Combating Climate Change

Comments (100)

1. Where did Hansen's team come up with 350 ppm? Kind of reminds one of the cults that sprang up in the year 990 which were based on the idea that Christ would return in the year 1,000 AD and the end times would arrive. One suspects that the 1,000 AD cults were a little more scientifically based.

   ""Glaciers and sea ice are melting, drought is spreading, and flooding is on the increase because our planet has reached a proven unsafe level of CO2 emissions," said 350.org founder and writer Bill McKibben in New York City yesterday."

   These unquantified, and probably unquantifiable claims are reminiscent of Obama's claim that the Porkulus Bill 'saved' millions of jobs, even as unemployment surges past 10 percent in this country. Are we to base costly global warming policies, which would not have a significant effect even based on their proponents models, which cause real pain to billions of people based on such mystical proclamations? I think we should not.

   Posted by pontificus at 10/25/2009 @ 12:08pm

2. Global warming is now totally debunked, so the marxist extremist call it climate change! You know fall, winter, spring, summer. What idoicy will they spring on us next to try to rationalize and justify their power grab to control the resourses of the earth and thereby the population?

   Posted by BigPasture at 10/25/2009 @ 12:53pm

3. Posted by BigPasture at 10/25/2009 @ 12:53pm

   "Global warming is now totally debunked, so the marxist extremist call it climate change!"

   Whenever you talk like that it reveals you are listening to right wing talk radio, even though you deny it. Guess you've been spending a lot of time in the neighbors garage.

   "What idoicy will they spring on us next to try to rationalize and justify their power grab to control the resourses of the earth and thereby the population?"

   Yeah, and the Omega Man is in the kitchen... he's going to force you to use spell check. Them glaciers is jest natchurly meltin' cause of all the deep fry cookin' that yer doin. Conservative interests and corporations have long had a strangle hold on these resources you're talking about, so who you mean by 'they' is a puzzle here. Are 'they' coming to get you?

   Posted by ficheye at 10/25/2009 @ 1:11pm

4. Posted by pontificus at 10/25/2009 @ 12:08pm |

   "Where did Hansen's team come up with 350 ppm?"

   By analyzing paleoclimate data from ice cores which show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO2 and that glaciation ramped up when CO2 dropped to between 350 and 550ppm, then, using simple probability distro funcs, estimating the 'climate sensitivity' factor and the temperature threshold at which 'dangerous anthropogenic interference' (polite language for the fecal matter hitting the rotating cooling device) may take place.

   http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126

   http://www.springerlink.com/content/ uv516h47315x2112/fulltext.pdf?page=1

   Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 1:18pm

5. Hey Frosty, some fun for ya:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcsSPzr7ays

   Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 1:25pm

6. Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 1:18pm

   "By analyzing paleoclimate data from ice cores which show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO2..."

   How does he know that doubled CO2 in the atmosphere is not the result of other causes (solar irradiation) raising the temperatures by about 3 degrees C? Raising the temperature of the oceans will release more CO2 into the atmosphere; in other words, elevated CO2 concentrations is an effect, not a cause of global warming. Empirical data shows that CO2 concentrations lag, not lead, temperature rises. Plus - the atmosphere has been cooling the last 11 years, not increasing, and CO2 concentrations have been still rising.

   Hansen long ago became more prophet and zealot than scientist. Does he refuse to debate his findings, like Al Gore?

   Posted by pontificus at 10/25/2009 @ 1:56pm

7. Posted by pontificus at 10/25/2009 @ 1:56pm |

   I can't speak for what Hansen will or won't debate, but I know he'd make a better rep than Commander Bacon.

   As for CO2 lagging temperature and temperature freeing up oceanic CO2 from carbonates...that's true, and on that point, you and Dr. Hansen agree, but both phenomena are correct (CO2 causes temp increase and temp increase causes CO2 release...not a good feedback loop).

   Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 2:12pm

8. PETER: "They concluded that above 350ppm CO2, the earth's atmosphere couldn't support "a planet similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted." Current global CO2 concentration is at 390 parts per million. "

   Clearly, Hansen has already lost all credibility.....as we're still here, multiplying and eating....at "390 parts per million".....no?

   Frankly, Peter, I don't want at anytime, while the human species walk this earth, for the earth's atmosphere to be "similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted".

   Another word, I (and descendents) much rathewr take our chances w/the atmosphere that we've got, that has done the human species great, and will continue (hopefully) to warm--vs. entering a devastating COOLING period that will come......just as surely as the sun will collapse someday.

   Posted by Happy at 10/25/2009 @ 2:56pm

9. Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 1:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   thanks for the science!

   science good! better than ideology, though not necessarily as comforting...

   regardless of the source (i suspect we ARE in a natural warming cycle, exacerbated by shaved ape activity) the climate is changing at an alarming rate. to automatically discount all human involvement seems a tad myopic to say the least.

   Posted by dexter666 at 10/25/2009 @ 4:00pm

10. Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 1:25pm

    Excellent!

    And now I hear my little Tico Tico calling Because the time is right and shades of night are falling, I love my not so little cuckoo in the clock, Tico Tico Tico Tico Tico tock Tick Tock!

    Posted by ficheye at 10/25/2009 @ 4:14pm

11. The Big Pasture behind my house is one of the leading CO2 generators in the neighborhood, maybe the state. Along with CH4 and maybe some SO2 or something equally stinky.

    What the hell are us 'Marxists' going to do with all the resources we manage to steal? Start huge corporations to enslave everyone and steal their money? Hell, if I wanted to exert huge amounts of energy just to end up right where I started, I could always push rocks uphill or debate right-wing wackos on The Nation's blogs.

    Posted by DejaVu at 10/25/2009 @ 4:28pm

12. I think I stopped listening to the warming/change crowd when they seized upon Hurricane Katrina, telling us that because of global warming our hurricane seasons were going to get worse and worse.

    We haven't had a bad hurricane season since then.

    Remember last winter the story where somebody said there was 50% chance the polar ice caps would melt this summer?

    Yeah, this same summer where it got above 90 degrees all of five days here in Ohio.

    Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/25/2009 @ 4:29pm

13. nice cut 'n paste work, pontificus.

    way to think for yourself!

    Posted by darladoon at 10/25/2009 @ 5:02pm

14. Could it be that the reason the oceans release CO2 when the temperature increases is because a warmer planet means greater plant growth which demands more CO2 which in turn releases more O2 from plants to support increased animal life. When global temperatures fall, the exact opposite happens. The climate change the earth goes through on a continuing basis (seasons do not count) is done over both decades and much longer periods - thousands and millions of years. It is not caused by human activity.

    The latest nonsense from the left is that our pets are a cause of global warming. In essence the left condemns any biological life as causing global warming...good grief! You guys need to step back from the mirror and recalibrate your vision for you have truly become insane.

    Posted by pyeatte at 10/25/2009 @ 6:45pm

15. A final comment, Dr. Ian Plimer's book provides enormous amounts of information on the subject. Where is he wrong in his conclusions? Of course answering this question would require actual reading, which would probably be asking too much.

    Posted by pyeatte at 10/25/2009 @ 6:50pm

16. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/25/2009 @ 4:29pm |

    "We haven't had a bad hurricane season since then."

    They're cyclical and affected by many other factors besides GW...the extra heat just makes big hurricanes like Katrina slightly more destructive.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/ 2009/09/fsu-ace_vs_giss-oceantemp4.png

    Consider us on a copy of the downward slope from '85 to '88 and due for a repeat of '89 to '91.

    "Remember last winter the story where somebody said there was 50% chance the polar ice caps would melt this summer?"

    No, but they certainly did melt, just not completely...yet. Antarctic ice mass is melting away at a rate of 36 mi^2 per year...or 36x the fresh water consumed by all of Los Angeles each year.

    "Yeah, this same summer where it got above 90 degrees all of five days here in Ohio."

    Well that's scientific...heheh

    Yes, the temperature on land, near you, hasn't gotten nasty since 1998, but the total heat content of the earth (not just Ohio, but the oceans, heat consumed by melting chunks of Antarctica, etc) has been going up monotonically.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/ Total-Heat-Content.gif

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPDh1yg-ilE

    "Save...your complaints...for 'party conversation'...the world...is loaded...its lit to pop and nobody is gonna....STOP!"

    "...one come a day the water will run and nobody will stand for the things that he had done..." (a little Katrina prescience since the song is from the early 90s)

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 7:04pm

17. Posted by pyeatte at 10/25/2009 @ 6:45pm |

    "Could it be that the reason the oceans release CO2 when the temperature increases is because a warmer planet means greater plant growth which demands more CO2 which in turn releases more O2 from plants to support increased animal life."

    You're gonna wanna get that cart out of your horse's path at some point.

    "When global temperatures fall, the exact opposite happens. The climate change the earth goes through on a continuing basis (seasons do not count) is done over both decades and much longer periods - thousands and millions of years. It is not caused by human activity."

    It's called orbital forcing...one of many, many factors that are overlaid on each other, like the Pacifica decadal oscillation.

    "The latest nonsense from the left is that our pets are a cause of global warming."

    Only if you keep a huge number of cows as pets.

    "In essence the left condemns any biological life as causing global warming...good grief!"

    Lame ad hominem...zero style points.

    "You guys need to step back from the mirror and recalibrate your vision for you have truly become insane."

    Says the scientifically skimpy suicidal simp.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 7:11pm

18. Posted by pyeatte at 10/25/2009 @ 6:50pm |

    "A final comment, Dr. Ian Plimer's book provides enormous amounts of information on the subject."

    Most of it fabricated and/or cherry-picked beyond recognition.

    "Where is he wrong in his conclusions?"

    Take your pick. He's a veritable catalog of poor science methodology.

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/ 2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ 2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php

    "Of course answering this question would require actual reading, which would probably be asking too much."

    If you're one of the lucky few thousand to actually waste money on it and want to send me a copy, I'm game, but I'll be damned if I'm going to pay him for the privilege of reading his baseless drivel.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 7:26pm

19. Some choice words about Dr. Plimer's book from Mr. Monbiot's blog

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/ georgemonbiot/2009/jul/09/ george-monbiot-ian-plimer

    <1. Plimer uses a graph, without attribution, produced for the Great Global Warming Swindle on Channel 4. The programme altered the timeline, creating the false impression that most of the rise in temperature last century took place before 1940. After an outcry by scientists, subsequent editions of the programme corrected the timeline.

    2. He claims that Arctic sea ice is growing. It isn't.

    3. He claims that Mount Pinatubo released "very large quantities of CFCs, the gases that destroy the ozone layer." It didn't.

    4. Like the Great Global Warming Swindle (from which several of the claims in his book appear to originate), he claims that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans. In fact humans produce 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

    5. He claims that only 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by humans. In fact the pre-industrial concentration was roughly 280 parts per million. Human activities have now raised this to 387ppm. Work it out for yourself.

    6. He says "it is not possible to ascribe a carbon dioxide increase to human activity". As David Karoly points out, "burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide enriched with carbon isotope 12C and reduced 13C and essentially no 14C, and it decreases atmospheric oxygen": in other words you can ascribe the increase directly to human activity.

    7. Professor Michael Ashley noticed in Plimer's book: "an almost word-for-word reproduction of the abstract from a well-known loony paper entitled "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass".

    8. He confuses the Sun's rotation with orbital motion around the solar system's centre of gravity.>

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 7:44pm

20. Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 2:12pm

    "(CO2 causes temp increase and temp increase causes CO2 release...not a good feedback loop)."

    In theory, this is correct, however, the theory is obviously over-simplified, because if only those two factors existed, we would have attained Venerian temperatures long ago, when CO2 levels were 10 or 100 times what they are today - and yet the Earth still survived and we are here...

    In reality, there are many factors which are poorly understood, there are obviously carbon sinks that exist which we are not accounting for.

    Also, your previous statement regarding Antarctic ice is incorrect; although there are parts of Antarctica (the Palmer Peninsula) that are losing ice, on the whole the continent is gaining ice. I won't provide you a source, I urge you to do your own research.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/25/2009 @ 7:53pm

21. Posted by pontificus at 10/25/2009 @ 7:53pm |

    Sorry, Ponti, but you're just plain wrong about Antarctica.

