The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

Thanks to Nation reader Sarah Emily Labance for introducing me to this brilliant and frightening video. It's the best argument I've seen yet for taking immediate action on climate change. The logic would seem undeniable even for the denialists.

Comments (133)

1. Always keep this in mind, Peter....they won't.

   The Deniers have little open "out of the closet" support with ambitious Republicans. NO candidate for President in 2012 will agree with them on GW being "not man-made" or "a hoax"...none.

   Even Palin will "walk it back" if by some miracle she gets the nomination. In fact, most of them will take up Gingrich's call for "market solutions", but never full denial.

   Once in office, they may ignore it or dodge and weave or postpone any actions.

   But the basic fact is....GW Denial is a political loser and smart Republicans who want something more than just "senior Senator from Oklahoma" know it.

   Posted by Mask at 11/02/2009 @ 12:01pm

2. peter, i've been trying to use this argument for years.

   most people won't even try to listen.

   they like their heroin black and gooey.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 12:05pm

3. peter, i've been trying to use this argument for years. Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 12:05pm

   I'll second that. However, whenever I use this argument with my friends and co-workers who are deniers or skeptics their eyes just glaze over about halfway through the argument. Or others immediately try and make some lame joke to unfocus the conversation.

   And I have to admit that most of my friends and co-workers are either truck drives or bikers. So my sampling may be skewed.

   But even if the entire population is split 50/50 on this debate the reason that nothing will be done about it is that the oligarchy is tipping the scales by it's ownership of the media and our politicians.

   Just watch as the vultures decend to feed on Peter's post.

   Posted by chaoszen at 11/02/2009 @ 12:39pm

4. Peter,

   It's just as funny and just as phony as the first time I watched it.

   It presents a false Hobson's choice, because of the so-called 2 column choice.

   There are at least 3 columns, with the 3rd column being critical to the debate.

   That is that climate change is part of the earths natural history. The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles that are independent of mankind. We have had multiple ice ages and multiple warm cycles where much of the earth was semi-tropical. Think of all of the Mammoths and other creatures in the arctic circle that we have found. Or the fern fossils in arctic regions.

   Then consider that we are in a global cooling cycle currently which some scientists (predominantly in Russia, Scandanavian countries and Western Europe) believe is leading to a new mini ice age.

   Now add a 4th column. That one also utilizes the geological record. It shows decades long cooling cycles from volcanic eruptions. It shows complete devastation from large meteor showers. It shows high warming cycles from extreme sunspot activity. All variables that mankind has zero control over.

   Now add in that we have had much higher CO2 cycles which produced global cooling, not warming.

   Add in that increased CO2 has only changed the CO2 greenhouse gasses by 1 1/1000 of a percent.

   Sorry, this alarmism is just too funny, if it weren't for the effects on mankind and freedom should you alarmists get your way.

   Posted by antisocialist at 11/02/2009 @ 1:09pm

5. antisocialist, just so you know, if the CO2 concentration in your bloodstream increased by 1/1000 of one percent gram atoms per liter, you would be dead.

   in living organisms, little things can make a big difference.

   another way to tally things up: 100 million years to lay down fossil fuel supplies that are burned through in two centuries is the equivalent of releasing 100 million years of stored solar energy into the big goldfish bowl that is planet earth - all in the blink of an eye of geologic time.

   you don't have to be an alarmist to figure out that this is a recipe for disaster. you just have to be able to understand conservation of energy.

   Posted by canaro71 at 11/02/2009 @ 1:20pm

6. antisocialist,

   even with two additional columns, you are still left with the same conundrum: doing nothing or doing something, and manmade climate change is true or manmade climate change is false.

   and this is NOT a "hobson's choice"

   Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2009 @ 1:23pm

7. antisocialist,

   even with two additional columns, you are still left with the same conundrum: doing nothing or doing something, and manmade climate change is true or manmade climate change is false.

   and this is NOT a "hobson's choice"

   Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2009 @ 1:23pm

   We need to stop the totalitarian goals of the AGW hoaxers before we lose all of our freedoms and they destroy whatever chance we have to save the economy from Obamanism.

   Posted by antisocialist at 11/02/2009 @ 1:25pm

8. canaro71,

   antisocialist is not a scientist, nor a climate scientist, so you don't need to listen to him.

   he has no idea what he's talking about.

   he's just paranoid that any attempts to deal with climate change will represent a marxist totalitarian power grab by the democrats, and infringe on liberty and freedom, or some such horseshit...

   Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2009 @ 1:26pm

9. "We need to stop the totalitarian goals of the AGW hoaxers before we lose all of our freedoms and they destroy whatever chance we have to save the economy from Obamanism."

   see what i mean!!!!!!

   Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2009 @ 1:27pm

10. Current Ice Age Cycle measurements indicate that we reached what appears to be a normal cyclical peak temperature in 1998 and have now begun the cooling trend. Should human control of CO2 levels prove to have any effect on the climate, perhaps we can use it to slow the cooling. There is snow on the crops in the Western US this year that may prevent a successful harvest. We have a bloom of human population now that will need to decline as food supplies become more scarce worldwide. Expect to see more malnutrition and disease. That is the natural consequesnce of food supply shortfalls. Better that we spend our efforts on slowing human population growth. The bigger it gets, the harder the fall. Sharing the available food supplies through better distribution sounds like a plan but probably just makes us feel better. There are numerous random global events that result in drastic cooling, like meteor impacts and volcanoes clouding up the sky. Not too many that I know of that can warm up the climate.

    Posted by khogan1 at 11/02/2009 @ 1:50pm

11. I suppose AGW can be considered Paranormal Activities......LOL! You believe in it for the thrills....hahahaha!

    Posted by Happy at 11/02/2009 @ 2:00pm

12. So the climate changes dramatically over a relatively short time period. What happens? In the short-term economic, social, political, environmental calamity, death and destruction. In the longer term, human chaos. In the very long term, adaptation drives evolution. The world changes, and some life...although it may be very different.. continues.

    Drastic climate change is only a bad thing if you believe that the present time period is the best of all possible worlds and that in the present progression, human society is improving and animal and plant species are thriving. Is this the "best of all possible times?"

    I'm neither a theist, gaiaist or even a pessimist, but I'm thinking a global re-set might be in order to kick human evolution and accountability up an order of a notch or two, or allow another species a chance to see if it could do better. This might be a good time to consider placing Time Capsules on the moon and in outer orbits.

    Posted by lou91940 at 11/02/2009 @ 2:16pm

13. and this is NOT a "hobson's choice"

    Posted by darladoon at 11/02/2009 @ 1:23pm

    Yeah, Anti is as usual ill-informed. "Hobson's Choice" is no choice at all. It's a take it or leave it scenario.

    What Anti was attempting to refer to is a "false dilemma" where their appears to be only two choices when their are actually more. In this case his third supposed "Choice" that climate change is completely natural and thus we should do nothing about it clearly falls into the second column anyway.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/02/2009 @ 2:17pm

14. mmmmmmm, kerosene!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 2:23pm

15. This might be a good time to consider placing Time Capsules on the moon and in outer orbits.

    Posted by lou91940 at 11/02/2009 @ 2:16pm

    Or accelerate the space program and establish a permanent human presence on Mars. Mars is already appears to be a nearly dead planet. So we humans can't really screw it up anymore than it already is.

    We can only learn to improve it. And in the process we might learn a little appreciation for what we already had here on Earth.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/02/2009 @ 2:28pm

16. they like their heroin black and gooey.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 12:05pm

    I like the analogy. An addiction to oil is a terrible thing, especially when there are much better options available.

    Even Heroin addicts realize that the black and gooey tar smack is inferior to the off white powdery kind...

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/02/2009 @ 2:34pm

17. Hi Peter, Unfortunately there is another option, no wrong word, possible future. I am a retired engineer and I have too much time on my hands. Not long ago NOAA and other weather study groups used supercomputers to forecast the far future of our worlds climate. As I looked at their input data I saw something missing if there was an assumption of global warming. The permafrost on the lands around the North Pole would thaw. They missed this one small input to our atmospheric CO2 and methane. Only it is not small. Know one knows how big either. This permafrost is tens or hundreds of thousands of years old comprising the vegetation and ice deposited during that time. Many thousands of times larger in volume than all the coal fields known in the world. As it thaws from the current warming period the defrosted mass starts to bubble from the released gases. This stirs the mixture accelerating the defrosting process. A glance at the current rise in CO2 and methane confirms this. When compared to geologic records from the Russian site in the Antarctic ice sheets going back 400,000 years we see when the CO2 and methane reach levels we have now, big things happen. Far beyond your lower right quadrant predictions. Option C, move to high ground. Can you make an arrowhead from flint? Bill

    Posted by BillWilliam at 11/02/2009 @ 3:29pm

18. Hi Peter, Yes I am always this chearful. Bill

    Posted by BillWilliam at 11/02/2009 @ 3:33pm

19. BillWilliams, yow! Glad I live up high, just don't know if its high enough. No pun intended.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/02/2009 @ 4:09pm

20. Sorry, this alarmism is just too funny, if it weren't for the effects on mankind and freedom should you alarmists get your way.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/02/2009 @ 1:09pm

    plus, by doing nothing you'll need more oil.

    which means more chances to squish towelheads!

    heck, you might even have to invade canada!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 4:15pm

21. Just so you know, I do understand that tiny changes can wreak havok on human civilizations, including coastal human habitat destruction and local changes in climate so Europe has new deserts.

