NOAA Study: All Indicators Show Climate Change is Undeniable

Environment • Views: 6,549

A new study from the US National Oceans and Atmospheric Administration shows that climate change is ‘undeniable’ — but does anyone really believe that will silence the deniers?

The NOAA study drew on up to 11 different indicators of climate, and found that each one pointed to a world that was warming owing to the influence of greenhouse gases, said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the UK’s Met Office, one of the agencies participating.

Seven indicators were rising, he said. These were: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, marine air temperature, sea level, ocean heat, humidity, and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the earth’s surface. Four indicators were declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers, spring snow cover in the northern hemisphere, and stratospheric temperatures.

Mr Stott said: “The whole of the climate system is acting in a way consistent with the effects of greenhouse gases.” “The fingerprints are clear,” he said. “The glaringly obvious explanation for this is warming from greenhouse gases.”

This is really bad news; not a single indicator contradicts the conclusion that we’re approaching a catastrophic tipping point. And it gets even worse.

Another newly released study has shown that phytoplankton, the basis of the ocean’s entire food chain, has declined over the past century by 40 percent.

The microscopic plants that support all life in the oceans are dying off at a dramatic rate, according to a study that has documented for the first time a disturbing and unprecedented change at the base of the marine food web.

Scientists have discovered that the phytoplankton of the oceans has declined by about 40 per cent over the past century, with much of the loss occurring since the 1950s. They believe the change is linked with rising sea temperatures and global warming.

Jump to bottom

101 comments
1 Randall Gross  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:22:58am

We are in the bottom of a sunspot cycle and should be setting records for cool, not heat. Things are getting bad.

2 steve_davis  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:25:30am

That’s the beauty of the system: the argument will simply shift from “there is no global warming,” to “there is global warming, but no good evidence that human beings are responsible.” From there, it becomes, “Yes, of course, there’s global warming, but we can’t do anything about it—at least, we can’t unless we pay heavy industry trillions of dollars to come up with a drastic remedy that wouldn’t be needed if our heads hadn’t been up our lawyerly asses for the preceding 30 years.”

3 SteveMcGazi  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:25:33am

This would never have happened if John McCain had been elected President.

4 S'latch  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:26:32am

I wonder what we will do when we get to that “catastrophic tipping point.”

5 SteveMcGazi  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:27:03am

It still blows my mind that denying Global Warming can be a conservative plank.

6 brookly red  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:27:35am

The phytoplankton thing is not good at all, but I thought that plankton liked warm water?

7 Kragar  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:27:43am

re: #4 Lawrence Schmerel

I wonder what we will do when we get to that “catastrophic tipping point.”

War and kill for the resources necessary to survive

8 Ericus58  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:30:25am

Greenpeace says Indoensian Company logging in orangutan habitat

heraldsun.com.au

“Greenpeace Indonesia forest campaigner Bustar Maitar said new investigations showed Sinar Mas subsidiaries logging peat forests and orangutan habitats on Borneo island despite repeated promises to end such practices.

Our photos provide fresh evidence of Sinar Mas’s continued active clearance of remaining rainforests and deep peatlands,” he told Agence France-Presse as the environmental group released a new report on Sinar Mas’s activities.”
………
“Indonesia is considered the world’s third-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, mainly through deforestation, much of which is done illegally with the alleged connivance of officials and security forces.”

9 brookly red  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:30:29am

re: #7 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

War and kill for the resources necessary to survive

Well you can kill for food, you can kill for water but if we run out of air, game over.

10 ihateronpaul  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:31:47am

We don’t need to tax carbon emissions - we NEED alternative energy. Alternative energy that is cheaper than petroleum based fuel. Big thanks to Reagan for shitting all over Carters energy initiatives when he got into office, that was an AWESOME fucking decision, you fucking piece of shit.

11 garhighway  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:31:52am

re: #5 SteveMcG

It still blows my mind that denying Global Warming can be a conservative Republican plank.

FTFY

12 SteveMcGazi  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:32:41am

re: #7 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

War and kill for the resources necessary to survive

It will be a lot more mundane than that. You’ll just gradually see more and more famines. Sure, there will be more storm related catastrophies, but for the most part, agriculture will fail to sustain the population. You’ll probably see more ethnic cleansing. Pardon the euphamism, you’ll see more genocide.

13 mr.fusion  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:33:10am

pffffffffffffft

science schmience

Dont you guys know about climategate? I mean….not the recent news surrounding climategate, but the stuff Breitbart provided to us through his unfiltered lens?

14 SteveMcGazi  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:34:06am

re: #11 garhighway

FTFY

I stand corrected.

15 ihateronpaul  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:34:47am

re: #11 garhighway

and how! “The base” gets off so much on psuedo-science “debunking” AGW that it’s not even funny. Rush Limbaugh flaunts his denial? Coincidence? nooooope

16 garhighway  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:34:59am

re: #10 ihateronpaul

We don’t need to tax carbon emissions - we NEED alternative energy. Alternative energy that is cheaper than petroleum based fuel. Big thanks to Reagan for shitting all over Carters energy initiatives when he got into office, that was an AWESOME fucking decision, you fucking piece of shit.

But how do you get wide use of alternative energy when it is more expensive than the carbon-based alternatives?

Taxing carbon to level the playing field is one way to nudge that process along. There are others, and I don’t know enough about that field to comment intelligently on which is best or worst, but I get the logic of a carbon tax.

17 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:36:15am

re: #16 garhighway

But how do you get wide use of alternative energy when it is more expensive than the carbon-based alternatives?

Taxing carbon to level the playing field is one way to nudge that process along. There are others, and I don’t know enough about that field to comment intelligently on which is best or worst, but I get the logic of a carbon tax.

Not only that but money gained from a carbon tax could in turn be funneled into a government research group working on solar/wind/nuclear/whatever energy…

18 lawhawk  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:38:13am

re: #16 garhighway

Additional incentives (tax credits or deductions or even lower tax rates/property tax reductions/PILOTs) to build alt-power generation, reducing red tape on getting alt-energy plants and transmission lines built, etc.

19 garhighway  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:38:30am

re: #15 ihateronpaul

and how! “The base” gets off so much on psuedo-science “debunking” AGW that it’s not even funny. Rush Limbaugh flaunts his denial? Coincidence? nooope

This may be the single most evil thing done in American politics ever. Worse than slavery, worse than Jim Crow. To deliberately adopt a strategy that will cause hardship to billions and death to at least millions is unspeakably evil. And for what? One election cycle’s gains? A few years of higher profits?

