyadams  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:43:34pm

re: #262 SixDegrees

I can't disagree about solar and wind being ready for primetime, but I definitely want to trade frying pans to get a quick fix. If we ever want to see any improvement in solar and wind, then we need to put resources there now, not wait until nuclear waste starts piling up and then say, "ok, this isn't working, either."

Some forethought this time would be nice. I am not against nuclear power - but don't want to put all the eggs in that basket.

372 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:44:08pm

re: #370 Obdicut

The difference is between overwhelming scientific consensus and it being the pet theory of one or two scientists. Scientists, plural, did not, as a group, represent any of those things.

Climatologists, as a group, are in consensus about AGW.

There is no comparison.

And once again, that's not what we're talking about here.

373 Gus  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:45:17pm

re: #367 SixDegrees

Nonetheless, he's correct that scientists did make most of these proclamations, and the press ran with the stories. The result of such constant predictions of falling skies is that, after a while, they become part of the background noise because of their poor track record when compared with reality.

One of the more recent such panics, and one of my favorites, was the Millenium Bug Catastrophe that was supposed to bring on something between major inconvenience lasting for many months to the full scale collapse of civilization, but instead produced...well, pretty much nothing at all discernible. West Nile virus was another. And it looks as though H1N1 will turn out to be yet another, although that hasn't quite played itself out yet.

The point is that predicting the end of the world is a pretty sure way of getting yourself ignored.

The media ran with it an over dramatized it and that is nothing new. However, he listed problems that were serious and not obscure "Millenium Bug Catastrophe" which cannot be compared to AIDs, acid rain, and other challenges faced by society.

I find the analogy absurd. To say that "oh they made me worry that I was going to die from AIDs once in the past and now they're doing it with global warming" flies in the face of the fact that AIDs was mitigated.

Had it not been for that mitigation then it is possible that those deaths would have occurred in even greater numbers. This like the hurricane argument in which people refuse to evacuate because of previous hurricane prediction miscalculations.

374 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:49:11pm

re: #371 abbyadams

I can't disagree about solar and wind being ready for primetime, but I definitely want to trade frying pans to get a quick fix. If we ever want to see any improvement in solar and wind, then we need to put resources there now, not wait until nuclear waste starts piling up and then say, "ok, this isn't working, either."

Some forethought this time would be nice. I am not against nuclear power - but don't want to put all the eggs in that basket.

The problem is that none of the alternatives currently available are capable of providing the energy required. A few of them may be useful as supplements, and I have no problem with using them in that way. In fact, I'd like to see several hundred windmills erected a few miles offshore in Lake Michigan, out of site of the beaches (huge tourist dollars there) and where they'll get a constant supply of wind. But if we want significant reductions in fossil fuel use, we have to start replacing petroleum and coal fired power plants with nuclear plants.

Long-term planning is a nice idea, but it's not gonna fly. Anything more than just a very few years into the future is somebody else's problem. I think it's more useful to focus on what can be done now.

375 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:49:19pm

re: #372 SixDegrees

What are we talking about here, then?

376 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:52:38pm

re: #373 Gus 802

The media ran with it an over dramatized it and that is nothing new. However, he listed problems that were serious and not obscure "Millenium Bug Catastrophe" which cannot be compared to AIDs, acid rain, and other challenges faced by society.

I find the analogy absurd. To say that "oh they made me worry that I was going to die from AIDs once in the past and now they're doing it with global warming" flies in the face of the fact that AIDs was mitigated.

Had it not been for that mitigation then it is possible that those deaths would have occurred in even greater numbers. This like the hurricane argument in which people refuse to evacuate because of previous hurricane prediction miscalculations.

I think he has a valid point in that it reflects the weariness so many people feel with gloom and doom predictions. Frankly, I took his post to be tongue in cheek, but there's a grain of truth in there, too.

I'd also say that the Millenium Bug was about as far from obscure as can be imagined. In December 1999, I don't think you could have found anyone who hadn't heard of it, and it's ill effects were being relentlessly flogged both in the press and in the computer science world.