    But this video does have at least two flaws.

    1. You could say the same thing about anything you want. In fact, my father always said the same thing about believing in God. (Later I learned he didn't make it up!) He said that if you believed, but no God existed, you wasted some time praying. But if you didn't believe, and God was a vengeful jealous God, you'd suffer forever. Better not to risk it, he said.

    2. It's clear that you're trying to appease the deniers/doomsayers, conceding that the entire effect on the economy would be bad. And for the strict purposes of this video, it's reasonable to ignore the likely positive effect on the economy as we start converting to local, renewable, and clean power sources and storage methods. But I predict that deniers who see this video will latch onto having seen a liberal acknowledge the negative effect on the economy of doing anything about global warming.

    Posted by waltham at 11/02/2009 @ 4:33pm

22. I'm neither a theist, gaiaist or even a pessimist, but I'm thinking a global re-set might be in order to kick human evolution and accountability up an order of a notch or two, or allow another species a chance to see if it could do better. This might be a good time to consider placing Time Capsules on the moon and in outer orbits.

    Posted by lou91940 at 11/02/2009 @ 2:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Looks more like a subsciber to a "Doomsday Darwinist" theorist philisophically if that is possible, or maybe just another hollywood writer!

    Posted by BigPasture at 11/02/2009 @ 4:43pm

23. darladoon,

    Up above, you outdid yourself beyond your normal classics and proclaimed the following:

    ".........antisocialist is not a scientist, nor a climate scientist, so you don't need to listen to him.

    he has no idea what he's talking about......"

    So, darladoon, I suppose you ARE a scientist, or a climate scientist.

    I don't believe you ever mentioned that before.....what school did you go to? What degrees do you hold (in science or climatology?)..........

    What professional societies do you belong to? What articles have you published that others have taken note of and agree with or have learned from?

    Are you in meteorology? Do you do the weather on television someplace?

    Please fill us in on some gaps that seem to be missing on your resume.

    Or are your credentials that you watched Algore's movie, and thus are now an expert on "climate change" (not global warming anymore, but climate change)?

    Will you continue to be an expert when some other term besides climate change has to be invented by the left, like how global warming is no longer the buzzword when even libs realize the planet is cooling?

    Answers, please.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/02/2009 @ 4:47pm

24. I believe global warming is a serious threat to humanity and we must do something drastic to avert it.

    The video, however, is just a form of Pascal's Wager: since going to hell is far worse than just dying (as atheists think they will) then one should believe in God just to play it safe.

    Philosophers refute this argument by postulating a God who will send us to hell for believing in him (since He gives us no good evidence). Such a god may seem unlikely, but how LIKELY particular gods may be is not something we can easily know. So Pascal's Wager fails as an argument UNLESS WE KNOW THE ODDS.

    The same thing goes for the video's argument. We have to know the odds that global warming will hurt us before we decide to do anything about it. Just reacting to possible bad consequences is as silly as keeping my shoes on all the time because taking them off MIGHT end the universe.

    Posted by posterboy at 11/02/2009 @ 4:47pm

25. Loved the video... He seems pretty glib about the whole thing... maybe because he thinks he's figured a way to stop all the senseless arguing...

    My take on this is almost as simple.

    Global warming may be partially a human generated occurrence.

    What is certain, is that humans are overwhelming their only available life sustaining biosphere... in hundreds of scientifically verifiable ways.

    Go with what you know... and skip the fancy labels.

    Posted by ttr at 11/02/2009 @ 4:49pm

26. Yeah, Anti is as usual ill-informed. "Hobson's Choice" is no choice at all. It's a take it or leave it scenario.

    What Anti was attempting to refer to is a "false dilemma" where their appears to be only two choices when their are actually more. In this case his third supposed "Choice" that climate change is completely natural and thus we should do nothing about it clearly falls into the second column anyway.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/02/2009 @ 2:17pm |

    Well, you're wrong. The guy in the video stated that we only had 2 choices. And certainly he was presenting a false Hobson's Choice. We do not have to react in any the ways he concluded.

    <A Hobson's choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered, and one may refuse to take that option>

    He stated the choice was to do something or do nothing which is refusing to take the option.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/02/2009 @ 4:50pm

27. Eeeek, my scared!

    Oh, Halloween! Haha. My is funny now.

    Posted by jv99 at 11/02/2009 @ 4:55pm

28. plus, by doing nothing you'll need more oil.

    which means more chances to squish towelheads!

    heck, you might even have to invade canada!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 4:15pm

    It does not mean needing more oil. You act like we are static without government. That new technologies will not come onboard unless govt funds it. That is complete nonsense.

    In fact, without govt, oil will fade away long before we run out when alternate technologies become cheaper than oil.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/02/2009 @ 5:02pm

29. "...oil will fade away long before we run out when alternate technologies become cheaper than oil."

    by ant is o cia list at 11/02/2009 @ 5:02pm...

    You certainly have a way with words... ;^)

    Posted by ttr at 11/02/2009 @ 5:09pm

30. I do not have a video to look at...I have a blank spot where it should be and a small logo in the upper left corne(figures, left corner..:)....)

    Is my computer blocking the item?

    Any help...?

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/02/2009 @ 6:09pm

31. There's no guarantee that "Column A" is still an available choice (it may be too late and our efforts, though valiant, could fail to avert the bottom right scenario).

    This is also true of Anti's "alternate tech becomes cheaper than oil" argument...you can notice that you're about to go over a cliff well past your safe stopping distance from said cliff.

    New tech won't come onboard until SOMEBODY funds it...and there's no guarantee that will happen before oil runs out or we've done more damage than we can reverse. It can also ramp up too slowly to replace oil and leave a window of opportunity for disaster to take place anyway.

    "...I'm gonna kick...tomorrow..." - Jane's Addiction

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/02/2009 @ 6:20pm

32. Answers, please.

    Posted by sjchermak at 11/02/2009 @ 4:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    We'll see fairly soon, SJ...

    ... when the '12 candidates start lining up their points of view on this.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/02/2009 @ 6:24pm

33. Any help...? Posted by YourJomamma at 11/02/2009 @ 6:09pm |

    Missing the Adobe Flash plug-in for your browser?

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/02/2009 @ 6:30pm

34. Any help...? Posted by YourJomamma at 11/02/2009 @ 6:09pm |

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/02/2009 @ 6:30pm

    Try a Mac.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 11/02/2009 @ 6:43pm

35. New tech won't come onboard until SOMEBODY funds it...and there's no guarantee that will happen before oil runs out or we've done more damage than we can reverse. It can also ramp up too slowly to replace oil and leave a window of opportunity for disaster to take place anyway.

    "...I'm gonna kick...tomorrow..." - Jane's Addiction

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/02/2009 @ 6:20pm

    Right Snowball. We all know that no one is working on hybrids, biodiesel, electric vehicles, magnetics, and other technologies that are not even coming up on the media radar yet.

    yes, we had the horse and buggy dominating long after it should have, right?

    Why do you hate and disbelieve in science and the history of man's inventivenss?

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/02/2009 @ 7:03pm

36. I found the most terrifying video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTcIhTJ6-Is

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/02/2009 @ 7:47pm

37. Missing the Adobe Flash plug-in for your browser?

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/02/2009 @ 6:30pm

    I have had some issues lately with the lap top..It is a Sony Vaio..weighs 3 pounds and is now 3 years old...sound card is spoty...slow responses even after sweeps...I think the thing is tired.

    I will check Adobe...Thank you for responding to my request.

    And I am looking at the new Apple lap top..but I am concerned about all the programs I have on my PCs being compatible.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/02/2009 @ 7:57pm

38. Of course the longer-term cycles don't explain such things as the precipitous disappearance of Kiliminjaro's ice-cap. http://tiny.cc/pJFL8

    As the article said "A series of cores drilled through the ice fields at different points on Kilimanjaro has revealed that the melting observed over the past few decades is unprecedented in nearly 12,000 years. The research also shows that that the current thinning of the ice cap is faster than when a devastating 300-year drought occurred 4,200 years ago, a period when very little snow fell on the mountain."