If I believed in Hell, I would know that there was a special place in it for these motherfuckers.

20 brookly red  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:38:52am

re: #17 jamesfirecat

Not only that but money gained from a carbon tax could in turn be funneled into a government research group working on solar/wind/nuclear/whatever energy…

well if they actually do that maybe, but they have a habit of spending money on things other than that for which it was intended…

21 Kragar  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:39:07am

Ship lost for more than 150 years is recovered

Canadian archeologists have found a ship abandoned more than 150 years ago in the quest for the fabled Northwest Passage and which was lost in the search for the doomed expedition of Sir John Franklin, the head of the team said Wednesday.

Marc-Andre Bernier, Parks Canada’s head of underwater archaeology, said the HMS Investigator, abandoned in the ice in 1853, was found in shallow water in Mercy Bay along the northern coast of Banks Island in Canada’s western Arctic.

“The ship is standing upright in very good condition. It’s standing in about 11 meters (36 feet) of water,” he said. “This is definitely of the utmost importance. This is the ship that sailed the last leg of the Northwest Passage.”

22 garhighway  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:39:56am

re: #17 jamesfirecat

re: #18 lawhawk

Agree and agree. There are a lot of tools in the toolbox. Use one, use some, use them all. But do SOMETHING!

23 SteveMcGazi  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:39:58am

re: #17 jamesfirecat

Not only that but money gained from a carbon tax could in turn be funneled into a government research group working on solar/wind/nuclear/whatever energy…

You may be a little optimistic about the destination of that revenue. I can envision a future Republican Congress cutting other taxes to offset the revenue or Democratic ones putting it in a general fund. Either way, I do think carbon taxes are a necessary way of making the price of using carbon commensurate with its true costs.

FWIW check speeling almost changed jamesfirecat to “misdirect”!

24 SteveMcGazi  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:44:03am

:check speeling” OOF!

25 Surabaya Stew  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:47:27am

re: #8 Ericus58

Just a little background as to why palm oil producing companies in Indonesia are some of the planet’s worst polluters; they fiance the growth of palm oil plantations by cutting down rain forests and selling the timber (often illegally to Chinese buyers.) Contrast that to Malaysia, where new management techniques and raised planing efficiencies lead to palm oil plantations there able to raise up to 3 times more palm oil per acre than Indonesian plantations without clearing any new land!

Fuckers like Sinar Mas are a far worse threat to Indonesia (and the entire world) than all of the jihadists combined, IMHO.

26 Solomon2  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:53:35am

Still don’t know if it’s anthropogenic or not.

27 Velvet Elvis  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:55:25am

That just reminded me. Lost in the Nashville flood was a big chunk of Gibson’s rosewood stash. That stuff getting harder and harder to get without illegal logging.

28 garhighway  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 10:59:24am

re: #26 Solomon2

Still don’t know if it’s anthropogenic or not.

Fool.

29 webevintage  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 11:02:32am

Hey, this moron over on a local blog keeps saying we do not need to worry because the ocean and “flora” absorbed all the excess CO2.
I’m pretty sure he is full of bull shit, but can one of the brainy folks he point me in the direction of why this is bullshit.

30 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 11:03:17am

re: #29 webevintage

Well, because we can measure the CO2 in the atmosphere and show that, no, the flora have not absorbed all the excess CO2.

31 Ericus58  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 11:03:35am

NASA survey on the impact of deforestation on climate

“In an American Meteorological Society Journal of Climate, two research meteorologists at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Andrew Negri and Robert Adler have analysed the impact of deforestation on climatic patterns in the Amazon using data and observatory readings obtained from NASA’s Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission collected over many years. Working also with the University of Arizona and the North Carolina State University according to Negri “In deforested areas, the land heats up faster and reaches a higher temperature, leading to localized upward motions that enhance the formation of clouds and ultimately produce more rainfall”.[27] They also examined cloud cover in the deforested areas, and in comparison with the areas still unaffected by deforestation found a significant increase in cloud cover and rainfall during the August-September wet season where forest had been removed. The height or existence of plants and trees in the forest directly affects the aerodynamics of the atmosphere, affecting precipitation. In addition the Massachusetts Institute of Technology developed a series of detailed computer simulated models of rainfall patterns in the Amazon during the 1990s and concluded that the removal of the forest also leaves the land exposed to the sun naturally increasing the land temperature near the surface, enhancing evaporation and more moisture in the atmosphere.”

en.wikipedia.org

32 Jack Burton  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 11:03:45am

re: #19 garhighway

This may be the single most evil thing done in American politics ever. Worse than slavery, worse than Jim Crow. To deliberately adopt a strategy that will cause hardship to billions and death to at least millions is unspeakably evil. And for what? One election cycle’s gains? A few years of higher profits?

If I believed in Hell, I would know that there was a special place in it for these motherfuckers.

I would agree with you if Rush Limbaugh, Ron Paul, et al (politicians and pundits who are not in the denialist industry “think tanks”) actually believed in AGW, but were lying about it anyway. The fact is they don’t. They think scientists are lying or exaggerating, jumping to the wrong conclusions, overlooking unknowns, fishing for grant money, etc. and they also think the politicians concerned about AGW are trying for a left wing power grab. You cant call something “worse than slavery” if it’s not done with intentional malice but is just ignorance or stupidity. The “denialist industry” on the other hand, the a-holes who are coming up with the talking points in the first place, I don’t know about them. They might be the damn demons you think they are.

33 Jack Burton  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 11:05:04am

re: #29 webevintage

Hey, this moron over on a local blog keeps saying we do not need to worry because the ocean and “flora” absorbed all the excess CO2.
I’m pretty sure he is full of bull shit, but can one of the brainy folks he point me in the direction of why this is bullshit.

If the ocean and flora absorbed all the excess CO2, then the amount in the atmosphere would not be increasing.

34 webevintage  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 11:16:29am

re: #33 ArchangelMichael

If the ocean and flora absorbed all the excess CO2, then the amount in the atmosphere would not be increasing.

