Presidential proclamations are of dubious distinction in these days of permanent campaigning by the president and his hyper-politicized staff. What were once the solemn pronouncements of the executive have become little more than super-charged press releases.

George Bush issued more than 100 proclamations in the first ten months of the year, including one honoring National Safe Boating Week and another for Dutch-American Friendship Day. There was one recognizing National Homeownership Month, which conveniently preceded the mortgage crisis that has raised the prospect of as many as two million America families losing their domiciles. There was, as well, a National Consumer Protection Week proclamation, which probably should have outlined steps Americans should take to protect themselves from the dangerous food products and toys that are the byproducts of the administration's exceptionally ambitious trade agenda and exceptionally lax regulatory policies. There was a Constitution Day proclamation, which did not that we know of include a "signing statement" outlining the sections of the document the president would refuse to uphold during the remainder of the year. And perhaps most amusingly coming from the titular leader of an administration that is angling to expand its perpetual "war on terror" to include an imbroglio in Iran was Bush's "Prayer for Peace" proclamation of May 15.

Today, of course, the White House adds to the year's already long list of presidential pronouncements a Thanksgiving proclamation.

Bush has so devalued the official announcements of the White House that it becomes easy to imagine that they were never of consequence.

History reminds, however, that the cure circumstance is, like so much about the Bush presidency, a relatively new and certainly unwelcome variation on the American theme.

In the not-too-distant past, presidential proclamations were rarer and more meaningful statements, prepared by executives who intended them to be read and considered by Americans.

It was not at all uncommon for the nation's greatest leaders to issue only one proclamation annually.

That was the case in 1789, George Washington's first year in the White House, when he circulated only his Thanksgiving proclamation.

Similarly, in the last full year of World War II, Franklin Roosevelt issued just a Thanksgiving proclamation.

Roosevelt used his annual Thanksgiving proclamations as teaching documents. In his last statement to the nation, he encouraged Americans to think in broader terms, to recognize the need to put aside racial and religious prejudices in order to unite the nation in difficult times.

"Let every man of every creed go to his own version of the Scriptures for a renewed and strengthening contact with those eternal truths and majestic principles which have inspired such measure of true greatness as this nation has achieved," wrote Roosevelt in that 1944 proclamation.

A year later, in a proclamation that celebrated the end of the war while mourning the death of Roosevelt, President Harry Truman used the Thanksgiving proclamation of 1945 to declare, "Liberty knows no race, creed, or class in our country or in the world."

This was a radical sentiment at a time when many of the United States remained segregated along the racial lines dictated by the southern segregationists. And it anticipated Truman's embrace of civil rights in the years that followed, an embrace that would extend and expand upon the noblest impulses of the New Deal era.

That was not the only radical message in Truman's proclamation, which spoke as well of a desire to use the United Nations to "make permanent" the peace that had finally arrived and to "cherish freedom above riches."

Nostalgia is a mixed blessing. The past that saw the rise of the civil rights movement also saw the necessity of such a movement. But on this Thanksgiving we can, perhaps, be permitted a measure of nostalgia for the days when presidential proclamations had meaning and when they were issued by executives who had the authority -- and the desire -- to guide the American people toward the better angels of our nature.

Comments (45)

1. mornin' folks.

   don't forget to say thanks!

   i went looking for some of mr. bush's proclamations but was overwhelmed, so i thought i'd let you pick and choose your favourites.

   good luck.

   let the man proclaim [en.wikiquote.org]

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/22/2007 @ 12:05am

2. "You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier... So long as I'm the dictator."

   "This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."

   I really could have just picked at random since they're all so special, but these two seemed to strike my fancy.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 11/22/2007 @ 01:25am

3. "Our gains are not measured in the losses of others. They are counted in the conflicts we avert, the prosperity we share and the peace we extend."

   ~Dubya

   Thanks, FZ.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/22/2007 @ 07:45am

4. Thanks John for all the great work you do for The Nation. and the nation.

   Happy Thanksgiving to all, and sincere wishes for a better future world for all of Dog's children.

   File under dark humor: click here [tinyurl.com]

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/22/2007 @ 08:34am

5. Well, such proclamations aren't the sole province of the Executive...

   How many times do we have some Congressman from Vermont get a resolution passed celebrating "National Maple Syrup Week"...or "National Beet Awareness Day"...or whatever.

   The truth is the larger our Government has gotten, the easier it is to do the SILLY things than the serious ones.