    The GRACE probe has measured significant loss of MASS (not surface area...melting slushies take up more room on the floor but they aren't "adding ice").

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/ images/antarctic_mass2.gif

    Working in a coalmine goin' down down down...

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 8:02pm

22. Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 2:12pm

    "As for CO2 lagging temperature and temperature freeing up oceanic CO2 from carbonates...that's true, and on that point, you and Dr. Hansen agree, but both phenomena are correct (CO2 causes temp increase and temp increase causes CO2 release...not a good feedback loop)."

    Carbon dioxide is one of the few gases that loses solubility in water as the temperature of the liquid is raised. This is basic chemistry, and not debated. But the basic principle to understand is that if the temperature of the oceans is raised, they will emit CO2.

    The reason why the lag/lead distinction is so important is that if increased CO2 concentrations were warming the Earth (and the oceans), the increased concentrations would lead the increase (demonstrating forcing), whereas if increased temperatures were driving CO2 concentrations higher via outgassing, the increased concentrations would lag the temperature increase. The latter is the actual case, thus seeming to confirm what some esteemed climatologists believe - that other factors (e.g., increased solar radiation) are driving a short term temperature increase, which is causing the increased CO2 concentrations.

    The environmentalists have been pushing the precautionary principle too hard and for too long. This type of policy guidance is too readily hijacked by charlatans (Al Gore) and those seeking to prostitute science and fear to their own agenda (e.g., statists who wish to create 'crises' that they will not let go to waste, i.e., use to create a pretext for vast tax increases and increased state control of private activities).

    There are prominent climatologists who dispute the AGW alarmists, and for every one of those funded by oil companies (most aren't), there are 10 owned by the state

    Posted by pontificus at 10/25/2009 @ 8:12pm

23. Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 8:02pm

    When I said do your own research, I did not mean go find something that agrees with you and post it immediately. In fact, even those pushing AGW agree that the amount of ice in the Antarctic will grow over the next century. How they square this with what your sources say is problematic.

    http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/01/04/inhofe_report/

    "In fact, although the Greenland Ice Sheet is projected to melt and contribute to sea-level rise over the next century, the Antarctic is projected to gain ice in the near term due to heavier snowfall induced by global warming. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report states:

    Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall. "

    Not that I have any faith in their models - which have all failed to project the last 11 years of warming (and we all know or should know about the hockey-stick fiasco).

    Posted by pontificus at 10/25/2009 @ 8:23pm

24. Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 7:11pm:

    Your criticisms are extremely superficial. The pet reference was very specific by the environmentalists - dogs and cats. And, that does imply by extension, all biological lifeforms - totally insane. You think Plime is cherry picking - I think the opposition is cherry picking, including yourself. The fact is, none of the predictions from compute models are even close - they only prove how wrong they are, mainly because they ignore everything that is a factor and include those that are not (CO2). As Plime said, God does not play computer games. It is much more complicated and all the political agendas cannot hide that fact. Plime does not state how things are, only how they might be based on observable data from, among other things, the geological record. Far better than the government scientists who cannot connect two dots to prove anything. Very sad that if a scientist questions the AGW political dogma, he is in danger of losing is job.

    Posted by pyeatte at 10/25/2009 @ 9:18pm

25. Posted by pontificus at 10/25/2009 @ 8:23pm |

    "When I said do your own research, I did not mean go find something that agrees with you and post it immediately."

    I've already done the research while sparring with Anti.

    The website I linked is the most balanced discussion of actual scientific data that I can find and it has a nice catalog of the busted arguments used by the GW denial crowd.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

    So you're going to go with the IPCC's global model (which even they admit can't capture the outrageous complexity of weather) over the empirical grav field measurements of the actual ice itself? Curious.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 9:19pm

26. Posted by pyeatte at 10/25/2009 @ 9:18pm |

    As a big fan of science, I'll read anything that IS actual science, but Plimer ain't that.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 9:20pm

27. Here's another one for you, Ponti:

    http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/geography/ ShepherdEtAl.pdf

    What's 125 gigatons between friends?

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 9:44pm

28. Very sad that if a scientist questions the AGW political dogma, he is in danger of losing is job. Posted by pyeatte at 10/25/2009 @ 9:18pm |

    You remind me of the Millerites shortly after the Great Disappointment; grasping for a rationalization that will help you reconcile the delta between what you want to believe and what you see before you.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 9:53pm

29. Not that I have any faith in their models - which have all failed to project the last 11 years of warming (and we all know or should know about the hockey-stick fiasco). Posted by pontificus at 10/25/2009 @ 8:23pm |

    Oh the stick is alive and well...just less shoddily determined than Mann's:

    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~tingley/mean_variance.pdf

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 10:09pm

30. As a big fan of science, I'll read anything that IS actual science, but Plimer ain't that.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 9:20pm

    Sorry, but if you are a big fan of science, why would you reference either "One world Govt" Monbiot, or "I hate anyone who disagrees with me" Hanson?

    I've yet to see you acknowledge any of the true scientists I've listed who have zero funding or ties to energy or conservative organizations. Scientists that include those from Scandanavia, Poland, Russia, New Zealand, Australia, and the US.

    The polar caps have come and gone in cycles long before man discovered oil.

    <Although the polar ice caps have been in existence for millions of years, scientists disagree over exactly how long they have survived in their present form. It is generally agreed that the polar cap north of the Arctic Circle, which covers the Arctic Ocean, has undergone contraction and expansion through some 26 different glaciations in just the past few million years. Parts of the Arctic have been covered by the polar ice cap for at least the last five million years, with estimates ranging up to 15 million. The Antarctic ice cap is more controversial; although many scientists believe extensive ice has existed there for 15 million years, others suggest that volcanic activity on the western half of the continent it covers causes the ice to decay, and the current south polar ice cap is therefore no more than about three million years old.