    Posted by brunowe at 11/02/2009 @ 8:43pm

39. .....when a devastating 300-year drought occurred 4,200 years ago, a period when very little snow fell on the mountain."

    Posted by brunowe at 11/02/2009 @ 8:43pm

    That drought was evidently, man-caused global drought as civilization was beginning!

    Posted by Happy at 11/02/2009 @ 8:48pm

40. Posted by brunowe at 11/02/2009 @ 8:43pm

    This has been thoroughly debunked

    <According to the summer edition of American Scientist magazine, "global warming has nothing to do with the decline of Kilimanjaro's ice, and using the mountain in northern Tanzania as a "poster child" for climate change is simply inaccurate."

    The article, by climatologist Philip Mote and Georg Kaser, a glaciologist, reveals new information about Kilimanjaro's disappearing snow and ice, and shows just how complex the whole issue of global warming truly is. Their central point is that the Southern location of Kilimanjaro creates different conditions from those on peaks in more temperate locations.

    The melting that takes place elsewhere as a result of warming, doesn't take place on Kilimanjaro. Instead, snow and ice are lost primarily through sublimation, which "occurs at below-freezing temperatures and converts ice directly to water vapor without going through the liquid phase. Mote likens it to moisture-sapping conditions that cause food to suffer freezer burn."

    The air around Kilimanjaro's peak is almost always below freezing, while the peaks of midlatitude peaks are surrounded by warm summer air, which melts the ice and snow.

    Based on their analysis of previous research, the two scientists note that "the decline in Kilimanjaro's ice has been going on for more than a century and that most of it occurred before 1953, while evidence of atmospheric warming there before 1970 is inconclusive.">

    http://tinyurl.com/y9tdlk7

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/02/2009 @ 8:51pm

41. Any help...? Posted by YourJomamma at 11/02/2009 @ 6:09pm

    here, john:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 9:15pm

42. Researchers used ocean sediments to plot CO2 levels back 20 million years.

    Levels similar to those now commonly regarded as adequate to tackle climate change were associated with sea levels 25-40m (80-130 ft) higher than today.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 9:16pm

43. And I am looking at the new Apple lap top..but I am concerned about all the programs I have on my PCs being compatible. Posted by YourJomamma at 11/02/2009 @ 7:57pm |

    YJM, look at VMWare Fusion...

    http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/

    ...it's a virtual machine that allows you to run Windows apps on an OS X box.

    I use it for doing game development for consoles and PCs (which often have windows-only development tools); it's the most reliable 'PC' I've ever owned (including the ones I built myself).

    If you get the Macbook Air, spring for the one with the solid-state disk and save some energy (and your lap).

    You might also try defragmenting the disk on your VAIO; laptop hard drives are crappy on a good day and 3 years of use will leave it looking like a slice of emmantal cheese.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/02/2009 @ 9:17pm

44. Posted by antisocialist at 11/02/2009 @ 7:47pm |

    Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/02/2009 @ 9:20pm

45. Posted by antisocialist at 11/02/2009 @ 7:03pm |

    "Right Snowball. We all know that no one is working on hybrids, biodiesel, electric vehicles, magnetics, and other technologies that are not even coming up on the media radar yet."

    I'd love to live in a world with a Tokamak in my backyard and plug-in electric hybrid stations from coast to coast, but it doesn't spring up overnight.

    Most of that beautiful tech is subsidized and wouldn't be coming online even now, but for rulers smacking the invisible hand.

    "yes, we had the horse and buggy dominating long after it should have, right?"

    There's a big difference between choosing a car over a horse and running out of fossil fuels or staving off ACC...you can delay the former until the time is right for you, not so much the latter two.

    "Why do you hate and disbelieve in science and the history of man's inventivenss?"

    You have *got* to be kidding...generally I get dinged for my optimism about solving this issue with technology.

    "Ha Ha 21. Nice one. Dream on. Who knows you may be the genius our energy hungry world has been waiting for." -- LRJones

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/02/2009 @ 9:41pm

46. Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 9:16pm |

    Glad my pad is outside the 'tsunami zone' (yes, they actually did a study and determined that the local Safeway...isn't).

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/02/2009 @ 9:42pm

47. Then watch this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE6Kdo1AQmY&feature=related

    Posted by ttr at 11/02/2009 @ 10:19pm

48. Posted by snowball777 at 11/02/2009 @ 9:17pm

    Thanks...I will. I appreciate your input.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/02/2009 @ 10:56pm

49. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/02/2009 @ 9:15pm

    And thank you too, Frosty.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/02/2009 @ 10:57pm

50. "He doesn't claim that Kilimanjaro's unique situation disproves global warning. What he objects to is its use in the film, 'An Inconvenient Truth,' and in many environmental venues. "There are dozens, if not hundreds, of photos of midlatitude glaciers you could show where there is absolutely no question that they are declining in response to the warming atmosphere," "

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/02/2009 @ 8:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Even assuming they are right about Kiliminjaro, it is still easy enough to find other glaciers and ice caps.

    However, that study HAS been challenged. The article I mentioned is based on a study released November 2-- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ news/environment/article6900136.ece "a study, published yesterday, is a serious blow to the sceptics. It not only supplies new evidence that global warming is contributing to the melting but it is co-authored by Doug Hardy, a climatologist previously quoted by sceptics as supporting their case.

    If drier conditions were to blame, it would be reasonable to expect a 300-year drought that afflicted Kilimanjaro 4,700 years ago to have resulted in significant ice loss. But cross-sections of ice examined by Dr Hardy show that the only sustained melting in the past 11,700 years began about 40 years ago. "

    Posted by brunowe at 11/02/2009 @ 11:37pm

51. After almost two years of laying low and dedicating my precious time to sordid cares and other pains and pleasures (fearing God, keeping my flag from touching the ground, throttling my natural inclination to clout every rube who thinks Philadelphia possesses anything better than New York), I am not at all surprised to find the supreme jabberwocky of MASK at the top of the commentaries. Yes, MASK can be counted on not just to clean up his mess after a regular visit to the local grind house, but to also contribute sterling anthems of idiocy that grant him a special place among the pantheon of Know Nothings in Al-Amreeka who conflate the blathering of shopworn chatter, mindless platitude and patriotic drivel regurgitated from countless hours as a sedentary apparatchik before the idiot box with some species of coruscating wisdom. What have all these years as a nerveless wind machine brought you but a place in the shade here in this virtual grove of sagacity? Your country is now run by crooks from the other side of the aisle who continue to drive the Republic into the ground. But the clamor - nay, revolt - any intelligent person would expect isn't even yet conceived, perhaps because the average American is and always will be dumbly content in the mud like a pig in a wallow. At least the others can find humorous distraction knowing they have swine like MASK to entertain them as the sty continues to grow and stink...

    -No hay revolucion sin balas

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/03/2009 @ 12:25am

52. chimi.......

    ¿quihubo?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/03/2009 @ 02:23am

53. THE PROBLEMS DUE TO THE CLIMATE CHANGES ARE VERY SERIOUS.EVERY NATIONS HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITIES TO REDUCE THE AFTER EFFECTS OF THE GLOBAL WARMING.STOP THE WARS AND SPEND MONEY FOR THIS PURPOSE.

    Posted by Dastu11 at 11/03/2009 @ 07:48am

54. Posted by chimichenga at 11/03/2009 @ 12:25am

    Don't get me wrong here chimi, I'm not defending Mask. Not my fight.

    But I was just wondering if the only reason you came here was to produce an overly verbose personal attack? Most folks here at least like to mix a little in the way of contribution to the discussion along with their meaningless personal attacks..

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/03/2009 @ 08:00am

55. Posted by chimichenga at 11/03/2009 @ 12:25am

    Chimi still pissed because I "outed him" as a dopey self-righteous "bohemian" who goes down to Colombia and lives "like a native"...

    paid for by buying local handicrafts on the cheap, and bringing them back to the States to sell at a high mark-up to other "bohemians" who think they're engaging in "Fair Trade" and "helping the indigenuous peoples".

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 08:11am

56. Posted by chimichenga at 11/03/2009 @ 12:25am |

    "Every revolutionary ends up either by becoming an oppressor or a heretic." - Camus

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 08:19am

57. Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 08:11am |

    Of course he's helping them....do you know how hard it is to find good comedy in a tropical rainforest?

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 08:20am

58. Somebody may have already mentioned this, but if so it bears repeating.

    From Siberia to Alaska the melting of permafrost is accelerating. There is a connection between the rapid loss of sea ice and the melting of the worlds permafrost.