377 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:53:15pm

re: #375 Obdicut

What are we talking about here, then?

Obviously not what you're talking about.

378 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:57:29pm

re: #377 SixDegrees

Obviously not what you're talking about.

Okay. My point is that referencing past media-hyped doom scenarios and the current scientific-consensus-supported scenario as similar is silly as all get out.

379 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 1:58:05pm

re: #378 Obdicut

That's nice.

That's not what I was talking about at all.

380 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 2:01:32pm

re: #379 SixDegrees

Why not? It's what borgcube was doing. If his complaint is about the media, he phrased it terribly.

381 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 2:23:17pm

re: #367 SixDegrees


One of the more recent such panics, and one of my favorites, was the Millenium Bug Catastrophe that was supposed to bring on something between major inconvenience lasting for many months to the full scale collapse of civilization, but instead produced...well, pretty much nothing at all discernible. West Nile virus was another.

The Millenium bug was a crisis largely promoted by the same type of people denying AGW, as well as software companies fixing the potential problem. However there would have been real problems for many had most software not been fixed in advance, which it was.

And it looks as though H1N1 will turn out to be yet another, although that hasn't quite played itself out yet.

The 1918-20 flu pandemic killed 10's of millions, if not 100 million worldwide, and it is a relative of H1N1. This is not an issue that one can afford to wait and see about rather than risk upsetting sensitive people.

Are you suggesting one should never describe worst case scenarios, even if they are possible, because the public is too stupid to hear more than a few in a lifetime?

382 H8tank  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 2:23:34pm

I guess I missed the class where we decided what the correct climate was.

383 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 2:24:33pm

re: #382 H8tank

I guess I missed the class where we decided what the correct climate was.

You missed a lot more than that buddy.

384 garhighway  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 2:32:04pm

re: #379 SixDegrees

Then why not say what you WERE talking about, exactly?

How about you strive for clarity?

Clarity is good.

385 H8tank  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 2:39:04pm

re: #383 Naso Tang

You missed a lot more than that buddy.

When I go out and play in the back yard, and find fossils of sea creatures in the rocks that make up the earth I walk upon, what does that mean?

386 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 2:43:23pm

Oh brother.

387 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 2:44:52pm

re: #381 Naso Tang


Are you suggesting one should never describe worst case scenarios, even if they are possible, because the public is too stupid to hear more than a few in a lifetime?

I'm suggesting that, when describing worst case scenarios, it would be a good idea to identify them as such.

388 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 2:46:06pm

re: #384 garhighway

Feel free to read my entire thread. It's easily followed, what with the numbers and all.

I don't see the point of repeating myself over and over for someone who simply isn't interested in reading what I've written.

389 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 2:47:31pm

re: #385 H8tank

Back when humans didn't exist and we didn't have this awesome human-supporting infrastructure which is all adapted to the current climate, their was an ocean there.

Were you going somewhere with that?

390 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 2:49:31pm

re: #380 Obdicut

Why not what?

Is English a second language for you? Seriously. Because you do this sort of thing constantly: start discussing something that was never said, then throwing it in a poster's face and accusing them of having said it. Here, your reply doesn't even make sense in light of the post it's allegedly in response to.

Or is this just the same well-worn, tired trolling technique employed elsewhere in order to turn the simplest of statements into some kind of argument?

Either way, I'm really not interested in correcting your shortcomings.

391 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 2:59:02pm

re: #390 SixDegrees


I don't think that comparing a lot of media hysteria doomsday scenarios to a sober assessment of severe trouble by scientists are comparable. He was making that comparison, implicitly. The bit about the ice sheets is an especially eye-rolling one for anyone talking about global warming.

The one time that I was actually talking at cross-purposes with you, I acknowledged it and apologized. Apparently that's served to confirm in your mind that I'm trolling for an argument. I'm not sure why.

I definitely feel strongly about global warming and will argue with those who are not getting it, being obstructionist, or otherwise clouding the issue. Given that the subject is coming up a lot around here, you can expect to find me arguing with people a lot.