OK.
I found the post from this weekend:

I have already posted numerous times on this, but will do so again to educate YOU. Numerous studies and tests/data ect., show conclusively (done by NASA among other agencies) that when you increase CO2 emissions, the flora absorbs the excess.
We do not emit CO2 in a closed vacuum, like the alarmist use to demonstrate global warming. THey say studies prove that CO2 causes warming in a vacuum. But we do not live in a vacuum. We live in a complex ecosystem with trees, and plants and animals and water, and oceans etc., etc., that all have to be taken into account. The flora absorbs the excess CO2 proven in countless tests and studies.

Yet you continue to cling to the fatally flawed theory that merely increasing CO2 (without taking all the other factors into consideration) will increase warming. That is true in a vacuum, but we don’t live in a vacuum do we? But I never seem to get any of you to acknowledge this or even respond to it other than to call anyone that disagrees with you “stupid” “dumb” “neanderthal” etc., etc. Which is how you argue, don’t argue facts, just call the person that disagrees with you stupid.
I actually use this in the debate club and it works just great. The other side argues their point, and I just get up and say “that person is an idiot.” And I win every time.

35 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 11:36:41am

re: #34 webevintage

Well, this is demonstrably untrue by a simple measurement of CO2 in atmosphere.

He’s a very hardcore denier.

36 Jack Burton  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 11:40:43am

re: #34 webevintage

LOLWUT?

Countless studies by who? BP or Exxon-Mobil? That guy is an ignorant asshat.

37 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 11:47:41am

re: #34 webevintage

He’s misunderstood the normal CO2 cycle. The addition of fossil fuel CO2 has ‘broken’ that equilibrium so the ocean and biosphere cannot keep up.

I suspect the studies he has read do not say what he thinks they do. Find out the names of the studies.

38 mikefromArlington  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 1:08:23pm

Darwinism at its best. I suppose our species wasn’t intended to exist. I guess the reptiles will win out?

39 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 1:16:13pm

re: #6 brookly red

The phytoplankton thing is not good at all, but I thought that plankton liked warm water?

You will notice that baleen whales tend to feed in cold, high latitude waters, and fast in low latitude waters to give birth and nurse their young until they grow big enough to endure the cold.

That hypothesis, commonly found in oceanographic textbooks, stated that phytoplankton bloom in temperate oceans in the spring because of improving light conditions — longer and brighter days — and warming of the surface layer. Warm water is less dense than cold water, so springtime warming creates a surface layer that essentially “floats” on top of the cold water below, slows wind-driven mixing and holds the phytoplankton in the sunlit upper layer more of the time, letting them grow faster.

There’s a problem: a nine-year analysis of satellite records of chlorophyll and carbon data indicate that this long-held hypothesis is not true. The rate of phytoplankton accumulation actually begins to surge during the middle of winter, the coldest, darkest time of year.

The fundamental flaw of the previous theory, Behrenfeld said, is that it didn’t adequately account for seasonal changes in the activity of the zooplankton — very tiny marine animals — in particular their feeding rate on the phytoplankton.

“To understand phytoplankton abundance, we’ve been paying way too much attention to phytoplankton growth and way too little attention to loss rates, particularly consumption by zooplankton,” Behrenfeld said. “When zooplankton are abundant and can find food, they eat phytoplankton almost as fast as it grows.”

40 freetoken  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 1:27:14pm

re: #5 SteveMcG

It still blows my mind that denying Global Warming can be a conservative plank.

Well, the recently adopted Iowa GOP platform says explicitly:

5.04 We believe that claims of human caused global warming are based on fraudulent, inaccurate information and that legislation and policy based on this information is detrimental to the well being of the United States.

Then again, it also says:

4.32 We believe that voluntary teacher or student led prayer shall not be restricted in public schools. The use of the Bible as a textbook should be allowed.

4.27 We believe that Intelligent Design theory, or Creationism, should be included with all science instruction along with the Darwinian theory. No theory should then be taught in public schools to the exclusion of the other.

4.28 We recommend that tax funded school libraries include creation science or intelligent design materials on their bookshelves.

41 rawsnacks  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 1:34:26pm

It’s going to be very difficult to get the perils (and hence the fix) for AGW into the imaginations of a majority of American voters if the link between AGW and Utopians remains intact. If you don’t believe that the messenger matters, then you flunked Poli-Sci 101. If you don’t believe that a majority of voters link AGW with Utopians, then you are wrong. When you say ‘climate change’ and ‘AGW’ and ‘greenhouse gasses’ - what’s heard is middle-class tax increase to give more $$$ to the UN. No amount of science can undo that (hardly anyone* understands science, or did you not know that).

There will have to be a change of tact.

*you don’t either, you just have faith in scientists, who have faith in other scientists…

42 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 1:35:11pm

re: #41 rawsnacks

You don’t really get how science works.

It’s not faith-based.

43 robdouth  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 1:45:55pm

re: #42 Obdicut

He never said it was, he was talking about the majority of Americans and how they will interpret the science through their filter, plus you have to factor in the competing “science” which is actually junk science, then factor in inertia which keeps a lot of people saying one thing after it’s been proven wrong because they don’t want to look foolish, and would rather keep believing what’s wrong then change positions.

He didn’t say anything about science, he was talking about perception, and the BS aphorism that truth will win out or the truth always comes out, is completely false. The truth needs just as much PR as a lie does. It’s the age of information, but no one told us there would be just as much disinformation as information.

44 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 1:52:06pm

re: #43 robdouth

He didn’t say anything about science,

Yes, he did.


No amount of science can undo that (hardly anyone* understands science, or did you not know that).

There will have to be a change of tact.

*you don’t either, you just have faith in scientists, who have faith in other scientists…

I really do understand the science behind global warming. It’s very, very simple.

45 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 1:57:41pm

re: #41 rawsnacks

Sorry, chief, but I do understand the science behind AGW.
As does Obdicut.
As do many on this board.

46 robdouth  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 1:57:47pm

re: #44 Obdicut

Again you’re missing the point. He’s not arguing the science, or the way it works, he’s talking about the human nature aspect and how to get it done politically.

You’re saying he doesn’t know how science works, but he’s saying the problem is the average person doesn’t understand the science. I would segue between you and say that he’s right, but that the science should be simple and the reason it’s not is because of all the disinformation. He arguing tactics, you’re arguing science, neither is wrong, but this is part of the problem. There isn’t one clear coherent message that is SUCCINCT and encompasses A. what’s wrong, B. why, C. what has to be done about it, D. What will happen if nothing is done.