    There are lakes forming in these areas that have methane bubbling up out of them. In the Yukon the permafrost has receded more than 62 miles since 1899 with most of that occuring in the last 30 years.

    Scientists estimate that the loss of an additional 10% of the remaining permafrost would release enough greenhouse gases to reach a tipping point where we lose all the permafrost on the planet.

    All the methane and other hydrocarbons that have been stored below the soil for millions of years would be released in a relatively short period of time. Maybe two decades. The deforrested planet we now occupy would not be equipped to handle it. Even if we had never cut down any trees it could not handle it.

    Life as we know it would cease to exist.

    This is not Science Fiction. We are currently 10% short of a nightmare.

    But since the human race has always been two waves short of a shipwreck, I suppose this was to be expected..

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/03/2009 @ 08:40am

59. "After almost two years of laying low and dedicating my precious time to sordid cares and other pains and pleasures..."

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/03/2009 @ 12:25am

    After all this time, why Mask? Have you read any of the other contributions?

    Just sayin'...

    Posted by drhammer at 11/03/2009 @ 08:43am

60. ....do you know how hard it is to find good comedy in a tropical rainforest?

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 08:20am

    Not as hard as you think. I have had monkeys crap in their hand and bombard me from the trees. The monkeys thought it was hilarious.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/03/2009 @ 08:52am

61. Worse case scenario? No, the worse case scenario is what it is. We coulda-shoulda-woulda had fusion technology 30 years ago. With that tech we'd be better prepared by now for an extinction level event. An event that happens every now and again to an earth that is billions of years old. We are obviously not accepted into any type of federation of planets. And the only reason we haven't been allowed to develop and use fusion; a level of technology that will give us the tools to survive, is that we're not meant to survive. We may already know this collectively, as witness-- new con repubs currently exist on this time-line and their level of extreme idiocy is actually listened to and profitable!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2009 @ 08:54am

62. And anyway in Spanish slang Chimi means "King of Fools" and Chenga means nothing at all, a word for all reasons, like "Wow Man! That indigenous necklace is really chenga!"

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/03/2009 @ 09:04am

63. "Every revolutionary ends up either by becoming an oppressor or a heretic." - Camus----Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 08:19am

    Ahhhh, but Chimi has found a way to be a heretic AND...make a profit off it!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 09:12am

64. that we're not meant to survive. Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2009 @ 08:54am

    I agree with that statement, although it bothers me on some level. And I think we do suspect this collectively. I have said before that we are only as strong as the weakest link, and that we sink or swim together. And that also bothers me on some level.

    That is the point where Buddhism comes in handy, at least for me anyway.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/03/2009 @ 09:13am

65. "I have said before that we are only as strong as the weakest link, and that we sink or swim together"

    you haven't seen the Titanic, have you?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 10:04am

66. you haven't seen the Titanic, have you?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 10:04am

    Why? Did you lose it?

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/03/2009 @ 10:15am

67. I was just looking at the amenities available on the Nation Cruise. Holland America Line. One week at various stops Grand Turk, Turks and Caicos, San Juan, St. Thomas, Half Moon Cay.

    Passport requirments and Cabin availability. I would prefer a cabin with veranda (they spell it Verandah) and Whirlpool Bath.. The mini bar and flat screen TV look nice. But the TV appears to be a bit on the small side. I would hope the mini bar was not so mini..

    As a Nation Subscriber, when I see crap like this I wonder.. If I had the money would I spring for it? Or would I hold true to my minimalist principles and decline rubbing elbows with the leftist elite.. Could I actually respect my principles and convince myself that I was attending such an event for the betterment of humanity as I was wallowing in excess?

    I'm so jaded. I wish I was ten years old again....

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/03/2009 @ 10:38am

68. "Could I actually respect my principles and convince myself that I was attending such an event for the betterment of humanity as I was wallowing in excess?"

    no

    Posted by darladoon at 11/03/2009 @ 10:45am

69. Posted by chaoszen at 11/03/2009 @ 10:38am

    As Frosty often points out derisively and I point out ironically....

    it's a bit of bait to our "Al Gore is a hypocrite" anti-environmentalist Right for people like Ms vanden Heuvel to be going on oceanic cruises....one of THE most wasteful (from a standpoint of the environment) forms of personal vacation/entertainment available.

    I don't begrudge them...but it does play to the "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" charge of hypocrisy.

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 11:48am

70. He said that if you believed, but no God existed, you wasted some time praying. But if you didn't believe, and God was a vengeful jealous God, you'd suffer forever. Better not to risk it, he said.

    Posted by waltham at 11/02/2009 @ 4:33pm

    A good comparison!

    If there is AGW, then taking action against it will be the right thing to do and if there is no AGW then reducing pollution is a good thing to do anyway: just think of all the mercury compounds in fly ash from Chinese coal-fired plants blowing over the Pacific and raining into the Great Lakes, for example.

    And we can stop all of our "Last winter's rice crops in Vietnam were killed by record cold, so there you learjet-flying warm monger!" and "Oh yeah?, well the Kilimanjaro glaciers are retreating, nyah! Neanderthal Denialist!"

    Posted by Mistral at 11/03/2009 @ 12:12pm

71. Two problems with your presentation:

    You state that you're charting worst-case scenarios, but then you state that the "future" lies in one of these eventualities. Either that statement needs to contain your worst-case disclaimer, too, or you need to allow that there may be so many societal and economic benefits that flow from our wise action as to offset many times over the costs of the actions we take (e.g., the U.S. stops aggressing in the Middle East and elsewhere as we kick our oil addiction, childhood disease is cut in half as the air and water is progressively cleaner, technological innovation, once strangled by monopolies, experiences a rebirth as we invest in alternative tech, etc.), creating a much more positive world even if it turns out we weren't causing global warming.

    But I get that sticking to worst-case is simpler, easier to grasp. Then, as you said, let's really look at worst-case possibilities. If we really do that, the True/No Action case you state is far from the worst we may face. As the poles melt (already occurring much faster than was predicted), the temperature differential that drives the ocean currents is reduced drastically and ocean currents will slow, possibly even to the point of shutting down. If this occurs, the ocean will die. Mass extinction will follow if it hasn't already occurred. I don't argue that ocean death is imminent -- but it does seem the sort of thing that should be included in your "worst case." You stated that you're not worried about the planet -- me, not so much.

    Yes, whether action or no action should be influenced by risk analysis, but let's not ignore benefits AND downplay risks.

    Thank you for this video. And the forum.

    Posted by CarolMarshall at 11/03/2009 @ 12:49pm

72. we are only as strong as the weakest link, and that we sink or swim together. Posted by chaoszen at 11/03/2009 @ 09:13am

    I don't actually believe that, not really. I think a few can make great change-- one way or the other.

    There is a battle of obstructionism going on with the educational, scientific, ethical and spiritual progress of our world. A few elite anti-science/pro-bigotry new con repubs have systematically enlisted thousands and then millions of idiots to impair and/or take down our civilization.

    On the other side are human beings evolving or attempting to do so.

    Who will survive?

    Karmically speaking, the idea, as I understand it, is not to accumulate good or bad karma, but to become self aware. A state of grace so to speak or arriving at the self, in more Jungian terms. It is an expanding to the universal; a unified/holistic individuation. Thus ones actions are progressively neutral, but also sort of preordained; where god-self = oneness with the alpha/omega omnipresent/omniscient is/not is.

    And since nothing is ever wasted nor ends, but moves from one awareness to yet another in ever expanding interconnected context, one may view the new con repub anti-progression as possibly just a thin womb like barrier that served its once antiseptic/restricted purpose, now ironically, needs to be torn apart and shed in order for humanity to grow up and live.

    But is there time to grow up or are we already still-born?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2009 @ 1:13pm

73. But is there time to grow up or are we already still-born?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2009 @ 1:13pm

    After reading that post, I'm just trying to figure out what drugs you are on?

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 1:26pm

74. Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 1:26pm

    HSUB is a prophet of God, Larry. I got a few Pakistanis and Rotarians who'll swear to it.

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 2:01pm

75. Looks like I angered a few circus clowns in addition to compelling another round of that good 'ol cornpone flapdoodle of MASK. Here's a thought: how about people learn to take better care of themselves, then one another, before mounting their white stallions and pontificating about global warming. What good is a clean environment when you still have billions of people living in poverty, dying from preventable disease, going hungry and without access to education, relying on crime, drugs, sex and war just to put food on the table?