   Posted by Mask at 11/22/2007 @ 09:37am

6. File under dark humor: click here [tinyurl.com]

   Posted by B_KOOL_66 11/22/2007 @ 08:34am

   great article bkool.

   if only maasch and the rest of the "#1 gang" would read (and understand) it.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/22/2007 @ 09:41am

7. The truth is the larger our Government has gotten, the easier it is to do the SILLY things than the serious ones.

   Posted by MASK 11/22/2007 @ 09:37am

   you mean like establish a global military presence?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/22/2007 @ 09:42am

8. "now today, let all uhmuruhkuhns..uh...uh...share their love...uh...and take advantage uh thuh rich bounty uv ar gate cuntry! eat that turkey and watch sum football! and git ready to git out tomorruh...uh...and...uh...patrioticuhlly go shoppin'! in these war torn days its uh...reel important to...uh...feel good...and uh...keep spendin' money...its what the troops want!

   so go buy a bunch of our fine retailers' chinaman made crap! take out a car title loan if ya haf ta! don't worry about tamarruh! you can always join thuh military...or git someone in yer family to...!

   gawd bless uhmuruhkuh!"

   and god bless you too, george mushmouth mother effin dumbass silver spoon gagged fascist dupe incompetant evil country ruining bush!

   happy gluttony and family strife day!

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/22/2007 @ 12:33pm

9. Rich fuccks, Conservatives, you can enjoy your illusions only by willfully avoidance of facts. A million Iraqis have been slaughtered because of you, and you thought, "Madagascar".

   Posted by conshame at 11/22/2007 @ 1:55pm

10. I'm a vegetarian, I don't have to willfully avoid evidence about how meat gets produced.

    But if you eath meat, just pay a little friggin extra and get the organic, "free-range", more-humane kind of turkey. It'll have more flavor, it'll have more nutrition, and the taste as I understand is like apples and oranges.

    Don't worry about whether the free-range is really a free-range, because even if it's completely fake, you're supporting a market for better food. I don't care if it's a corporate green-washed fake improvement - what do you care? It only costs a little bit extra

    Posted by conshame at 11/22/2007 @ 2:53pm

11. you mean like establish a global military presence?---Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/22/2007 @ 09:42am

    Sure....or big expansive things that the LEFT likes too.

    Posted by Mask at 11/22/2007 @ 3:58pm

12. Only 13% in the US are saying thanks:

    November 19, 2007

    Americans' Economic Pessimism Reaches Record High

    Optimism and Pessimism

    Americans' negative mood about the economy is most evident when they are asked this question: "Right now, do you think that economic conditions in the country as a whole are getting better or getting worse?"

    An extraordinary 78% of Americans now say the economy is getting worse, while a scant 13% say it is getting better. Gallup has been asking this question since 1991, and these are the most negative responses Gallup has ever recorded.

    The most negative measure on this question prior to this poll was recorded in August of this year, when 72% said the economy was getting worse. Back in January 1992 -- the year incumbent president George H. W. Bush was denied his bid for re-election, in large part because of perceptions of a bad economy -- 71% said the economy was getting worse.

    http://tinyurl.com/36xgdv

    Thanks again hsuB...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/22/2007 @ 4:16pm

13. Other pessimism to be thankful for:

    http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1104

    "In the Senate:

    Wayne Allard, CO

    Larry Craig, ID (maybe)

    Pete Domenici, NM

    Chuck Hagel, NE

    John Warner, VA

    In the House:

    Barbara Cubin, WY

    Terry Everett, AL

    Mike Ferguson, NJ

    Dennis Hastert, IL

    Dave Hobson, OH

    Duncan Hunter, CA

    Ray Lahood, IL

    Steve Pearce, NM

    Chip Pickering, MS

    Deborah Pryce, OH

    Jim Ramstad, MN

    Ralph Regula, OH

    Rick Renzi, AZ

    Jim Saxton, NJ

    Tom Tancredo, CO

    Jerry Weller, IL

    Heather Wilson, NM

    I also give thanks, in advance for the dozen or more Republicans still waiting to announce their inevitable retirements. Good riddance to all of them, too."

    http://dailykos.com/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/22/2007 @ 4:50pm

14. great article bkool.

    if only maasch and the rest of the "#1 gang" would read (and understand) it.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/22/2007 @ 09:41am

    A nice little piece of hysterical nonsense.

    Again, conservatives do not deny global warming. The science clearly shows we are in a warming cycle. Something that has happened countless times in the Earth's history. It is the manmade causation that is laughable and merely portrays the gullibility of leftists to actually cling to it like as if it were science.