Do you have any reason to doubt that I honestly think that borgcube was comparing global warming to those other doomsday scenarios?

392 Jeff In Ohio  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 3:00:43pm

re: #323 Cato the Elder


But we can't have solar in any significant quantity either, because it 1) doesn't really work in these climes on anything bigger than a water-heater

Sorry, late to the party. I know several people in Wendell and Shutesbury who have their electric (no, not heat) on 4KW, maybe 2500 sq.ft. footprint, a day systems.

393 steelerjoe  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 3:04:39pm

Gibbity Gibbity Goo... Peter Griffin Gibbs. This guy is Obama's Scott Mcclellan.

394 gamark  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 3:05:16pm

re: #258 DaddyG

I agree with part of this. There is no shortage of people and constituencies who are going to use the issue as a way to get gain for themselves. Al Gore is a great example.

That doesn't mean there isn't a problem or that the science an global warming is bad just because some have pushed what to do about it it hard into the political realm.

Granted there will always be a WIIFM (whats in it for me) for all parties involved. So the solution isn't to hand over the reins to the watermelons or the oil ticks... It is to find measures we can take that will forward the implementation of clean(er) technology and better stewardship of resources in a way that benefits all parties. The Indian government showed great courage today in saying they will try to find solutions without demanding subsidies.

I stipulated there is a problem. My overall point is that it is time to seriously and soberly talk about what to do about it. I see 3 general approaches:

1. Cut back on co2 emissions
2. Remove co2 from the atmosphere
3. Take steps to live with the climate consequences.

All I ever see trumpeted by politicians is 1. I've seen some technology articles addressing possibility 2. I don't think I've seen anything about 3. Humans have been around for several hundred thousand years. The species has survived dramatic global climate events with little more than skin on their backs and sticks for tools. I think modern man can do it as well. As far as I'm concerned, everything should be on the table and discussed/evaluated. I have a feeling that if scientific consensus becomes "move to higher ground and/or previously cold parts of the world", the politicians will lose all interest in doing anything.

395 H8tank  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 3:12:28pm

re: #389 Obdicut

...their was an ocean there.

Is everyone in agreement with that?

I would think so. The planet is going to warm, or cool no matter how much we pollute and poison ourselves, and there isn't a darn thing we can do about it.

pollution = bad

climate change = same 'ol same 'ol for a long, long time.

The idea that we are going to cool the planet by poisoning ourselves with ethanol and not washing our clothes is quite the comedy if you ask me. But hey, people need something to latch onto, it gives them purpose. Some do it by worshiping the planet, other by throwing tomatoes at public figures.

396 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 3:15:01pm

re: #395 H8tank


The planet is going to warm, or cool no matter how much we pollute and poison ourselves, and there isn't a darn thing we can do about it.

Why do you feel you are better informed on this than climatologists?

397 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 4:08:09pm

re: #392 Jeff In Ohio

Sorry, late to the party. I know several people in Wendell and Shutesbury who have their electric (no, not heat) on 4KW, maybe 2500 sq.ft. footprint, a day systems.

How nice.

Most people I know don't have 2,500-square-foot houses, much less roofs.

398 myfriendwatson  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 5:32:01pm

re: #397 Cato the Elder

I wouldn't get on a bus that was 100% certain to lead to economic ruin.

399 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 5:37:34pm

I don't think I've seen it posted on the front page, but have not read all the comments on the climate change posts. Perhaps this has been addressed already.

Have the AGW side addressed the findings Dr Roy Spencer put out talking about the forcing/feedback mechanism?

Basically he says he found that the NASA satellite temperature data show a negative feedback of energy from additional CO2 instead of a positive feedback. So as CO2 increases the Earth gives off more and more energy instead of getting hotter and hotter.

The 20 main AGW models assume this positive feedback which of course leads the models to show increased temps in the future. Dr Spencer's model would show very mild increased temps with a doubling of CO2 and says his model fits actual data (being constructed from the data) while the AGW models predict dire warming but do not reconcile with satellite data.