    The self-righteous here love to point out the extravagances of whatever elitist they use as a punching bag, but where is all the outrage for the hundreds of millions of people who don't even have access to potable water? The planet isn't going anywhere, for it will survive long after we are all gone. But the people, well, that's another story. Yes, the oceans are warming. Yes, the glaciers are melting. But unless the frozen hearts of the rich and powerful thaw out nothing is going to change, though I reckon with the increased heat and drought you'll see a lot more tempers boiling over in the south, which the US can relate to, for a cool and collected earth would puzzle us as much as a jackhammer in an orchestra.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/03/2009 @ 2:07pm

76. And I have to admit that most of my friends and co-workers are either truck drives or bikers. So my sampling may be skewed.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/02/2009 @ 12:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --if you truly care then you should seek other employment. you're part of the problem.

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/03/2009 @ 2:22pm

77. trying to figure out what drugs you are on? Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 1:26pm

    Good question: what really is in a breakfast taco and a cup of coffee?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2009 @ 2:27pm

78. "The self-righteous here love to point out the extravagances of whatever elitist they use as a punching bag"-----Posted by chimichenga at 11/03/2009 @ 2:07pm

    That's called a "mirror", you're looking at.

    "if I don't find gigs tutoring I simply bring handicrafts from Colombia or Otavalo, Ecuador to sell in Gringoland."----Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/29/2007 @ 2:23pm

    "The mark-up comes once I arrive in northern latitudes. I thought that was obvious. As I said earlier, I can buy 50 knapsacks from a guy who'd be lucky to sell 50 in a month and then make a few dollars off people like you.----Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/18/2007 @ 5:04pm

    "I don't live there or pay taxes there"....Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/19/2007 @ 12:26pm

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 2:38pm

79. HSUB is a prophet of God, Larry. I got a few Pakistanis and Rotarians who'll swear to it. Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 2:01pm

    Good one.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2009 @ 2:44pm

80. HSUB is a prophet of God, Larry. I got a few Pakistanis and Rotarians who'll swear to it. Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 2:01pm

    Good one.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2009 @ 2:44pm

    Is Mask still trying to be relevant?

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 2:52pm

81. Is Mask still trying to be relevant? Posted by antisocialist at 11/03/2009 @ 2:52pm

    Even better!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2009 @ 3:01pm

82. MASK,

    You are a real wowser. That you still possess comments I made two years ago speaks volumes to the boredom that obviously infects your existence. So what have you proven, that I've engaged in capitalism? Am I some species of elitist for spending time in Latin America, visiting (and enjoying) places you'd be too afraid to? Has my purchase and later sale of handicrafts somehow condemned me to damnation? Why don't you get out of your little cubicle and see some of the world instead of simple blowing air in this virtual watering hole?

    How does hitching and hiking through South America make me as guilty as people like you who troll around in gas-guzzling automobiles? How does buying directly from the Kogi or Guambianos make me as guilty as the guy like you who buys sweatshop-produced duds?

    You are a fluent liar and licensed fool.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/03/2009 @ 3:03pm

83. Get Real, PETER

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/03/2009 @ 3:31pm

84. Funny how one world's reality is another's insanity...

    And then it gets hilarious.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/03/2009 @ 4:00pm

85. Peter, Could you please google "margaret thatcher global warming nuclear" ?

    Posted by lnh at 11/03/2009 @ 6:55pm

86. Meanwhile back at the coal face:

    http://tinyurl.com/yhudflj

    http://tinyurl.com/yl6xmr7

    Posted by lrjones4 at 11/03/2009 @ 7:37pm

87. Posted by lrjones4 at 11/03/2009 @ 7:37pm |

    Yawn....oops...there goes some more CO2.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 8:53pm

88. As Frosty often points out derisively and I point out ironically....

    it's a bit of bait to our "Al Gore is a hypocrite" anti-environmentalist Right for people like Ms vanden Heuvel to be going on oceanic cruises....one of THE most wasteful (from a standpoint of the environment) forms of personal vacation/entertainment available.

    I don't begrudge them...but it does play to the "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" charge of hypocrisy.

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2009 @ 11:48am

    How about ALGORES 2 mansions where each one uses 5 times the energy the average American home uses in a year...in 1 month?

    Or his G-5?

    Or his failure to debate real scientists who oppose his views?

    Or his billion dollar profit selling indulgences?

    Or his Oscar, Emmy, Tony, Nobel, and Participent awards?

    Hypocrisy?...naw...liberal.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 11/03/2009 @ 10:08pm

89. Hypocrisy?...naw...liberal. Posted by YourJomamma at 11/03/2009 @ 10:08pm |

    Nah...hypocrisy...and Commander Bacon is no liberal.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 10:36pm

90. ....do you know how hard it is to find good comedy in a tropical rainforest?

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/03/2009 @ 08:20am

    Not as hard as you think. I have had monkeys crap in their hand and bombard me from the trees. The monkeys thought it was hilarious.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/03/2009 @ 08:52am | ignore this person | warn this person

    ///////////////////////// Wow, that reminds me of the Congressional Democrats exquisite buffoonery on health care issues.

    Mars' Icecaps are melting! (fact) Quick, blame the oil industry!

    John D. Froelich

    Posted by balataf at 11/03/2009 @ 11:14pm

91. It's a losing battle.

    Al Gore's houses don't mean a damn and neither do hybrid cars.

    There are always going to be billions of people who need electricity or a factory to work in or a place to flush their waste or dispose of their trash. People who don't have the means to build modern green power plants or factories.

    There are always going to be politicians who are concerned about the future only as far as the next election and need contributions from polluters or the oil companies.

    There are always going to be corporations that only exist to make money and are incapable of moral or social responsibility, even if it means killing people or the planet.

    It's almost impossible to imagine changes this big without a real tangible disaster that is irrevocably connected to Global Warming. And even then it seems unlikely.

    Posted by koroviev at 11/03/2009 @ 11:15pm

92. Too many people

    Is the tangible disaster.

    Mankind is flawed,

    Denial the most common miracle.

    Posted by ficheye at 11/04/2009 @ 11:00am

93. Darla, I used to think Antisocialist was an idiot. Not true; he's just anti-social, as in the word 'sociopath'. (What's in a name?) His church-induced superiority complex is so overwhelming, he cares not a lick for anyone who has the audacity to question his moral and intellectual authority.

    He is, to put it politely, typical of many of the geniuses I met in the graduate school of a major engineering college. Since they already had all the answers, I always wondered what they hoped to learn. Then I got out and realized 'learning' was the last thing on their alleged minds. 'Preaching' their omnipresent and omniscient superiority is more like it. Ego, in Freudian terms, 'vanity' in the vernacular and 'pride' in the Biblical sense...... anti's 'got it all'...... and he's not alone on this page. But keep up the good work, Darla.

    Posted by DejaVu at 11/04/2009 @ 7:53pm

94. Global warming is real, and it is caused by humans. I don't define global warming by not being in an ice age cycle. That argument is a fallacy. We have passed the 350 PPM limit of CO2 found by NASA to be the point where the greenhouse effect starts. That is why we are melting. Anyone who wants to argue with NASA about atmospheric science please do it here, so we can all see.

    The warm glacierless world he describes in the video could very well be a catastrophe. I wonder how General Eisenhower would have reacted to an assertion that his effort to create countermeasures against mines and other dangers during the invasion of Normandy was "hysteria" and "a false Hobson's choice". This is about taking making sacrifices now to avoid a potential future of nightmarish proportions. It's not an emotional choice, it's the same choice any parent makes while creating a household budget. Let's see, I don't buy a $100,000 car so that I don't end up in a homeless shelter. It's the same choice. The right-wing is exploiting you to create a hostile political environment of fear and hubris, and some of you are buying into it so badly that you automatically reject sound arguements because you don't like the messengers politics???. This is important, and it's grounded in real science done in earnest by very capable and reliable people and organizations, and governments. Get with the program.

    Posted by Milhaus at 11/04/2009 @ 7:58pm

95. Posted by Milhaus at 11/04/2009 @ 7:58pm

    You and James Hansen are plucking numbers out of the air like 350 ppm as the 'point of no return for the human race' - and you say people who DISAGREE with that are 'purveying fear and hubris'? Are you trying to be absurd, or does it just come out that way?

    Son, their are many climatologists just as qualified, if not more so, as you and James Hansen, who say this 350 ppm level is pure hooey.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/04/2009 @ 9:30pm

96. Posted by Mask at 11/02/2009 @ 12:01pm

    "But the basic fact is....GW Denial is a political loser and smart Republicans who want something more than just "senior Senator from Oklahoma" know it."

    Phony logic, MASK. You can't prove a negative, and any politician would be a fool to say anything to the contrary in public. No one in politics is going to say 'global warming won't destroy the planet' anymore than they are going to say 'an asteroid strike can't wipe out New York next month'. The question is not are they both possible, the question is what is the likelihood of each, and what is an appropriate public policy response. This appears a little too nuanced for your bumper-sticker-slogan approach to issues, I know, but try to understand it.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/04/2009 @ 9:38pm

97. "We have passed the 350 PPM limit of CO2 found by NASA to be the point where the greenhouse effect starts. That is why we are melting. Anyone who wants to argue with NASA about atmospheric science please do it here, so we can all see."