    At least five times since the formation of the earth, because of changes in global climate, the polar ice has expanded north and south toward the equator and has stayed there for at least a million years.>

    http://tinyurl.com/yfoczka

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/25/2009 @ 11:40pm

31. Not that I have any faith in their models - which have all failed to project the last 11 years of warming (and we all know or should know about the hockey-stick fiasco). Posted by pontificus at 10/25/2009 @ 8:23pm |

    Oh the stick is alive and well...just less shoddily determined than Mann's:

    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~tingley/mean_variance.pdf

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/25/2009 @ 10:09pm

    The hockey stick isn't even bad science. That's giving it too much credibility

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/25/2009 @ 11:50pm

32. Like I said before; We need to start a new movement were deadicated leftists repeatably hold their breath until they pass out in a day long marathon thus drastically reducing the release of CO2! They should pick one day each week for a year to do this in protest! Please, do it for the country and the good of the world!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/25/2009 @ 11:59pm

33. deadicated - no it wasn't a typo

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 12:13am

34. If anything I am astounded at the amount and degree of elitist secular humanistic arrogance and pride it requires to presume that humans can to any degree control the global climate!

    If ever there was a "fools errand" this is the greatest gigantic hoax ever unleased on the denizens of planet earth concieved by man to assume global political power!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 12:37am

35. If anything I am astounded at the amount and degree of elitist secular humanistic arrogance and pride it requires to presume that humans can to any degree control the global climate! Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 12:37am

    Big, It's much easier to break something than it is to fix it. Destabilizing the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation was easy, fixing it will be much more difficult.

    When you think about it. Iraq and Afghanistan are two more examples..

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/26/2009 @ 01:33am

36. There is no reason to debate anymore the existence of Global Climate Change. And there is no reason to debate that human activity is responsible in large part for this phenomenon.

    The subject of debate now should center on what we as a species are going to do about it. Weak cap and trade legislation is not going to cut it. If we are going to be sucessful in lowering the CO2 in the atmosphere to at least 350ppm it will take a massive worldwide effort to do so.

    It is already, in all probability too late to avoid many of the consequences of our lack of stewardship of our planet. Once these processes start, it can take centuries for them to turn around.

    Right now we should be concentrating on initiating policies worldwide that have the greatest chance of success in the least amount of time.

    If we should fail to take action and sit around with our collective fingers up our ass, we as a species may well cease to exist entirely.

    And should that happen, we will deserve extinction. If we cannot properly care for this emerald jewel we call Earth, then it is better off without us.

    And after a million years or so we will be but a distant memory in the Earth Mind.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/26/2009 @ 03:50am

37. Posted by chaoszen at 10/26/2009 @ 03:50am

    "There is no reason to debate anymore the existence of Global Climate Change."

    Exactly. Physics will tell, and physics doesn't give a F#$% about politics, or about how much we love our kids, or how tough the denialists act with their indignant but uniformed denial. The physics of the 'greenhouse effect' are well documented and repeatable.

    More education! More education about this! Especially in the US and China. Only the uninformed and the willfully stupid are denying it these days.

    Posted by mikecope at 10/26/2009 @ 05:31am

38. Alexander Cockburn -- CounterPunch.org --

    '...The cycle of alarmist predictions is now well established. Not so long before some U.N. moot on What To Do About the Weather, a prominent fearmonger like James Hansen or Michael Mann will make a tremulous statement about the accelerating tempo and dimensions of the warming crisis. The cry is taken up by the IPCC... with the press releases headlined by the New York Times, with exactly the same lack of critical evaluation as that newspaper recycling of the government's lies about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Months and years later come the qualifications and the retractions, long after new contracts and grants have been awarded, and fresh legions hired to staff the ever-expanding empires of the threatmongers.

    When measured reality doesn't cooperate with the lurid model predictions, new compensating "factors" are concocted, such as the briefly popular sulfate aerosols of the 1990s, recruited to cool off the obviously excessive heat predicted by the models. Or the existing, inconvenient data are water-boarded into submission, as happened with the ice-core samples that fail to confirm the modelers' need for record temperatures today as opposed to half a million years ago. As Richard Kerr, Science magazine's man on global warming remarked, "Climate modelers have been 'cheating' for so long it's become almost respectable."

    The consequence? As with the ... Cold War, vast amounts of money will be uselessly spent on programs that won't work against an enemy that doesn't exist. Meanwhile, real and curable environmental perils are scanted or ignored. Hysteria rules the day, drowning really useful environmental initiatives, while smoothing the way for the nuclear industry to reap its rewards....'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/26/2009 @ 08:13am

39. As always, I'll simply ask our Denier friends....

    when will the Republican Party and its Presidential candidate say that Global Warming is "not man-made" or is "a hoax"????

    IF they and their take on it still matter, that is?

    Posted by Mask at 10/26/2009 @ 08:18am

40. none of us know.

    nobody does.

    however, goldman et al. do know how to drive up'n'up the price of oil, milking our stupid asses until we bleed.

    then the send us off to war for more because we have to defend the american dream by robbing other countries for the benefit of goldman et al..

    stupid humans.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 08:33am

41. Posted by antisocialist at 10/25/2009 @ 11:40pm |

    "Sorry, but if you are a big fan of science, why would you reference either "One world Govt" Monbiot"

    Because Ponti asked for rebuttals to Plimer of which Monbiot's is the funniest.

    ", or "I hate anyone who disagrees with me" Hanson?"

    Because Ponti asked where ''350' came from...so I told him.

    "I've yet to see you acknowledge any of the true scientists I've listed who have zero funding or ties to energy or conservative organizations."

    I've yet to see you post ANYTHING by an actual climate scientist that supports your beliefs...and the link you posted may as well have been made up by a 3rd grader.

    "Scientists that include those from Scandanavia, Poland, Russia, New Zealand, Australia, and the US. The polar caps have come and gone in cycles long before man discovered oil."

    Yes, they glaciated and melted, and only came back when the CO2 levels dropped again...for the reason you just pointed out: no human CO2 contribution.

    The planet can deal with no polar caps and runaway temp increase. Humans...not so much.

    There was a time when this planet didn't have enough oxygen to support us and when the Van Allen belts weren't sufficient to protect us from the solar wind.

    Would you argue those scenarios are okay too?