[Link: www.drroyspencer.com...]

I am still sceptical that a layperson can be certain about who is correct in the debate since it is a highly technical field. And the point being made earlier in the thread that everyone pretends to be a rocket scientist is valid. So the highbrow confidence that AGW is certain and is terrible is misplaced in my view.

400 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 5:38:44pm

re: #399 iheartbolton

Roy Spencer is a creationist.

Charles has posted plenty of stuff about him.

Have you watched all of the videos that Charles posted?

401 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 5:53:09pm

i didn't know that. It certainly would detract from his character. I don't know that it would necessarily invalidate the science. I guess you are implying that he is not to be trusted. I do think I remember that the finding were reproduced by more than two other groups though. So his personal shortcoming might not play.

I did watch a couple of the videos. I thought the last one about cap and trade was crappy actually. Shining a light on massive govt regulation to show that it doesn't work proves that govt intervention doesn't work.

But if you take that principle, then the IPCC and EastAnglia group are damned.

402 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 5:55:43pm

re: #401 iheartbolton

i didn't know that. It certainly would detract from his character. I don't know that it would necessarily invalidate the science. I guess you are implying that he is not to be trusted. I do think I remember that the finding were reproduced by more than two other groups though. So his personal shortcoming might not play.

They weren't. You're 'remembering' wrong.

I did watch a couple of the videos. I thought the last one about cap and trade was crappy actually. Shining a light on massive govt regulation to show that it doesn't work proves that govt intervention doesn't work.

Did you watch the ones about how deniers are being fed a line of bullshit and swallowing it?

Or just the ones about how government is bad?

403 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 6:04:47pm

hmm I guess you are one of the rocket scientists.

404 badger1  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 6:39:04pm

re: #400 Obdicut

Nice ad hominem attack. How 'bout we focus on the arguments not personalities?

405 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 6:59:16pm

re: #404 badger1

Nice ad hominem attack. How 'bout we focus on the arguments not personalities?

The point that you seem to miss is that creationists have no arguments, just talking points. Do you have arguments that don't depend on quoting creationists?

406 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 7:06:27pm

It is not a talking point. And nothing was quoted, I only rehashed the findings.
The point is the data exists (wasn't lost, misplaced or withheld).
The finding was reproduced, just not by East Anglia.

Don't get me wrong, I hope we can control the weather. But it just doesn't seem likely.

407 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 7:09:53pm

re: #404 badger1

What ad hominem, please?

Someone being a creationist definitely impacts their credibility about earth sciences, if that's what you mean.

re: #406 iheartbolton

Weather and climate are not the same.

Again: Did you watch any of the videos posted that don't have to do with government being bad?

408 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 7:20:36pm

If in 50 years the climate (not weather I guess) is a degree or so too warm for you, move 100 miles North. Do you find it interesting the overwhelming migration in the US over the past couple decades has been to warmer climates?

Yes I watched some video, quite alot of it is childish. Which one did you find exceptional?

409 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 7:25:11pm

re: #408 iheartbolton

If in 50 years the climate (not weather I guess) is a degree or so too warm for you, move 100 miles North. Do you find it interesting the overwhelming migration in the US over the past couple decades has been to warmer climates?

Yes I watched some video, quite alot of it is childish. Which one did you find exceptional?

You can't possibly actually be this ignorant.

410 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 7:41:33pm

What didn't you understand, that people have been choosing to move to warmer climates?

Also, you keep implying I think big government is bad. Hasn't the 20th century made that more than clear? What gives you so much confidence in the bureaucrats abilities?

411 lostlakehiker  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:08:53pm

re: #360 nordink

All good points. From upright vs. right, to the car smash-up analogy.

And anyone on the AGW side who doesn't deify Gore gets points (and respect) from me, too.

My question, though, is: assuming AGW is real and a bad road wreck on its way, can any government really do anything about it? I wouldn't think either this administration or the previous one would be up to the task.