    Hmmm. Please don't let anyone important see that or they may think you are just a little stupid. That includes the cleaning lady at NASA. The green house effect happens to be just what makes the planet reasonably habitable for humans. Without it there would be no you or me or any humans at all but just a frozen wasteland.

    If you knew a little bit about the history of the discovery of the green house effect you would know that scientists like Sevante Arrhenius, who was one of the discovers of the "green house" gas effect, said something like hallelujah, we can now make this earth a veritable Garden of Eden by doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to over 500ppm and get rid of those freezing cold places that kill old people in the winter and in which crops never grow year round. Sort of cold is bad, warm is good.

    Of course it is quite likely that along with the majority of scientists from NASA and the majority of signatories to the IPCC he is wrong about the science when applied to an open, unpredictable, chaotic system like earth's climate.

    However IPCC signatories like John Christy are more in agreement with Sevante's warm beats cold, though he thinks natural climate change trumps ACC every time the real world numbers are checked. His mantra is science is numbers and the present and past numbers are not on the side of the ACC theorists.

    ps Just thinking, you could tell them your granny told you to say that the green house effect began at 350 ppm. I'm willing to accept that excuse.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 11/04/2009 @ 9:46pm

98. Posted by pontificus at 11/04/2009 @ 9:38pm

    By the way, MASK, it is by the basic ignorance of science of the vast majority of Americans that politicians and special interest groups are able to hornswoggle large numbers of voters such as yourself into voting for absurdities like the climate change bill - which regardless of your view of the threat of global warming, is known to offer little impact at huge cost. But what it DOES do, quite successfully and not coincidentally, is expand the scope of government power into vast areas of previously private decisions. Areas where vast new amounts of influence can be bought and sold by politicians and their lobbyists. This is something that everyone should be concerned with. Everyone except statists, that is.

    Posted by pontificus at 11/04/2009 @ 9:50pm

99. Posted by pontificus at 11/04/2009 @ 9:38pm |

    So what does constitute a properly nuanced policy response in your eyes, Ponti?

    Is there any action besides sitting on our hands and continuing down the path of status quo that you'd find acceptable?

    I'm for direct taxation of carbon emissions...none of this carbon market pea-under-the-shell nonsense.

    I'm willing to pay more for utilities and other products because I feel it's important to properly incentivize conservation and more sustainable energy solutions than we have now.

    And you're not talking about 'previously private decisions' that have no effect on others.

    If your next door neighbor started spraying benzene in his backyard, and it drifted into yours, would you say it was just his 'private decision' and that we shouldn't let the government tell us what to do with our benzene?

    This is an extreme example, but it's the exact same logic you're using, from our perspective.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/04/2009 @ 10:29pm

100. Posted by lrjones4 at 11/04/2009 @ 9:46pm |

     "However IPCC signatories like John Christy are more in agreement with Sevante's warm beats cold, though he thinks natural climate change trumps ACC every time the real world numbers are checked."

     You may want to get your facts straight before you start hurling insults at folk about their intelligence, LR...lest you find yourself guilty of the same crime.

     http://tinyurl.com/lxlwu6

     <In a phone interview, Christy said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is CONVINCED THAT HUMAN ACTIVITIES ARE THE MAJOR CAUSE OF THE GLOBAL WARMING that has been measured, he is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."

     "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the atmosphere and sending quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate change hasn't been increased in the past century.''>

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/04/2009 @ 10:41pm

101. Posted by snowball777 at 11/04/2009 @ 10:41pm

     "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the atmosphere and sending quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate change hasn't been increased in the past century.''

     This is a good example of the fact that environmentalists are taking advantage of basic ignorance of the electorate. To the best of our knowledge, there is more forest cover in North America today than there was when Columbus landed. It's true. Look it up.

     Posted by pontificus at 11/04/2009 @ 11:19pm

102. Posted by snowball777 at 11/04/2009 @ 10:41pm

     Come now 21. Did the GHG effect start at 350ppm? Incidentally Sevante was talking abot doubling CO2 at the beginning of the 20C so that gives more than 500ppm but you get the idea. It really has to do with knowing a little about the basic science. I've assumed that you have some understanding of the basics. Don't let me down young Einstein. Milhaus is indulging in pure unscientific bullshit.

     What do you know about soot and dust emitted in the atmosphere? Does it cool or warm earth's temperature. Christy was dealing with all sorts of human activity. Did you note the date of your reference? 2003. Mine was gleaned straight from the horse's mouth during Feb 2009. Suggest you listen to the 6 youtube videos, instead of googling up those snippets that support your own biases, where he debates William Schlesinger, in Feb 2009 and maybe you will not quote Christy out of chronological context. He has moved a long way since then as more evidence has come to light.

     In fact you will pick up on his claim that human activity does affect temperature but also importantly its measurement over time as humans have turned farmlands into vast concrete cities. Thus he is critical of the basis ACC alarmists use to compare present and past measurements.

     BTW when did the GHG effect start?

     Posted by lrjones4 at 11/04/2009 @ 11:27pm

103. Posted by snowball777 at 11/04/2009 @ 10:29pm

     "So what does constitute a properly nuanced policy response in your eyes, Ponti?

     Is there any action besides sitting on our hands and continuing down the path of status quo that you'd find acceptable? "

     There's no doubt that CO2 levels are rising. What's in doubt is:

     - how much CO2 is acceptable; we know for sure that CO2 levels in the past have been much higher, and they did not lead to a runaway greenhouse effect. So the imminent eschatology put forth by the alarmists can be set aside

     - the fact that none of the global warming models set forth by the government-funded research community predicted the global cooling observed in the last 11 years gives good reason to be skeptical of their accuracy

     - in general, political efforst advanced with the purported concern for global warming ameliorization should be viewed with skepticism inasmuch as they serve the efforts of the statist movement

     "I'm for direct taxation of carbon emissions...none of this carbon market pea-under-the-shell nonsense. "

     Until we have a solid reason to question to impact of carbon emissions, we have no basis for taxing carbon emissions as such, other than the general desire on a part of the electorate to increase government revenues by any and all means possible

     Posted by pontificus at 11/04/2009 @ 11:29pm

104. In fact you will pick up on his claim that human activity does affect temperature but also importantly its measurement over time as humans have turned farmlands into vast concrete cities. Thus he is critical of the basis ACC alarmists use to compare present and past measurements.

     BTW when did the GHG effect start?

     Posted by lrjones4 at

     Or, humans turned prairie into farmland.

     A drought killed the crops that replaced the resilient prairie grasses and the soil eroded into the air causing the dustbowl.

     So, in a very short period of time, human acitivity caused an environmental disaster that affected weather patterns for years.

     Posted by koroviev at 11/05/2009 @ 01:30am

105. Posted by koroviev at 11/05/2009 @ 01:30am

     John Christy is the expert on this one and if you care to look up those six videos, where his approach is wide ranging, you will find, in that quote that he is talking primarily about localised effects. In one case he shows how human activity has had a positive effect on changing native desert land into verdant farmland.There is a temperature anomaly associated with that case.

     Your Midwestern and Western 1930's dustbowl experience was replicated in Australia when marginal soils were over cultivated. Today's minimum tillage method, used on the more fragile soils, tells us that humans can also learn by their mistakes.

     The debate about the emission of GHG, particularly CO2 and CH4, into the stratosphere is more concerned with what impact they will have on the Earth's climate over the medium to long term, rather than the localised effects that poor agricultural practices have produced in the past (hopefully in the past).

     John Christy's point about human activity is that our cities distort temperature measurements upwards when present temperatures are compared with temperatures taken in the past at the same location but when it was farmland.

     Christy's specialty is temperature measurement so there is a fair chance his skepticism has a firm basis in knowledge.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 11/05/2009 @ 02:55am

106. Your Midwestern and Western 1930's dustbowl experience was replicated in Australia when marginal soils were over cultivated. Today's minimum tillage method, used on the more fragile soils, tells us that humans can also learn by their mistakes.

     Posted by lrjones4

     And, those were very hard lessons to learn.

     Certainly the people who suffered through those terrible times wished someone foresaw the catastrophe.

     Again, I'm not being cynical, but I don't see how mankind can make enough changes, fast enough, to make a difference.

     There's just too many people.

     What is cynical, by the way, is diverting the arguement to what Al Gore's electric bill is or whether you know a democrat who drives an Eldorado instead of a Prius.