Please don’t misunderstand me in thinking I’m saying the science is garbled. I’m saying the message is scattershot. The only thing everyone seems to agree on is the science behind warming, and the strong feelings against deniers. Solutions aren’t as easily agreed on, and without that clear coherent solution, it’s easier for deniers to shift the arguments like whack-a-mole. Smack them down on the science, they come up on the solution being to costly. Whack them down on the cost of not having a solution, they pop back up on Climategate. Smack them down on that, they go back to attacking something else. It’s a never-ending cycle, and I don’t see a solution.

47 robdouth  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 1:59:18pm

re: #44 Obdicut

Apologies, I reread more carefully what you quoted. You were right. I didn’t see the part about faith in scientists. I stopped after the first paragraph about AGW and Utopians. My bad. My other arguments I do stand behind on the difficulty of staying on message and being clear with the message.

48 freetoken  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 1:59:41pm

re: #41 rawsnacks


*you don’t either, you just have faith in scientists, who have faith in other scientists…

To whom are you speaking?

49 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 1:59:50pm

re: #46 robdouth

Again you’re missing the point. He’s not arguing the science, or the way it works, he’s talking about the human nature aspect and how to get it done politically.

He is, indeed, asserting I— and, in fact, the general ‘you’— don’t understand the science. He’s very, very wrong.

It’s a never-ending cycle, and I don’t see a solution.

The solution would be holding those spreading dangerous bullshit accountable.

50 steroid  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 2:00:24pm

I deny climate change. Therefore the report is wrong and climate change is deniable.

More seriously, I’m agnostic on whether it’s happening, what the causes are, what the effects are, what the prevention costs will be if necessary, etc. But I think legislature based on carbon dioxide footprint is premature. And I think that some people want the legislature for its own sake, even if it’s unfounded. And I don’t. I want a political stance that favors those who use energy to get utility rather than those who save energy. I think consumption of energy is a good thing, and I want more of it.

51 robdouth  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 2:02:04pm
*you don’t either, you just have faith in scientists, who have faith in other scientists…

Shouldnt’ that read, they have faith in the scientific method, as do other scientists. Or, they have faith in testable and repeatable results.

either way it’s a poor use of the word faith.

52 freetoken  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 2:05:00pm

re: #50 steroid

But I think legislature based on carbon dioxide footprint is premature.

On the contrary, controlling CO2 output is woefully late. It should have been addressed in the late 60’s when the problem was first raised to the national political level. It definitely ought to have been addressed by the 80’s when evidence of the magnitude of warming became better bounded.

Today it is still not too late, if by “too late” we mean avoiding the worst possible outcomes.

However, the reality of human activity on the climate is today very well established. What is not known is the extent to which the biosphere will have to change to go along with the physical system changes, but that is hardly a comforting thought.

53 robdouth  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 2:05:07pm

re: #49 Obdicut

How, and when you do, we then get to hear the next round of BS from them when they say that people holding them accountable are “stifling their free speech” which would undoubtedly happen if any actual action was taken against these liars. The best you can hope for is the occasional suit like Breitbart, but who is going to hold them to account? It sounds awesome and cool, like “yeah let’s get them damn liars and thieves”, but nothing concrete is happening or will happen to them. As usual with history, by the time they are convincingly and universally denounced as liars and wrong and proven to the vast majority of the public, they’ll have already moved on to the next issue.

54 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 2:06:34pm

re: #53 robdouth

How do humans do anything political?

Through our system of government.

The GOP openly opposed science. They need to be smacked down, and hard, because of that.

55 freetoken  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 2:07:55pm

re: #53 robdouth

The hardness of the nut which needs to be cracked can be seen by the new Iowa GOP platform to which I linked.

If they still insist on teaching creationism in science class, even with the rather pre-determined legal outcome, what are you going to do to stop them from writing such things, and believing them?

56 robdouth  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 2:08:03pm

re: #54 Obdicut

I understand what you’re saying and agree with you, but I’m just not nearly as optimistic that anything will happen. When I ask “what can be done” and I hear, “hold them to account” I know it’s already a lost cause because history is rife with people not being held to account, or at least man being able to get away with it.

57 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 2:11:54pm

re: #56 robdouth

Where have I shown optimism?

It is still the fight worth fighting.

58 Steroid  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 2:12:03pm

re: #52 freetoken

Precisely. We don’t know the effect on the biosphere, nor can we know if that will rebound to us or in what ways. There are too many variables to know how it will affect people, the rights of whom are the only thing the law is supposed to protect. Unless we can show a causal chain showing how activity X leads to damage to person Y, legislation is premature.

59 freetoken  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 2:15:37pm

re: #58 Steroid

It’s not that difficult to show causality, i.e., negative effects.

E.g., Northward migration of thousands of species has already been documented, including what are considered pests to agriculture.

I’m surprised you’re taking the position that we ought to wait until after the fact to make any decisions.

That’s sort of like buying fire insurance for your dwelling after a fire strikes it.

60 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 2:19:20pm

re: #59 freetoken

Or only starting a fire department after a fire has already burned down the town.

After all, we didn’t know that the fire would affect people negatively.

61 robdouth  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 2:19:34pm

re: #57 Obdicut

Ok, I guess I just don’t see posting as nearly synonymous with actual fighting. I don’t think there should be. lord knows we’re not HotAir or some Neonazi site calling for open war, but other than thumping our collective internet chests, and blowing off steam by saying how angry we are at specific people, I’m not seeing any actual change or move towards the right direction. Great catharsis, not actual progress, unless I’m missing something. This site catalogs daily the assininity out there, but still it looks like there will be some pickup by Republicans this cycle. Where is the fight?

Sorry if I implied that you were somehow claiming victory or certain things or that you were even being optimistic, but other than internet posts, I’m not sure how to implement anything you are talking about.

62 Steroid  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 2:19:52pm

re: #59 freetoken

Yes, but *whose* carbon caused the migration and *which* pests wouldn’t have been there without it and *what* crops did they destroy? That’s the causal chain I’m speaking of.

By counter, in your analogy, your position is akin to buying fire insurance before you even talk to the architect, choose the plot, or even know you want a house.