    Happy Thanksgiving FZ (even for a Canuck)

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/22/2007 @ 7:26pm

15. This is for LVLIBERTY:

    Wow, finally some of the mentally challenged reckons there is global warming. And since it is "a natural phenomenon" let's forget about it. LOL Nobody doubts that this is a combination of natural AND man made causes. How much is each factor contributing? Hard to know, but when men have put into the air in the last 100 years more CO2 than all the milennia combined and forests have declined so much to counter effect this with extra oxygen supplies, something is happening not only on how much we burn but how we treat the land promoting desertification. Besides, hundreds of other chemicals that still are lingering in the air like freons contribute seriously to the effect.

    So gullible are the ones that think it is all about burning fuels, while they don't understand it is our integral interaction with mother nature. So, if this happened 20,000 years ago, who cares??? LOL Are you aware that the last it happened probably people lived in caves? Our obligation is to leave a healthier Earth for generations to come and so, yes we need to take steps to focus seriosuly on renewable sources of energy, forest conservation, and good management of agriculture to avoid loosing soils forever.

    I hope you understand science man.

    Posted by Frank42 at 11/22/2007 @ 9:54pm

16. http://dailykos.com/

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/22/2007 @ 4:50pm

    HSUB?....did you just quote Daily Kos as a source???

    Posted by Mask at 11/22/2007 @ 10:08pm

17. SO WHAT MR. NICHOLS IS SAYING IS THAT BUSH'S T-DAY PROCLAMATION...

    Is (ahem) a turkey?

    I did actually read it. Here's a link, if anyone's interested:

    http://chirho.wordpress.com/2007/11/18/thanksgiving-proclamation-bush-20 07/

    As unreal, hypocritical, pious wishful thinking goes, Bush's ghost did a decent writing job. (But speaking of the writers' strike....)

    Posted by w_m_bear at 11/22/2007 @ 11:47pm

18. Again, conservatives do not deny global warming. The science clearly shows we are in a warming cycle. Something that has happened countless times in the Earth's history. It is the manmade causation that is laughable and merely portrays the gullibility of leftists to actually cling to it like as if it were science.

    Happy Thanksgiving FZ (even for a Canuck)

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/22/2007 @ 7:26pm

    firstly, thanks (we already had ours in october. you call it columbus day). i hope the family has enjoyed this day.

    now,

    read this:

    The Earth's climate is always changing and this is nothing to do with humans. Even before the industrial revolution, when humans began pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere on a large scale, the earth experienced warm periods such as the medieval warm period.

    What does the science say?

    It is true that the world has experienced warmer or colder periods in the past without any interference from humans. The ice ages are well-known examples of global changes to the climate. There have also been regional changes such as periods known as the 'Medieval Warm Period', when grapes were grown extensively in England, and the 'Little Ice Age', when the River Thames sometimes froze over. However, in contrast to these climate phases, the increase of three-quarters of a degree centigrade (0.74°C) in average global temperatures that we have seen over the last century is larger than can be accounted for by natural factors alone.

    The Earth's climate is complex and influenced by many things - particularly changes in the Earth's orbit in relation to the Sun, which has driven the cycles of ice ages in the past, as well as volcanic eruptions and variations in the energy being emitted from the Sun. But even when we take all these factors into account, we cannot explain the temperature rises that we have seen over the last 100 years both on land and in the oceans - for example, eleven of the last twelve years have been the hottest since records started in 1850.

    So what is causing this increase in average global temperature? The natural greenhouse gas effect keeps the Earth around 30°C warmer than it would otherwise be and, without it, the Earth would be extremely cold. It works because greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, but mostly water vapour, act like a blanket around the Earth. These gases allow the Sun's rays to reach the Earth's surface but hinder the heat they create from escaping back into space. Indeed, the ability of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to trap heat in this way has been understood for nearly 200 years and is regarded as firmly established science.

    Any increases in the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere mean that more heat is trapped and global temperatures increase - an effect known as 'global warming'. We know from looking at gases found trapped in cores of polar ice that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now 35 per cent greater than they have been for at least the last 650,000 years. From the radioactivity and chemical composition of the gas we know that this is mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels, as well as the production of cement and the widespread burning of the world's forests. The increase in global temperature is consistent with what science tells us we should expect when the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase in the way that they have.