     Posted by koroviev at 11/05/2009 @ 05:32am

107. Your Midwestern and Western 1930's dustbowl experience was replicated in Australia when marginal soils were over cultivated. Today's minimum tillage method, used on the more fragile soils, tells us that humans can also learn by their mistakes.

     Posted by lrjones4

     And, those were very hard lessons to learn.

     Certainly the people who suffered through those terrible times wished someone foresaw the catastrophe.

     Again, I'm not being cynical, but I don't see how mankind can make enough changes, fast enough, to make a difference.

     There's just too many people.

     What is cynical, by the way, is diverting the arguement to what Al Gore's electric bill is or whether you know a democrat who drives an Eldorado instead of a Prius.

     Posted by koroviev at 11/05/2009 @ 05:32am

108. What is cynical, by the way, is diverting the arguement to what Al Gore's electric bill is or whether you know a democrat who drives an Eldorado instead of a Prius.

     Posted by koroviev at 11/05/2009 @ 05:32am

     Yes I agree. I feel the same way about efforts to tie ACC skeptics to "big oil". In the end the first intelligent question to ask is; "Is the science sound"?

     In the end I'm more interested in what happens to humans than mythologies about the fragility of our Earth's ecological system. Humans are pretty adaptable to fairly large variations in climate. That is evident when we consider the extremes of temperature between countries around the globe in which humans live and prosper. And it must be said aided by cheap sources of energy to keep them cool in summer and warm in winter.

     I'm sure when Westerners realise what would be required to make the tiniest bit of difference to average global temperatures, given that ACC was the overriding driver of climate change, they will choose the relatively cheap sources of energy that make this present earth more liveable over pie in the sky promises.

     The CO2 and CH4 reductions being suggested as necessary to make any "significant change" would so effect our life styles that they are very unlikely to be pursued by governments once the voters wake up to the enormity of that change. The sort of reductions being peddled by your politicians and ours, right now, are meaningless if the ACC hypothesis is correct and useless if most of the climate change, present and future, is being driven by natural factors and forces in play.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 11/05/2009 @ 06:53am

109. ".... GHG, particularly CO2 and CH4, into the (stratosphere)...." for the more scientifically inclined that should read troposphere.

     For the more scientifically literate the tropopause, which is the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere, is the place where some skeptics reckon all the real anti-ACC fun happens.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 11/05/2009 @ 07:03am

110. BTW when did the GHG effect start? Posted by lrjones4 at 11/04/2009 @ 11:27pm |

     When the first CO2 made its way into the atmosphere.

     It's a matter of degree...some is good (for plants)...too much though and you're living on Venus (unless you're willing to start massive wildfires or the occasional Pinatubo eruption).

     I respect Christy as one of the actual scientists who is raising questions about ACC...we need more like him...and less like Plimer.

     Point taken on localized effects skewing temp measurements...now if you could only get the deniers to stop making idiotic statements like, "well it's cold next to my house so...".

     If we can all agree that CO2 has a warming effect (i.e. we are not in complete denial of reality), as Christy has, then perhaps you can educate us as to what the 'real limit' for CO2 should be, if not 350ppm.

     Sevante's 500? We'll get there before the end of the 21st century at current rates.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/05/2009 @ 07:27am

111. Posted by snowball777 at 11/04/2009 @ 10:41pm

     Hadn't really taken that much notice of Christy though had noted a year or two ago that he thought we didn't yet know enough about the climate to make any useful predictions about the future climate of the Earth.

     So I was interested to read your URL and dug a bit deeper. If we can put it in theological terms Christy was still unregenerate in 2003 and got saved later as the article (May 2009) below indicates. A simpler explanation is that climatology is a rapidly developing science without many certainties as yet and John Christy has progressed (as all true progressives should) from his 2003 position as the "numbers" continue to confirm his position on climate change.

     His partner in crime Roy Spencer is also worth checking out on internal V external feedbacks. There have been Aussie climatologists who say certain feedbacks should be negative rather than positive which may leave the ACC scientists short of an amplifying factor which means only miniscule temperature rises are possible on the rise in predicted CO2 concentrations alone.

     You can get the gist of his approach also on youtube videos.

     "What if Global-warming Fears are Overblown?

     In a Fortune interview, noted climatologist John Christy contends the green crusade to fight climate change is "all cost and no benefit."

     http://tinyurl.com/qqfrwz

     Posted by lrjones4 at 11/05/2009 @ 07:31am

112. Posted by pontificus at 11/04/2009 @ 11:29pm |

     "how much CO2 is acceptable; we know for sure that CO2 levels in the past have been much higher, and they did not lead to a runaway greenhouse effect."

     We don't live in the Ordovician, Ponti...and we can't turn down the sun's output or induce volcanic eruptions in the 21st century.

     "the fact that none of the global warming models set forth by the government-funded research community predicted the global cooling observed in the last 11 years gives good reason to be skeptical of their accuracy"

     <The world's ocean surface temperature was the warmest for any August on record, and the warmest on record averaged for any June-August (Northern Hemisphere summer/Southern Hemisphere winter) season according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The preliminary analysis is based on records dating back to 1880.>

     "in general, political efforst advanced with the purported concern for global warming ameliorization should be viewed with skepticism inasmuch as they serve the efforts of the statist movement"

     The converse of this logic is just as compelling...efforts advanced with the cause of ignoring ACC should be viewed with skepticism inasmuch as they serve the efforts of the petrochem industry.

     "Until we have a solid reason to question to impact of carbon emissions, ..."

     We HAVE solid reason...and we'd wait if it seemed that any amount of evidence would be acceptable to deniers...but you remain adamant in the face of all empirical evidence to date.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/05/2009 @ 07:54am

113. Posted by lrjones4 at 11/04/2009 @ 9:46pm

     Posted by pontificus at 11/04/2009 @ 11:19pm

     I once heard a comedian say that the problem with pollution is that it's too small, if it were bigger-- it wouldn't be able to fit up your nose...

     Didn't Raygun once say that CO2 was a vegetable?

     Unfortunately all the pic's Columbus took, were on the Santa Maria. But he said, you really couldn't see the forest for the trees.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/05/2009 @ 08:07am

114. Posted by snowball777 at 11/05/2009 @ 07:54am

     "in general, political efforst advanced with the purported concern for global warming ameliorization should be viewed with skepticism inasmuch as they serve the efforts of the statist movement"

     "The converse of this logic is just as compelling...efforts advanced with the cause of ignoring ACC should be viewed with skepticism inasmuch as they serve the efforts of the petrochem industry."

     False equivalence. The global warming alarmists are proposing that we vastly expand the power of government, national and international, spend literally trillions of dollars, and lower the living standards of everyone in the world based on little more than a poorly substantiated theory. The burden is on them and you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the threat is real and that the cost of the response is proportionate. The many hysterical claims of the global warming alarmists, as so thoroughly demonstrated and thoroughly debunked in Al Gore's movie, for example, are a case in point.

     Posted by pontificus at 11/05/2009 @ 09:31am

115. Posted by snowball777 at 11/05/2009 @ 07:54am

     "Until we have a solid reason to question to impact of carbon emissions, ..."

     "We HAVE solid reason...and we'd wait if it seemed that any amount of evidence would be acceptable to deniers...but you remain adamant in the face of all empirical evidence to date."

     You have solid reason that is acceptable to YOU. And despite a constant barrage of propaganda from power-hungry politicians and their adjuncts in the mainstream media and NGOs, the UN, and charlatans like Al Gore, polls show a majority of the country are unconvinced. Which is as it should be, because the evidence is unconvincing, especially when used to justify the enormous cost both in liberty and treasure of the so-called remedies.

     But by all means, the left should continue to push global warming hysteria, it'll make the coming 2010 electoral wipeout all the more complete.

     Posted by pontificus at 11/05/2009 @ 09:35am

116. Nature's got a rash and the world wants to scratch. Not putting a solve on it, isn't being rashional.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/05/2009 @ 10:17am

117. Again, attacking the messenger because you don't like their politics isn't supporting any kind of argument. You guys are the victims of misinformation spread by people making millions of dollars of off their ratings. Ratings gained by creating enemies out of thin air, and trying to attach to issue to another when no connection exists that helps qualify one to the other. For example, Al Gore and human caused climate change. Quack scientists think that CO2 and other pollutants will somehow cool the earth. If you think that NASA is in the business of publicly discrediting themselves with scientific findings, then you have severe judgment problems. I'm not getting into a link war because it turns into useless bickering about the credibility of web sites run by true believers of a political cause. However, in the interest of accuracy, here is one of NASA's articles on the issue. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20081208/ I'm not an atmospheric scientist. I have another profession. I pay my taxes so that other people can do this work in my name. Don't argue with me, argue with the GISS.