63 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 2:22:55pm

re: #61 robdouth


Ok, I guess I just don’t see posting as nearly synonymous with actual fighting.

What are you talking about?

This site catalogs daily the assininity out there, but still it looks like there will be some pickup by Republicans this cycle. Where is the fight?

It involves calling representatives, senators, etc. and letting them know how you feel on the topic, since this is a democracy. And educating other citizens.

I’m really not getting what your point is. What fight could there be, other than that?

64 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 2:23:15pm

re: #62 Steroid

No. It’s like refusing to fund a fire department before we confirm that fire is bad.

65 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 2:23:35pm

re: #2 steve_davis

That’s the beauty of the system: the argument will simply shift from “there is no global warming,” to “there is global warming, but no good evidence that human beings are responsible.” From there, it becomes, “Yes, of course, there’s global warming, but we can’t do anything about it—at least, we can’t unless we pay heavy industry trillions of dollars to come up with a drastic remedy that wouldn’t be needed if our heads hadn’t been up our lawyerly asses for the preceding 30 years.”

heh, you’re seeing that on this thread

66 rawsnacks  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 2:45:03pm

Don’t take me so literally. (But inductive reasoning does require a leap of… what… faith? This fact doesn’t make it illegitimate. It is valid and necessary.)

What I meant was that science, the process, only ‘matters’ to scientists. It can’t persuade non scientists.

I’m glad you (Obdicut & robdouth) understand science! Congrats. Bully Bully. /snark

Governance is something else altogether.

You each get only one vote. You won’t impress anyone who needs to be impressed. That is my point.

Al Gore* doesn’t (didn’t) come off like a scientist. He comes off as a preacher. You must understand this or you will fail vis-a-vis my original statement - de-linking AGW & Utopians. Nitpick my syntax if you must, but it won’t change reality.

Socrates was “right” but they killed him anyway. Science doesn’t win every battle.

67 robdouth  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 2:49:44pm

re: #66 rawsnacks

Back off bully bully, I wasn’t claiming to understand the science half as well. Generally when I read the science my eyes glaze over, and I have to ask a ton of questions. Besides I was defending and even backing up your point that science or in a more general sense, “the truth” doesn’t just win because it’s the truth. Or as you put it “Science doesn’t win every time”

In fact I’d say that it doesn’t even win a lot of the time. I went back to Ob with the what can we do, and he answered that question adequately, but given the limited amount we can do, it just seems hopeless to me to affect any change of course. I’d love to see people change, but human nature being what it will, People will deny it up to the point their putting on there SPF 2000 and wondering why it’s 120 degrees more often here in AZ.

68 tigger2005  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 3:42:42pm

The future’s so bright, I gotta wear shades.

69 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 4:44:13pm

re: #66 rawsnacks

The only thing more boring than utopianism is anti-utopianism.

70 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 5:44:29pm

re: #51 robdouth

Shouldnt’ that read, they have faith in the scientific method, as do other scientists. Or, they have faith in testable and repeatable results.

either way it’s a poor use of the word faith.

The word you are looking for is trust. Trust is based on consistent previous experiences.

71 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 5:47:18pm

re: #58 Steroid

Precisely. We don’t know the effect on the biosphere, nor can we know if that will rebound to us or in what ways. There are too many variables to know how it will affect people, the rights of whom are the only thing the law is supposed to protect. Unless we can show a causal chain showing how activity X leads to damage to person Y, legislation is premature.

Nature isn’t real big on following human laws. If we wait too long, we’re fucked.

72 freetoken  Thu, Jul 29, 2010 6:01:06pm

re: #62 Steroid

Yes, but *whose* carbon caused the migration and *which* pests wouldn’t have been there without it and *what* crops did they destroy? That’s the causal chain I’m speaking of.

By counter, in your analogy, your position is akin to buying fire insurance before you even talk to the architect, choose the plot, or even know you want a house.

Um… no.

First, you’ve convoluted the insurance argument. Don’t confuse liability insurance (say malpractice for a doctor, or auto liability for a driver to pay for their negligence) with general risk insurance. Indeed, if you look at your fire insurance policy I’d bet that they company says they won’t pay you if you commit a case of arson, for instance.

The sort of digression into causality that you’re trying to do is just a dodge away from responsibility.

In the example of CFCs, the Montreal Protocol was signed by many nations who were not particularly culpable, as most of the CFCs used were done in the US and Europe. Nevertheless, because of the universality of risk all the nations realized they had to do something.

The world wide nature of global climate change means that everyone shares some responsibility in addressing it.

Should the biggest polluters (like the US) have a bigger share of the cost? Yes. Yet even less culpable nations will also be responsible bearing burden.

I’m afraid that you’re just trying to game the discussion with ways to simply avoid putting any responsibility on yourself.

If indeed humans are causing changes in the Earth’s climate system (and we are), and if those changes include significant negative effects (which are becoming clearer all the time but it is safe to say there will be very real negative consequences for world agriculture, human health, and coastal habitability) then there is no moral way to ignore this issue.

Now, climate change is not the only issue with which humanity must deal. For many of us it isn’t even the most imminent of issues.

Yet, it is real.

73 steroid  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 4:38:59am

re: #72 freetoken


The sort of digression into causality that you’re trying to do is just a dodge away from responsibility.


I’m not trying to dodge responsibility, I’m asking you to show my responsibility. Or a coal mine’s. Or a trucking company’s, etc. This is a political issue; not a scientific one. I’m making the political argument that unless one definable party commits a wrong against another definable party, government should stand mute.

In working against that, you make several assumptions that I disagree with. One is that environmental alteration is harm as may be defined in law. That’s not necessarily the case. I find it difficult to believe that some part of the Earth will not be made more habitable to humans if the effects of climate change are as you predict. The climate system is far too complex for a blanket negative to be applied (If I am wrong, and any alteration is negative, then we have been walking the edge of a knife, and are doomed anyway, so we might as well throw our hands up and enjoy life while it lasts rather than try to preserve the edge of the knife).

Another assumption is that there is a moral code which binds nations to each other in despite of their own interests. Even if my country by nature does harm to others, I would rather it defend its ability to do that harm than concede to others. Nations are not people, if for no other reason that there is no body that can control nations by force. In brief, if there is a concern with pollution, I would rather reserve all the pollution that *can* be done with impunity as close to myself as possible.