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 08:50am

42. Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 08:50am

    "I've yet to see you post ANYTHING by an actual climate scientist that supports your beliefs...and the link you posted may as well have been made up by a 3rd grader. "

    Are you ignoring/discrediting/delegitimizing Lindzen of MIT because he doesn't agree with the result you want? He knows more about climate science than you or I ever will.

    "Yes, they glaciated and melted, and only came back when the CO2 levels dropped again...for the reason you just pointed out: no human CO2 contribution. "

    They glaciated and melted long before man even existed. Why do you think the CO2 levels dropped eons ago, before man even created his own fire?

    Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2009 @ 09:05am

43. Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2009 @ 09:05am |

    AFAIK, Anti has never posted anything by Lindzen, but I'll check it out if you'll drop a link.

    And what makes you think I "want" a result which indicates that my son will be living in hell on earth? I welcome sound science that indicates that we won't, but I'm still waiting.

    "They glaciated and melted long before man even existed. Why do you think the CO2 levels dropped eons ago, before man even created his own fire?"

    There are a number of sources and sinks...orbital forcing, particulates and sulfate aerosols from volcanic activity, and solar output variation are a few components, but only one factor has changed in the last 200 years and we can't force Mt. Pinatubo to do our bidding.

    Which of your cuplrits for warming was active between 1970 and now to explain the quadrupling of earth's total heat content?

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 09:22am

44. And after a million years or so we will be but a distant memory in the Earth Mind.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/26/2009 @ 03:50am

    --thank the scientists. everything that's made life "convenient" was created by some well-meaning do-gooder in the name of discovery.

    scientists are the biggest criminals on earth.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/26/2009 @ 09:27am

45. Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2009 @ 09:05am |

    "Are you ignoring/discrediting/delegitimizing Lindzen of MIT because he doesn't agree with the result you want? He knows more about climate science than you or I ever will."

    So you've run into the arms of an energy industry shill (to the tune of $2500/day)...who's main argument is that "it's no big deal"?

    Well at least his degree has the right words on it...even if he should be stripped of it.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 09:50am

46. Snow, here you go

    <Temperatures on Earth have stabilized in the past decade, and the planet should brace itself for a new Ice Age rather than global warming, a Russian scientist said in an interview with RIA Novosti Tuesday.

    "Russian and foreign research data confirm that global temperatures in 2007 were practically similar to those in 2006, and, in general, identical to 1998-2006 temperatures, which, basically, means that the Earth passed the peak of global warming in 1998-2005," said Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of a space research lab at the Pulkovo observatory in St. Petersburg.

    By 2041, solar activity will reach its minimum according to a 200-year cycle, and a deep cooling period will hit the Earth approximately in 2055-2060. It will last for about 45-65 years, the scientist added.

    "By the mid-21st century the planet will face another Little Ice Age, similar to the Maunder Minimum, because the amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth has been constantly decreasing since the 1990s and will reach its minimum approximately in 2041," he said.>

    http://tinyurl.com/naaab6

    <At December's 2008 U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"

    Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan's Institute of Science and Technology said this: "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other ... every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so.">

    http://tinyurl.com/ykzbx3f

    video of the conference

    http://tinyurl.com/ygs5d6v

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 09:55am

47. 'scientists are the biggest criminals on earth.' -- urmygyro

    But then why did Klaatu arrange with the professor to speak with the scientists when he came to visit?

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/26/2009 @ 10:11am

48. AFAIK, Anti has never posted anything by Lindzen, but I'll check it out if you'll drop a link.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 09:22am

    I've linked to Lindzen multiple times over the past 5 years here.

    Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 books and scientific papers. He was the lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has been a critic of some global warming theories and the alleged political pressures on climate scientists.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

    William Gray is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences. He served as a weather forecaster for the United States Air Force, and as a research assistant in the University of Chicago Department of Meteorology. He joined Colorado State University in 1961. He has been advisor of over 70 Ph.D. and M.S. students.

    Gray is noted for his forecasts of Atlantic hurricane season activity. Gray pioneered the concept of "seasonal" hurricane forecasting--predicting months in advance the severity of the coming hurricane season.

    Gray is skeptical of current theories of human-induced global warming, which he says is supported by scientists afraid of losing grant funding and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 10:13am

49. Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 09:55am |

    At least these guys make claims that can be verified in the next few decades....then they'll need to shut up and admit that 0.17W/m^2 of forcing (or lack thereof) from the sun isn't going to help offset the 1.66W/m^2 of forcing from CO2.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 10:19am

50. 'scientists are the biggest criminals on earth.' -- urmygyro

    But then why did Klaatu arrange with the professor to speak with the scientists when he came to visit?

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/26/2009 @ 10:11am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --um, what?

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/26/2009 @ 10:19am

51. Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 10:13am |

    I'm amused by the symmetry between "they're just trying to keep their scientist jobs" and "they're just energy industry shills", like Richard Lindzen.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 10:30am

52. Posted by urmygyro at 10/26/2009 @ 10:19am |

    He's referring to "The Day the Earth Stood Still"...sci-fi from the 50s.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 10:33am

53. But then why did Klaatu arrange with the professor to speak with the scientists when he came to visit? Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/26/2009 @ 10:11am |

    Because they're the only ones smart enough to think before shooting aliens?

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 10:34am

54. At least these guys make claims that can be verified in the next few decades....then they'll need to shut up and admit that 0.17W/m^2 of forcing (or lack thereof) from the sun isn't going to help offset the 1.66W/m^2 of forcing from CO2.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 10:19am

    I doubt it. Nearly all geologists and most climatologists disagree with the AGW crowd. The AGW models are contrived and lack any connection with planetary history.

    No, it is you Snowball and the AGW crowd who will continue to be flying against the science.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 10:38am

55. Posted by urmygyro at 10/26/2009 @ 10:19am

    "The Day the Earth Stood Still".

    Back then their were scientists like Salk and Einstein, that is why.

    Posted by !immutable at 10/26/2009 @ 10:39am

56. Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 10:38am |

    I sincerely hope you're right, but time will tell soon enough.