     Posted by Milhaus at 11/05/2009 @ 11:27am

118. Reading the posts by the defenders of the AGW hoax is more fun then a comic book-and cheaper.

     Sometimes, you don't have to join the fray, just sit back and read the comical beliefs of the AGW worshippers.

     Posted by antisocialist at 11/05/2009 @ 11:30am

119. Of course the REAL answer is... Armageddon's coming! There's no warming trend... there's no trend at all. It's just the lord working in those mysterious ways.

     I personally would prefer to be turned into a pillar of salt. All I have to do is turn around and look.... Eyaaahhhh!

     Posted by ficheye at 11/05/2009 @ 11:37am

120. I'm not one of those Climate Change deniers, but he asked if we could poke holes in his logic, so here I am.

     Since his assumptions are worse case scenarios he fails to acknowledge the fact that Global Depression would likely cause Political, Social, Health and Environmental catastrophes much like it did during the last global depression in the 30s. So therefore each column has the exact same negative consequences, except A has Cost and B doesn't. Since consequences of making the wrong choice are the same under each scenario his argument is far less persuasive.

     Posted by adamcs95 at 11/05/2009 @ 11:55am

121. I'm not one of those Climate Change deniers, but he asked if we could poke holes in his logic, so here I am.

     Since his assumptions are worse case scenarios he fails to acknowledge the fact that Global Depression would likely cause Political, Social, Health and Environmental catastrophes much like it did during the last global depression in the 30s. So therefore each column has the exact same negative consequences, except A has Cost and B doesn't. Since consequences of making the wrong choice are the same under each scenario his argument is far less persuasive.

     Posted by adamcs95 at 11/05/2009 @ 11:55am

122. This is a totally false premise!

     First, there is no proof we can reverse the increase in global carbon dioxide. None. Reducing western fossil fuel consumption may, or may not decrease the contributions from non-signators Chindia growing energy demand, volcanism, deforestation slash-and-burn, and methane ice decomposition.

     Second, there is no proof reducing carbon dioxide, even if we could, will reverse, alter or moderate climate change. None. Ocean currents have far more effect on climate than the atmosphere, as does solar radiation, ozone layer and sunspot activity.

     If you're going to ask me to take a 35% hit on my energy prices and watch US manufacturing and service industries flee even faster to Chindia, you better damn well have positive proof we can we can reduce carbon dioxide and reverse, alter or moderate climate change.

     But it's not even about the 'science', the same 'science' that was certain the sun revolved around the earth, or that 'bad vapors' caused disease, the runaway 'science' that wasted $535,000,000,000 of our hard-earned savings on chasing NASA moon rocks and littering LEO with radioactive debris.

     It's about politics. The politics of a Global Green Church, where 'denial' is considered H8 speech, where everyone must pay their Green Tithe to the Rothschi|ds Global Carbon Bank, where $100B's of our savings (not the tithes, by the way), will be 'redistributed to the 3W countries', which means in effect the creation of 100's of micro-dictatorships loading over starving populations, and 'redistribution of natural resources', which means in effect those same micro-dictators will turn their countries into moonscapes serving the global resource elites.

     The real deniers are Greens who can't get their minds around the fact: 100M's will starve for you.

     Posted by chipher at 11/05/2009 @ 1:34pm

123. 'GAO/RCED-96-23 Clean Water Act Violations'

     'Exxon Mobil 1Q Profit Falls 23 Percent'

     'Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control'

     '23 Air Pollution and Climate: Standards for Particulate Matter'

     'Thirst for Oil Lifts Exxon Profit to Third-Highest Level in Hundred and Twenty Three Years'

     'State Recognizes Week of September 17 - 23 as Pollution Prevention Week'

     '23 Year old CO2 Cylinder'

     'Exelon's quarterly profit rises 23% (04/23/2009)'

     'Gamo P-23 CO2 BB/Pellet Pistol w/Laser'

     'London, Oct 23 (ANI): High levels of traffic pollution'

     '23 Convicted In CIA Rendition Case'

     'Weber City Exxon 23 Us Highway 23 S''

     'Owens' Win In NY-23 '

     'Chapter 23: Air Pollution'

     AAAAaaaarrrrgggga

     Posted by hsuBfools at 11/05/2009 @ 2:22pm

124. I'm Baaaaaaa-ack. Wow...Frosty, hsuB, Darla..and even Ponti

     The video drew me in as I utilize it in class...with all due respect to "anti-s" - geologic cycles occur on longer time spans than the current trends' timeline. I could argue a point-by-point to his things, but without HTML links it kinda becomes "he-said, she said" in here. [NATION, YOUR BLOG ENGINE STILL BLOWS]

     if anyone "Facebooks" go here: http://apps.facebook.com/realpolls/m/67c0zpw4q and page thru the thread (and notice NATION ...it recognizes URLs. )

     But irrespective of all that, we know we have the capacity to alter the planet's general parameters (see "ozone hole" for clarification) But "s" posits the denier perspective of "it might be something bigger than we think, so we should sit with our thumbs in our asses" Your Hobson's choice argument is simple obfuscation. Like "Rush" said "...If you decide not to decide, you still have made a choice"

     BTW: Auntie-S .. the rationale is actually based on a diagram presented in a classic paper used in most grad programs in Environmental Studies/Sciences

     Posted by leftofcenter at 11/05/2009 @ 5:49pm

125. Oh... and that's "Rush" the group and not old Bloat Blimpbaugh .. just for clarification's sake

     Posted by leftofcenter at 11/05/2009 @ 5:51pm

126. Another big problem with convincing people to take action against climate change is the proximity of the looming disaster.

     If the coasts were going to be under-water in a few years, I don't think the anti-climate change quacks would be so cavalier with their bullsh*t.

     Posted by koroviev at 11/05/2009 @ 11:26pm

127. Posted by adamcs95 at 11/05/2009 @ 11:55am |

     Please inform us what non-manmade environmental disasters were CAUSED BY the Great Depression.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/06/2009 @ 08:44am

128. Posted by koroviev at 11/05/2009 @ 11:26pm |

     Of course they would...Inhofe and the rest are land-locked for the most part.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/06/2009 @ 09:02am

129. Posted by chipher at 11/05/2009 @ 1:34pm |

     Your knowledge of scientific history speaks volumes about your overall level of ignorance.

     If you don't think science is worthwhile, why type your idiotic drivel into one of it's crowning achievements?

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/06/2009 @ 09:10am

130. Posted by pontificus at 11/05/2009 @ 09:35am |

     "You have solid reason that is acceptable to YOU."

     And...

     - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Environmental Protection Agency - NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies - American Geophysical Union - American Institute of Physics - National Center for Atmospheric Research - American Meteorological Society - The Royal Society of the UK - Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic - Society - American Association for the Advancement of Science

     "...polls show a majority of the country are unconvinced."

     No offense, but the majority of the country can't find their ass with a flashlight and Tonto, when it comes to basic science, much less climate science.

     Which polls are you looking at?

     I see "it's exaggerated" (not that they don't believe the science, mind you) topping out at 41% to 57% for correct/underestimated.

     Ask 3000+ climate scientists and you'll see 97+% in agreement.

     "Which is as it should be, because the evidence is unconvincing,"

     ...to YOU and a subset of conservatives.

     "...especially when used to justify the enormous cost both in liberty and treasure of the so-called remedies."

     Quantify...I see it as an investment in a better long-term solution that beats the hell out of the Mad Max scenario deniers seem hell-bent (pun intended) on achieving.

     "But by all means, the left should continue to push global warming hysteria, it'll make the coming 2010 electoral wipeout all the more complete."

     Maybe in the reddest of red states, but outside the thought-free zones, most folks (57% as stated above) agree that it is a problem and that something needs to be done.

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/06/2009 @ 09:37am

131. Inhofe and the rest are land-locked for the most part.

     Posted by snowball777

     For the time being, anyway. Give it a couple of decades and Tulsa may be the new South Beach.

     Posted by koroviev at 11/06/2009 @ 11:53pm

132. To the various deniers:

     Yes, there were times of higher temps and higher CO2 . Of course more often than not these were associated with phenomena that are not comparable ... like the time that global warming (across millenia) caused a build-up of CO2 causing global warming that killed 95% of all life on the planet (Permian-Triassic extinction) ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4184110.stm

     Posted by leftofcenter at 11/07/2009 @ 3:22pm

133. Posted by leftofcenter at 11/07/2009 @ 3:22pm |

     They don't care why the trilobytes bit the dust...they just want to off-shore drill their remains!

     <Community Climate System Model (CSSM)>

     ^^^^^^^^

     See? See? Communists' Climate Models!!! heheh

     Posted by snowball777 at 11/07/2009 @ 9:20pm