Third, you assume that responsibility for a problem equates to culpability and implies an obligation to undo that problem. If I’m in a bar and spill soda on the bar, it’s a problem, but it’s the bartender who has to wipe it up. If I spill it on the guy next to me, I will apologize, maybe even pay his cleaning bill, but I’m not obligated to stop drinking soda the rest of my life. So too with climate change. Maybe we can fix it after the fact. Maybe we can just live with it. Losing the status quo is not tantamount to being victimized.

As I say, when it comes to the science, I Just Don’t Know. Science is a rigorous, disciplined process, and I’m not trained in climatology. (If someone wants to try to put it into layman’s terms for me, and answer a laundry list of questions, let me know and we’ll talk in private.) Politics however is not as disciplined, and it can depend on personal values and on induction. Without showing how use of law and government to curtail climate change fits into my value scheme, or showing how my value scheme does not apply to the situation, I cannot be expected to support legislation, can I?

74 mkelly  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 6:40:06am

I for one am glad the climate changes. I am sure most folks living in Canada and the northern US also are happy climate change happened, else we would be under thousands of feet of ice. I am happy that the climate is rebounding from the Little Ice Age. Yes, temperatures have gone up since the middle of the LIA and that is good.

Who was responsible for the rebound from the LIA? Should they have been sued or held accountable in some way?

I disagree with all the alarmism. Not everything will be harmful if the temperature goes up 2 C. I also disagee with the choice of culprit, CO2.

75 bigred1961  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 9:14:09am

I am a skeptic at this point and I’ll tell why. There is so much politics and hypocrisy on BOTH sides it seems impossible to get a grasp on the subject.
People calling non-believers the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, people selectively leaking emails, people’s lives being threatened for believing and careers being threatened for not believing. You have people flying around the world in private jets screaming the sky is falling, all the while building 20,000 square foot houses that use as much energy in a month as a average city block uses in a year. There are so called “environmentalists” screaming about coal, gas etc while doing everything under the fucking sun to keep nuclear power plants from being built.
I no longer trust the “science” that comes from the government. Why? There have been too many instances in the past where information has been withheld, distorted or made up to prove a point the administration, which is in power at the time, wanted to make. Both parties have done this and it makes me want to puke.
Here is what it would take for me to become a believer:
1) A non governmental entity with a proven track record of publishing research that tells the truth, not picking and choosing to prove a certain viewpoint. At this point I’m not sure I would believe ANYTHING that comes out of most universities. Why? They are filled with believers and fanatics who will push their viewpoint, not the truth.
2) There has to be a list of all data that is used, how and when it was obtained and compiled and why it was used, Equally as important there needs to be a list of data that was rejected and why. I realize that this point is difficult and maybe impossible. But I have heard too much about how leaving out this set of data or taking part of a data set to “prove” a hypothesis. In my mind these people are no longer scientists but activists.
3) Any and all computer models have to be fully documented and explained as to how they were constructed. There had better be several different models as well.
4) All the above needs to written so an educated, intelligent layman can understand it. Not other scientists, but the average college educated American adult must be able to understand it.

Perhaps I have set up an impossible set of requirements. But as a thoughtful, intelligent, skeptical and concerned adult I am fed up with being told that things are settled by my “betters” and I should just believe and do as I am told.
If you are telling me that global warming is caused by mankind then you had better be prepared to prove it to MY satisfaction. Because of the amount of crap that has been emanating from both sides of this issue, I am afraid that the four steps listed above are going to be the MINIMUM that it will take to prove either side of this issue for me.

76 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:09:30am

re: #75 bigred1961

I am a skeptic at this point and I’ll tell why. There is so much politics and hypocrisy on BOTH sides it seems impossible to get a grasp on the subject.
People calling non-believers the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, …


That inference is yours. People that deny science and are unwilling to look at the evidence or unwilling to accept the evidence they do look at have only so many labels that can be applied to them. They certainly aren’t skeptics, who are willing to change their minds. They can be called deniers, denialists (a made up label to remove the link to Holocaust deniers), contrarians, or something else I’m not familiar with. Which would you prefer?

people selectively leaking emails, people’s lives being threatened for believing and careers being threatened for not believing. You have people flying around the world in private jets screaming the sky is falling, all the while building 20,000 square foot houses that use as much energy in a month as a average city block uses in a year. There are so called “environmentalists” screaming about coal, gas etc while doing everything under the fucking sun to keep nuclear power plants from being built.

This may be true but none of it has anything to do with whether the science is valid.


I no longer trust the “science” that comes from the government. Why? There have been too many instances in the past where information has been withheld, distorted or made up to prove a point the administration, which is in power at the time, wanted to make. Both parties have done this and it makes me want to puke.

Since the science comes primarily from one side, I’ll address your points from that perspective.

Both data and the processes used to analyze that data is now, and has been in the past, available from the authors when the papers are published. No data has been distorted. What has been distorted, by the contrarians, is the reasons for modifying the data to increase information value, and the processes used in those corrections. All of the changes to data, and the justification for it has been published in peer reviewed, publicly available journals. You, just like anyone else, can pick up a copy and read it.

Nothing is hidden.

Here is what it would take for me to become a believer:
1) A non governmental entity with a proven track record of publishing research that tells the truth, not picking and choosing to prove a certain viewpoint. At this point I’m not sure I would believe ANYTHING that comes out of most universities. Why? They are filled with believers and fanatics who will push their viewpoint, not the truth.

All of the information put together by the IPCC is researched and published outside of the IPCC. The IPCC is basically a collation service. An unpaid collation service.

Most researchers work out of Universities and government because those are the best places to do research and publish findings without being influenced by outside forces. If you believe that the science coming out of those institutions is nothing more than the sermons of believers and fanatics then you haven’t been witness to the strong competitive, down and dirty, headstrong and sometimes outrageous fights that occur between scientists. Science is hardly blindly cooperative, in fact it is highly adversarial. Most scientists would love for their work to be the first and the best so they spend time taking down other scientists who they think are wrong. Its a system that works. Climatology is no different.

77 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:12:22am

2) There has to be a list of all data that is used, how and when it was obtained and compiled and why it was used, Equally as important there needs to be a list of data that was rejected and why. I realize that this point is difficult and maybe impossible. But I have heard too much about how leaving out this set of data or taking part of a data set to “prove” a hypothesis. In my mind these people are no longer scientists but activists.