    Welcome to the Terran Climate Experiment.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 10:45am

57. Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 10:38am |

    "...most climatologists disagree with the AGW crowd"

    You should put down that crackpipe...a very unhealthy habit.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 10:47am

58. Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 10:38am

    The claim that most climatologists disagree is false.

    Posted by !immutable at 10/26/2009 @ 10:47am

59. Posted by urmygyro at 10/26/2009 @ 10:19am |

    He's referring to "The Day the Earth Stood Still"...sci-fi from the 50s.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 10:33am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --never seen it.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/26/2009 @ 10:48am

60. Back then their were scientists like Salk and Einstein, that is why.

    Posted by !immutable at 10/26/2009 @ 10:39am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --thank you a-bomb!

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/26/2009 @ 10:48am

61. If even the BBC has begun to question what is going on (or not) with the climate, then why are some of the bloggers here that lean leftward continuing to insist that "climate change" is occurring -

    instead of letting scientists figure it out instead?

    and if this issue is not settled at all, which even the BBC is beginning to acknowledge, then why are some on the political left still refrring to those who do not buy into unproven theories as "deniers" (for example, Mask above did that)?

    Why?

    Why did anybody believe Algore in the first place?

    Also, once this issue goes away, what will the next big "cause" be that gets promoted by the left?

    What happened to global warming? By Paul Hudson Climate correspondent, BBC News

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/26/2009 @ 10:49am

62. scientists are the biggest criminals on earth.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/26/2009 @ 09:27am

    Any advance in technology requires an appropriate evaluation of the likely detrimental effects of that technology on the biosphere. This is a paradigm that is rarely considered by science per se. Any advancement in technology should be examined for it's value in both a philosphical or theroretical framework.

    That is rarely done, and is not the sole responsibilty of Science. Scientists create potential through discovery. But they are not soley responsible for the repercussions of that technology. Science has little to do with the ethics of how it is utilized. That is the business of others.

    To label scientists as criminals is a testament to your ignorance.

    Science can save us, or destroy us. How certain discoveries are used is up to the people that establish the policies to deal with it.

    Einstein said; "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/26/2009 @ 10:59am

63. Posted by sjchermak at 10/26/2009 @ 10:49am

    The source for Hudson's false claim of a global cooling trend is from a table on the Met Office site. If you read the text this is what it says.

    "The record-breaking temperatures in 1998 occurred after three decades of warming, starting in the 1970s. These decades saw an increase in global average temperature of about 0.45 °C. After 1998, however, warming slowed significantly -- trends over the past 10 years show only a 0.07 °C increase in global average temperature. Although this is only a small increase, it indicates that there has been no global cooling over this period. In fact, over the past decade, most years have remained much closer to the record global average temperature reached in 1998 than to temperatures before the 1970s. All the years from 2000 to 2008 have been in the top 14 warmest years on record."

    Posted by !immutable at 10/26/2009 @ 11:20am

64. Will someone please track the money behind these 350 believers? One way or another I will bet following the money will lead you back to the Malthusian wing of the globalist elite. Al Gore praises the Reverend Thomas Malthus all the time, as does Gore's doppelganger Prince Charles. Like the good reverend from the 18th Century, modern Malthusians believe the fundamental problems humanity faces have their roots in the scarcity of the resources that sustain life, because the world is finite and we are exhausting those resources and also perhaps because we are polluting them. The solution of Matlhus and his followers; reduce the numbers of the human population by any means necessary. That is the bottom line of the global warming scare tactics from the climate crises believers: From Al Gore (who is also making money off this cause) to Prince Charles to Nancy Pelosi & the Congressional Democrats to the Greens to bloggers such as Mask and other believers herein -- they all want to reduce industrial production worldwide which will result in a drastic reduction in the human population. As a liberal and a progressive one at that, I am truly ashamed that so many of my friends have bought into the global warming pseudoscience and the false idea of climate crises caused by CO2 which will lead to Malthusian genocide.

    FYI: http://desip.igc.org/malthus/

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss /duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3790221

    http://greenhellblog.com/2009/02/23/why- doesnt-al-gore-get-this-question/

    Posted by dont_know at 10/26/2009 @ 11:24am

65. Posted by sjchermak at 10/26/2009 @ 10:49am

    Hudson's PDO claim also have been debunked, prior to his making it. It seems he was also aware that he was quoting bad science but used it anyway.

    Anyone want to guess why?

    Posted by !immutable at 10/26/2009 @ 11:26am

66. Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 09:50am

    "So you've run into the arms of an energy industry shill (to the tune of $2500/day)...who's main argument is that "it's no big deal"?"

    I can play that game too, snowball. For example, how many millions has the scientifically illiterate prophet Al Gore made off of selling utterly worthless carbon credits, while refusing to debate actual scientists regarding his debunked claims?

    How many millions in funding is at stake for the largely mostly non-scientific UN panels make for touting global warming? How many millions in funding are at stake for the government-paid research scientists whose word you take as gospel?

    Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2009 @ 11:32am

67. Posted by dont_know at 10/26/2009 @ 11:24am

    Why don't you try following the money of the deniers. We are not talking millions here but billions per year.

    Posted by !immutable at 10/26/2009 @ 11:38am

68. Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 09:50am

    "Well at least his degree has the right words on it...even if he should be stripped of it."

    And again, we have evidence of this disturbing propensity for left-wing 'progressives' to declare that those who disagree with their opinions and conclusions need to be silenced and formally censured. First Obama wrt Fox News, the Chamber of Commerce, and any health care industry spokesmen who dare to challenge the unquestioned absolute good of his health care plan, now you with respect to anyone who dares to question your self-proclaimed 'consensus'. Then let's discuss the increasingly common statements these days by liberals that begin with 'Of course I believe in free speech, but....". Anybody else see the pattern here?

    Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2009 @ 11:39am

69. Posted by !immutable at 10/26/2009 @ 11:38am

    "Why don't you try following the money of the deniers. We are not talking millions here but billions per year."

    Can you tell us how many billions that the UN wants to 'combat climate change' - whatever that means?

    Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2009 @ 11:41am

70. Posted by dont_know at 10/26/2009 @ 11:24am

    Why don't you try following the money of the deniers. We are not talking millions here but billions per year.