And I'm all for nuclear power, as you suggest. But -- if one believes the information Dennis Prager cites -- the AGW crowd is by-and-large on the Left, which -- in this country -- fears nuclear power.

I'm afraid you're right about the bulk of AGW'ers fearing nuclear power. Our "camp" needs to sober up and keep its eye on the ball. Nuclear power is safer than generally believed, and especially safer if you count all the people killed mining coal or breathing the waste.

Government can seed the development of wind, solar, and breeder-reactor nuclear. Long term investments in basic technology aren't very well protected by the patent system, so it takes government funded R&D to get past the first difficulties.

Neither Bush nor Obama have done anything concrete about global warming. Obama's pledge to reduce U.S. CO2 emissions by 83% is an empty boast. None of the enormous mass of specific measures that would be needed to make this a reality are on his agenda.

Still, just having an NSF does get us somewhere. Little by little, solar is creeping up on the competitive-with-coal line. If (when?) we hit it, the crisis will be over as everybody abandons coal for the new-fangled and better method. Even if the physics of solar does not allow for that, perhaps space based solar satellites will turn the trick. Again, the government would need to lend a hand. Meanwhile there's wind, efficiency, green buildings, LED lighting, geothermal, and maybe even biofuels if we can get switchgrass or algae methods up and running. Turning corn into alcohol is nuts. The corn is more valuable as corn.

412 kittysaidwoof  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:10:13pm

The mechanic analogy doesn't really work for me. It implies that this is a human extinction event with 90+% certainty. Which immediately raises the question why is this argument made in favour of policies that are not very likely to do anything to avert the climate change. If this really were a human extinction event with 90% certainty we should talk about 100% effective measures like mass population reductions. But politics-wise this really isn't about human extinction, it is more about wealth distribution and taxes.

413 karmasherabwangchuk  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:18:38pm

has anybody seen the prediction made by james Hansen in 1998 predicting that the west side highway in NYC would be under water by now?

414 kittysaidwoof  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:18:57pm

lostlakehiker, I don't get how you think we can accelerate technological breakthroughs by taking money out of the business with more and more taxes. Right now in Europe most windparks are relying on subsidies with efforts made to expand the windparks to levy more subsidies while those smarter than me tell me that the efficiency of the parks is so low the net effect on carbon emissions is negligible. Yet a technological breakthrough that would make the windmills more efficient and make them profitable on their own right would probably be bad for the businesses operating them due to the inevitable effect it would have on the subsidies.

I am all for renewable energy and less oil dependence, but my stance has nothing to do with AGW.

415 karmasherabwangchuk  Tue, Dec 8, 2009 8:58:21pm

oooh a downding. am i incorrect on this? it appears on the salon.com website. is this false info?re: #413 karmasherabwangchuk

416 4Deuce  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 5:30:56am

re: #99 Alouette

For what it's worth, in the infantry, "4Deuce" is a term used for the 4.2-inch mortar I was crew chief on in Vietnam -a mortar round slightly wider than a standard Army howitzer round.

417 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 12:08:45pm

As usual, a flood of denialist talking points, links to creationists (!), and general ignorant BS, at the end of the thread. They do it every time.

418 iheartbolton  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 3:54:59pm

It's legitimate to slam a creationist, so if that was aimed at my post, fine.
His failing doesn't invalidate the science if it holds up to scrutiny of course. But the finding is not obviously wrong.

I assume Jo Nova is not a creationist - she defends the medieval warm period against Mann's hockey stick graph hoax. She is a reporter not a scientist.

[Link: wattsupwiththat.com...]

It’s clear that the world was warmer during medieval times. Marked on the map are study after study (all peer-reviewed) from all around the world with results of temperatures from the medieval time compared to today. These use ice cores, stalagmites, sediments, and isotopes. They agree with 6,144 boreholes around the world which found that temperatures were about 0.5°C warmer world wide.

700+ scientists from 440 institutes

419 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 8:06:58pm

They never stop.


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
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
14 minutes ago
Views: 23 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
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
3 days ago
Views: 154 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1