This is all done now. What you have heard is wrong.
Every paper that is published has the data and processes used imbedded in the paper or the indexes. All of the data that is original to the author is available from the author, the publishing journal or the institute the scientist calls home.

The data that is rejected is also discussed either in the paper at hand or in one of the cited papers.
All you have to do is look.

BTW, replication of results does not mean take the data and run the same processes on it, it means use similar or the same data and run processes on it that will verify or reject the original findings.


3) Any and all computer models have to be fully documented and explained as to how they were constructed. There had better be several different models as well.

There are dozens of models. The vast majority are documented and available either online or through the authors/institute. They all get similar results even though some of them process the data from different angles.


4) All the above needs to written so an educated, intelligent layman can understand it. Not other scientists, but the average college educated American adult must be able to understand it.

If you want to learn about climate science there are quite a few well written popular texts out there written specifically for laymen. If you want to understand more rigorous treatments then it is up to you to learn the necessary physics and statistics. There are also texts available to help laymen do just that.

78 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:12:52am

re: #75 bigred1961


Perhaps I have set up an impossible set of requirements. But as a thoughtful, intelligent, skeptical and concerned adult I am fed up with being told that things are settled by my “betters” and I should just believe and do as I am told.

Since your requirements are already being met they are obviously not impossible. However, your understanding of how science works and what to expect from it looks to be informed solely from contrarian sites. I suggest you change that.

Your ‘betters’ are only more informed than you is some very narrow respects. Your dentist knows more about your teeth and gums than you do. Do you get upset when he/she tells you to brush more often?

We have specialists for a reason, many of their specialties takes years and years to learn and apply, and we simply do not have life spans long enough to become experts in everything. Being told your understanding in insufficient in a specialized area is not the same as calling you stupid. It just means you have gone in a different direction.

This time requirement for specialization means we have to develop a means of trusting those who spend their time and effort in becoming ‘experts’ in a field. If you can’t do that then you have no choice but to learn as much about every field that can affect you as possible. It isn’t up to scientists to do that for you, they can’t, it is completely up to you.


If you are telling me that global warming is caused by mankind then you had better be prepared to prove it to MY satisfaction. Because of the amount of crap that has been emanating from both sides of this issue, I am afraid that the four steps listed above are going to be the MINIMUM that it will take to prove either side of this issue for me.

Both sides are not equal. Even a brief investigation of the contrarians and scientists will show you one telling thing, the scientists are not saying and doing what the contrarians claim, but the contrarians are doing what the scientists claim they are.

79 slaphappy  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:15:03am

Is this a debate regarding man made global warming? cause, ya..uh-huh…

Well said Bigred 1961….cheers to you my friend…cheers

80 Coracle  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:15:47am

Mkelly, I’ve seen this same argument from you many times. I have a demonstrable lack of interest in the answers to the questions you’ve asked in #74.


bigred1961, the science speaks for itself. You want a ‘nongovernmental entity with a proven track record’ but discount universities, which are exactly that. “Filled with believers and fanatics who will push their viewpoint, not the truth” is an unfounded, broad brush accusation fundamentally full of crap.

The average, intelligent layman _can_ understand the essentials of climate science. And there have been _many_ links and even full up explanations presented in these pages.

One thing I’ve learned is that there are going to be people on either side of a debate too entrenched in their beliefs ever to budge. And then there are people like Mkelly and bigred, who are unwilling to either learn acknowledge the difference between science and opinion, or even actually read up on the science, see the weight of evidence, or look at the facts for themselves.

I believe it’s really not worth spending the energy trying to convince them of anything - they are unreachable. It’s arguably much more important to counter the damage they do to the discourse.

81 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:18:33am

re: #74 mkelly

I for one am glad the climate changes. I am sure most folks living in Canada and the northern US also are happy climate change happened, else we would be under thousands of feet of ice. I am happy that the climate is rebounding from the Little Ice Age. Yes, temperatures have gone up since the middle of the LIA and that is good.

Who was responsible for the rebound from the LIA? Should they have been sued or held accountable in some way?

I disagree with all the alarmism. Not everything will be harmful if the temperature goes up 2 C. I also disagee with the choice of culprit, CO2.

I am happy you can express your opinions freely, as vacuous as they appear to be, but I am a little disappointed you didn’t see fit to actually back them up with anything substantial.

82 Walking Spanish Down the Hall  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:19:41am

re: #79 slaphappy

Is this a debate regarding man made global warming? cause, ya..uh-huh…

Well said Bigred 1961…cheers to you my friend…cheers

Well said, possibly, but grounded in fact? Hardly.

83 MKelly  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:03:18pm

re: #81 b_sharp

I am happy you can express your opinions freely, as vacuous as they appear to be, but I am a little disappointed you didn’t see fit to actually back them up with anything substantial.

You don’t think the ice age happened? Are you not happy we ended the last ice age? Or LIA? Do you not know the extent of the glaciers during the last ice age? Do you actually think all things that happen will be bad if the temperatures go up 2C? And that’s the point not everything for every person will be bad. We seem to focus on the bad.


Mkelly, I’ve seen this same argument from you many times. I have a demonstrable lack of interest in the answers to the questions you’ve asked in #74. Coracle the questions are rhetorical.

And then there are people like Mkelly and bigred, who are unwilling to either learn acknowledge the difference between science and opinion, or even actually read up on the science, see the weight of evidence, or look at the facts for themselves.
Coracle the above is your opinion. I don’t know bigred, but myself having studied this since my college days in heat tranfer and thermodynamic classes and writing a term paper on global warming I believe I have sufficient knowledge on the subject and more than most.

84 Coracle  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:14:54pm

re: #83 MKelly


Coracle the above is your opinion. I don’t know bigred, but myself having studied this since my college days in heat tranfer and thermodynamic classes and writing a term paper on global warming I believe I have sufficient knowledge on the subject and more than most.

It is indeed my opinion. If you’ve actually read and digest the science and still concluded as you do, I believe you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the processes involved, but I can’t prove that.

The questions you ask about the recovery from the LIA, to me, betray a fundamental ignorance of the difference between long term climate cycles and short term forcing, which you have persisted in conflating more than once.