    Posted by !immutable at 10/26/2009 @ 11:38am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Could you elaborate? Billions for what? From where? I guess you might put me in the box of those you call "deniers" and I haven't received one penny.

    Seriously, though, not everyone, who knows that global warming is a hoax, is in the pay of greedy, polluting energy companies. Most of us are simply adults who actually understand science and history. And I know that not everyone who believes Al Gore and the Green's malarchy are in the pay of cap & trade hedge funds. But if you are going to be honest when you expose well-paid energy company lobbiests opposed to the global warming scare then you also need to expose well-paid Green lobbiests and where they get their funds ALSO.

    Posted by dont_know at 10/26/2009 @ 11:47am

71. You know, energy companies like Chevron and BP can make money delivering energy from all kinds of sources: solar, wind, oil, nuclear, whatever the high priests of the environmental movement deign to proclaim as acceptable for use by the masses. I trust their proclamations a hell of a lot more than I do a bunch of politicians and charlatans like Al Gore who have a vast interest in creating artificial crises designed to expand government power and levels of taxation.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2009 @ 11:48am

72. regarding his debunked claims?

    Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2009 @ 11:32am

    I find it diffucult to understand why you would make a ridiculous assertion that global climate change has been debunked. The few so called "scientists" that are on the payroll of corporate fascism don't indicate a consensus of opinion. In fact, those same people are in the minority of opinion. This is common knowledge.

    What is in it for you to deny the truth Ponti? Why are you bound and determined to spread disinformation on the subject? Makes no sense to me. Unless you have some perverted desire to participate in the end of life as we know it.

    Are you so depraved that you would wish the consequences of such a position on your children and grandchildren?

    I really have a hard time conceiving that such willfull ignorance exists in the world.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/26/2009 @ 11:57am

73. Posted by chaoszen at 10/26/2009 @ 11:57am

    If I were you, chaoszen, I would be more worried about the fact that apparently no-one can disagree with your conclusions without being guilty of spreading disinformation, being on the payroll of corporate fascists, having a perverted desire to end life as we know it, being depraved, being willfully ignorant, etc. I think your problems begin a little closer to home my friend.

    Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2009 @ 12:05pm

74. Why are you bound and determined to spread disinformation on the subject? Makes no sense to me. Unless you have some perverted desire to participate in the end of life as we know it.

    Are you so depraved that you would wish the consequences of such a position on your children and grandchildren?

    I really have a hard time conceiving that such willfull ignorance exists in the world.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/26/2009 @ 11:57am | ignore this person | warn this person

    "End of life as we know it" - Really, this level of rhetoric is reminiscent of bible thumpers on the right.

    So, chaoszen, as to depraved indifference to the fate of descendants, IT IS YOUR willfull ignorance that will lead to your children or grandchildren either being exterminated as part of the "over-population", or to their deaths from starvation as industry collapses under cap and trade, or to their enslavement under the Malthusian lords who will rule the world when the climate crises measures, you support, take full effect.

    Posted by dont_know at 10/26/2009 @ 12:11pm

75. "You know, energy companies like Chevron and BP can make money delivering energy from all kinds of sources: solar, wind, oil, nuclear..."----Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2009 @ 11:48am

    So....why aren't they?

    Posted by Mask at 10/26/2009 @ 12:13pm

76. Posted by dont_know at 10/26/2009 @ 11:47am

    Exxon, 40 billion in profits.

    Of course I believe that following the money trail is good on both sides. But if you think millions are a motivator billions can move mountains.

    Now, I just followed your argument on tracking the money of the 350 believers of which I am one and I, like you, have received no money for it. Which of course doesn't detract from or add to my argument or yours.

    Posted by !immutable at 10/26/2009 @ 12:19pm

77. Posted by !immutable at 10/26/2009 @ 12:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Not the "350 believers" but the organized effort. You are just part of the amen choir

    The thing that is useful about "following the money" is that it reveals WHO is really spreading what political line and WHY -- the the bottom lines not just the rhetoric. We on the left are always quick to reveal greedy corporation funding behind our enemies polemics. And well we should. But we should equally know who is paying for single issue politics on our side. Otherwise, we may get caught with our pants down. I believe that is the situation with this global warming balderdash.

    Posted by dont_know at 10/26/2009 @ 12:42pm

78. "You know, energy companies like Chevron and BP can make money delivering energy from all kinds of sources: solar, wind, oil, nuclear..."----Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2009 @ 11:48am

    So....why aren't they?

    Posted by Mask at 10/26/2009 @ 12:13pm

    Look it up, MASK....BP is one of the biggest player in solar.....sucking up all the subsidies it can.

    Ponti is right......energy companies can make money out of any type of energy, be they based on profits or subsidies. Like my making a small mint on ADM when it was slurping in ethanol subsidies.....even if folks don't tend to think of ADM as an energy company.

    Smart players will flock to money, even Gubber money!

    Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 12:44pm

79. Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2009 @ 11:41am

    The environmental integrity of some projects in the UN CDM program are suspect and it does appear that some chemical, wind, gas and hydro companies are claiming reduction credits that shouldn't qualify but any time you have man and money you have waste and corruption.

    One key difference between deniers and believers would be that deniers were threatened by it from the beginning and saw the potential hit immediately while believers have had to develop business models for profit to convince business to go along after the fact.

    Posted by !immutable at 10/26/2009 @ 12:49pm

80. the wheels on the fucking bus

    oil is poison and it chokes our children.

    why the debate?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 1:01pm

81. Posted by dont_know at 10/26/2009 @ 12:11pm

    Your nic is quite apropo, don't_know. And on top of that you are crazy as bat shit. But in any case if the likes of you are an example of the opposition, we are in fine shape...

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/26/2009 @ 1:19pm

82. What I would really like to know more than anything, is why we have cretins running around with damaged brains who insist on supporting positions that will lead to their own destruction?

    That sort of fatalism is the sign of a very sick and diseased society. And is the primary reason I am moving to Costa Rica next year.

    I want to live out what remains of my life in sanity. Frankly, this country is toast..