As far as ‘would everyone be worse off’ if global temps were to rise 2°C there is actually a cogent argument that _yes_ everyone except the richest few percent who can live wherever they want, whenever they want will be worse off. 2°C would result in tens to hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the globe, shifted weather and growing patterns (possibly threatening the US’s own breadbasket) and vastly different physical and economic stresses on third to first world countries.

85 slaphappy  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:44:50pm

82 B-Sharp—-

Lets not enjoy each others fascination’s with facts eh?…Your ended facts draw out a shady conclusion my friend. However, such in science, it takes a series of theories to conclude a fact..no?..Yours is predicated on you knowing a little about generated co2.

The weak parity of the above mentioned dental episode is just that, weak. The minute algorithm gore joined the crusade on man made heat, it became political. All that is said, is that a debate of critical minds in this cage fight is that we pull the gloves off and come to a conclusion. Instead we now have what you call deniers of fact. Making you more superior in temperate thought than the rest of us, er, uh, non-believers. I’ll happily say that man made global warming is fuckin bullshit. I have my antiquated theories and have done my own research sharp. Quit with the shoving shit down throats. I live down here in Brazil, and, well it ain’t science to these people, unless you bring up amazon burning and monetary reparation in one sentence. Don’t think for a second that most fact finding in viable global co2 deposits in and around rain forests aren’t centralized right here. yep, guess you didn’t equate that if theres is a yin, there must be a yang..thats what i thought sharp ya get it now…the jury is still out my friend…

86 freetoken  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:46:02pm

re: #84 Coracle

It is indeed my opinion. If you’ve actually read and digest the science and still concluded as you do, I believe you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the processes involved, but I can’t prove that.

This is where your answer is. MKELLY does not read science or digest it. His questions - standard ones in the denial-o-sphere - have been addressed, but he ignores that. MKELLY is very, very much doing with AGW what creationists do with evolution.

87 freetoken  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:50:40pm

re: #85 slaphappy


The minute algorithm gore joined the crusade on man made heat, it became political.

In other words, you’re just another one on a campaign against Al Gore, and let all the world’s research - that speaks against your own hobby ideas - be damned?

88 slaphappy  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 2:18:24pm

#87 freetoken-

Another one? …Please token…Please speak when spoken to about shams in which you care not to enlighten yourself with. Your avatar speaks enough for ya. Im not repub or dem. I just dare to seek truth in matters that make a difference in my bubble. Your Al Gore has made a mockery of science to the nth degree. This man has sees signs from a god well distanced from you token. Cheers

89 freetoken  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 2:32:31pm

re: #88 slaphappy

You’re absolutely clueless.

90 slaphappy  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 3:46:41pm

#89-

ya…clueless token…just lost i am..literal facts about your boy genius being a fraud in front of the world isn’t enough eh?..did i mention facts token, facts young man. not white wash politics to make you sleep without ambien token. but facts…yep, clueless i must be.

91 stinson  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 5:01:03pm

Scientists “believe” the phytoplankton are dying because of global warming.

How does that make sense when we KNOW it has survived for billions of years in much harsher climates?

Show me the link. This would be like me measuring the number of spiders in my backyard. If they should somehow decrease, I just stand up and say, “Must be global warming!”

Leftists are absurd. Science thrives on skepticism yet Lord forbid someone be skeptical of their pet agenda and ideology.

92 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 6:12:20pm

Here come the deniers.

93 freetoken  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 8:52:05pm

re: #91 stinson

Show me the link.

I did so literally when I put up the Pages entry:
littlegreenfootballs.com
where I linked to the paper in Nature. Go read it if you wish.

How does that make sense when we KNOW it has survived for billions of years in much harsher climates?

You’ve missed the point. What is in question is not the existence of phytoplankton but their reproduction rates in the ocean.

94 whitebeach  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:24:50pm

My first post here after longtime lurking.

AGW is real, and the arguments of the deniers are at the level of Glenn Beck, Pam Geller, or the general run of creationist snake-chuckers.

We should make carbon emissions less economically desirable and promote less environmentally harmful technologies on an emergency basis, equivalent to a war effort.

BUT without a concerted worldwide effort to control population expansion, green tech will only delay, not prevent, a serious AGW catastrophe. The human population has roughly tripled in the space of a single human lifetime. If this growth rate continues, it will overwhelm the greenest tech and the strongest feasible restrictions on carbon emissions.

We can limit the population explosion ourselves in ways that will benefit the human race in general, or nature will do it for us in ways that will not be at all pleasant.

95 Stinson  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 12:23:05pm

“Here come the deniers?”

This is a religion for left wing atheists. It’s ok - it’s only human nature to close your eyes to anything challenging cherished beliefs.

96 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 12:26:46pm

I should have said, here come the deniers and the idiots.

97 Stinson  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 12:28:31pm

Oh good. Now we’re doing ad hominems. So scientific of you, Charles! Way to really demonstrate your critical thinking skills!

Ever ask yourself if the proposed “solutions” to this “crisis” just happens to align perfectly with decades-old liberal ideologies?

Sheer coincidence I’m sure.

98 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 1:27:33pm

re: #97 Stinson

Oh good. Now we’re doing ad hominems. So scientific of you, Charles! Way to really demonstrate your critical thinking skills!

Ever ask yourself if the proposed “solutions” to this “crisis” just happens to align perfectly with decades-old liberal ideologies?

Sheer coincidence I’m sure.

hahaha this one’s paranoid!

Hello, paranoid dead-threader! I’m going to put a little bow on you and call you Dodger

99 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 1:31:15pm

re: #90 slaphappy

This one, I like his sleepy ellipsis thing, great big blocks of incoherent text, you can almost hear the slurring of speech!

100 Stinson  Sun, Aug 1, 2010 10:54:53am

How is that paranoid? I’m just pointing out the political patterns of lefties. Since they haven’t changed in 40 years, they’re very predictable.

101 ihateronpaul  Sun, Aug 1, 2010 4:12:10pm

re: #16 garhighway

you don’t need to tax carbon, you need to
A) remove the ginormous oil subsidies
B) subsidize viable alternative energy, not “iffy” “solutions” like ethanol, which ruins motors

I am so sick of hearing “but it will never work!” that’s what they said about going to the moon….


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
Yesterday
Views: 73 • 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
4 days ago
Views: 169 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1