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/26/2009 @ 1:25pm

83. Posted by chaoszen at 10/26/2009 @ 1:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Why is it crazy to point out that Al Gore and the leading proponents of climate crises & global warming are all committed Malthusians? They admit it. Why can't you?

    Posted by dont_know at 10/26/2009 @ 1:28pm

84. Posted by dont_know at 10/26/2009 @ 1:28pm

    Malthusians?? Jesus.. You really are out there eh? Do us all a favor and jump off the nearest bridge..

    Where do these people come from?

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/26/2009 @ 1:41pm

85. Posted by chaoszen at 10/26/2009 @ 1:25pm

    "What I would really like to know more than anything, is why we have cretins running around with damaged brains who insist on supporting positions that will lead to their own destruction?"

    Anytime the premise of a question answers the question itself - I have to laugh. Hey chaoszen, aren't you ashamed of the fact that you beat your wife? Have you know conscience? LOL

    Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2009 @ 1:44pm

86. Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 12:44pm

    "Ponti is right......energy companies can make money out of any type of energy, be they based on profits or subsidies. Like my making a small mint on ADM when it was slurping in ethanol subsidies.....even if folks don't tend to think of ADM as an energy company.

    Smart players will flock to money, even Gubber money!"

    Hey HAPPY - you should get a kick out of this. I told my thoroughy indoctrinated, Obama-voting sister that ethanol was nothing but a corporate/government scam that sucked up tax dollars and made no economic or energy sense - that using food to create motor fuel was obscene from almost any perspective - she answered: THEN WHY DO THEY DO IT THEN!? - with a satisfied look on her face that she got from PROVING to me that it must make sense...lord where do we start with these people?

    Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2009 @ 1:48pm

87. Posted by dont_know at 10/26/2009 @ 1:28pm

    Malthusians?? Jesus.. You really are out there eh? Do us all a favor and jump off the nearest bridge..

    Where do these people come from?

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/26/2009 @ 1:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I am coming from seeing Al Gore's slideshow "An Inconvenient Truth" where he waxes on about Malthus and population control. Evidently you were playing three monkeys (hear no, see no, speak no evil) during that part of his presentation.

    Posted by dont_know at 10/26/2009 @ 2:01pm

88. Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2009 @ 1:48pm

    You have posted that crap about your supposed "sister" more times than I can count. Everything you say has been debunked and every thought you squeeze out of your peanut brain is way overdue for the rubbish bin.

    I know it means nothing but you and HAPPY are now on my ignore list. You have nothing to offer...

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/26/2009 @ 2:05pm

89. oil is poison.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 2:06pm

90. oil is poison.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 2:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    More so than heroin?

    Posted by dont_know at 10/26/2009 @ 2:07pm

91. oil is poison.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 2:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    More so than heroin?

    Posted by dont_know at 10/26/2009 @ 2:07pm

92. chaoszen,

    Up above you say:

    ".....You really are out there eh?..."

    What's with the "eh?"

    Frosty Zoom is the one here that would be using the "eh?", since he is from Windsor.

    Posted by sjchermak at 10/26/2009 @ 2:20pm

93. More so than heroin?

    Posted by dont_know at 10/26/2009 @ 2:07pm

    start injected some kerosene and do the experiment yourself.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 4:49pm

94. Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2009 @ 11:32am |

    "I can play that game too, snowball. For example, how many millions has the scientifically illiterate prophet Al Gore made off of selling utterly worthless carbon credits, while refusing to debate actual scientists regarding his debunked claims?"

    Small ball, Ponti...how many BILLIONS of dollars do the powers that be (Exxon, Shell, etc) stand to lose?

    "How many millions in funding is at stake for the largely mostly non-scientific UN panels make for touting global warming? How many millions in funding are at stake for the government-paid research scientists whose word you take as gospel?"

    Gospel my ass...they show their work, I read it with my skeptic hat on, and it checks out. And their funding isn't "at stake"...unless Dubya gets back in office.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 9:52pm

95. Posted by pontificus at 10/26/2009 @ 11:39am |

    "And again, we have evidence of this disturbing propensity for left-wing 'progressives' to declare that those who disagree with their opinions and conclusions need to be silenced and formally censured."

    Oh climb off your high horse before you hurt yourself...I'm just saying the guy doesn't appear to be much of a scientist.

    He has every right to keep pulling down money toeing Exxon's line, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the whore.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/26/2009 @ 9:57pm

96. chaoszen: "Scientists create potential through discovery. But they are not soley responsible for the repercussions of that technology. Science has little to do with the ethics of how it is utilized. That is the business of others."

    --so "patsy" is also an appropriate term for a scientist. kurt vonnegut would disagree with you.

    chaoszen: "To label scientists as criminals is a testament to your ignorance."

    --so george carlin's ignorant too?

    chaoszen: "Science can save us, or destroy us. How certain discoveries are used is up to the people that establish the policies to deal with it."

    --so for you, the scientists are patsies and the government controls all.

    chaoszen: "Einstein said; "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.""

    --poor einstein the patsy. smart enough to split the atom but lacking the common sense to see the abuse...

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 08:05am

97. --poor einstein the patsy. smart enough to split the atom but lacking the common sense to see the abuse...

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 08:05am

    Even if he had, and tried to suppress the discovery, Poincaré and others would have eventually worked out the theory. Maybe the bomb would have first been dropped in the sixties instead of the forties.

    Posted by Mistral at 10/27/2009 @ 09:25am

98. Posted by Mistral at 10/27/2009 @ 09:25am |

    Or Heisenberg would have helped Adolf drop one on London in the late 40s.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 10:10am

99. Or Heisenberg would have helped Adolf drop one on London in the late 40s.

    Posted by snowball777 at 10/27/2009 @ 10:10am

    Indeed. Clarence Oddbody (AS2) was quite perceptive in his speech about how our lives affect others.

    Posted by Mistral at 10/27/2009 @ 11:15am

100. Even if he had, and tried to suppress the discovery, Poincaré and others would have eventually worked out the theory. Maybe the bomb would have first been dropped in the sixties instead of the forties. Posted by Mistral at 10/27/2009 @ 09:25am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --exactly the rationale that keeps people's conscious subdued.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 11:38am