    It has been alleged that the increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to emissions from volcanoes, but these account for less than one per cent of the emissions due to human activities.

    full de-bullshittification found here. [royalsoc.ac.uk]

    this is no "HERITAGE FOUNDATION FOR PATRIOTIC CLIMATE GARBLE". this is the royal society.

    "The Royal Society of the United Kingdom was founded in 1660 and consists of 1,400 of the most eminent scientists, engineers and technologists from the U.K. and the Commonwealth. Its list of present and former members reads like the Who's Who of western science. Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Ernest Rutherford, Christian Huygens, Lord Kelvin, Thomas Huxley, Edward Jenner, William Herschel, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, Fred Hoyle, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and so on. These are not "junk" scientists."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/23/2007 @ 12:09am

19. At least he's keeping up with Clinton, who issued 881 proclamations, or roughly 110 a year.

    Posted by Luke58 at 11/23/2007 @ 07:07am

20. At least he's keeping up with Clinton, who issued 881 proclamations, or roughly 110 a year.

    Posted by LUKE58 11/23/2007 @ 07:07am

    i hereby proclaim this proclamation to be proclaimed.

    now, watch this drive!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/23/2007 @ 09:32am

21. Although this is comedey, George Carlin hits a homerun with this skit:

    The Planet is Fine

    We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet?

    I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of fucking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

    Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

    The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!

    We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

    You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

    The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...asshole.

    So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

    Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 11/23/2007 @ 10:26am

22. So, while I love Carlin's skit, I think he makes a great point. No one can "save the planet." The best we can do is work towards preserving an environment that will sustain human life.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 11/23/2007 @ 10:28am

23. http://dailykos.com/

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/22/2007 @ 4:50pm

    HSUB?....did you just quote Daily Kos as a source???

    Posted by MASK 11/22/2007 @ 10:08

    Frita has incredible reading, writing and comprehension fractures in frontal lobe activity. All is vanity with her. I keep telling her to loose the blond wig... or perhaps her old lobotomy did have lasting affects; distinctly the opposite of what the doctors led her to believe. Poor girl. At least she can still appreciate her turkey and dressing.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/23/2007 @ 10:46am

24. Well, its only 423 days until Crawford gets its idiot back ... in the spirit of the season, here's a great idea for a stock ing stuffer

    B_Kool "dark humor" - yes, amusing and disturbing

    Posted by leftofcenter at 11/23/2007 @ 10:47am

25. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 11/23/2007 @ 10:28am

    Unlike Carlin, I think we'll be here along with the earth, in one form or another, for a long long time.

    It took me a few decades to understand what my dad told me when I was a kid: that we are all made up of the same atoms, molecules, dust, water and air, that emerged from the big bang, from the first word, thought, organization from nothing-- at the very beginning of time... And we'll be here, in one form or another, at the very end of everything, if there ever were to be such an event.

    Yet, we get to decide, to a certain extent, how and in what form we will continue to exist-- as a higher state of 'self' realized (in the Jungian sense) highly organized individuated human beings or some retro-mutant battling the cockroach for top billing.

    I get the repub new cons step to being reptilian, as a choice they've made in that direction.

    However, I'd like to try the other route for a change.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/23/2007 @ 11:23am

26. just like insurance companies...demand you carry uninsured motorists coverage for those who are also demanded to carry coverage, but don't with no penalty...

    Come on carbon tax..(hurts the poor most, of course)

    Posted by JOMAMMA 11/23/2007 @ 12:13pm |

    Oh come on-- each state varies the penalties for driving without insurance; you can't say there are no penalties. And if a non-insured motorist is in an acident s/he is liable for injuries to people and property caused.

    A better analogy are people that refuse to stop smoking wherever they go or do and believe the fumes won't harm anyone elses' lungs, not even their own. And keep smoking when their doc tells them they have cancer and die. That's just ignorance pure and simple.

    And 'the poor' are going to be tax on what? Their farts? They'll eventually gravitate to the least expensive mass transit which will be the least carbon producing as it'll be taxed the least.

    And isn't Al along with the 'carbon tax' proposes to do away with the 'payroll income tax'... so it's not tax on top of tax. It's a tax on the corporations and individuals producing the most carbon. And aren't they the major reason we're all in this mess in the first place-- big oil/MIC BS.

    Carbon tax will be a boon for alternative energy and a bust for big oil. Better living through science will be up and ignorance through faith in fear will be down. What's not to like?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/23/2007 @ 12:53pm

27. And 'the poor' are going to be tax on what? Their farts? They'll eventually gravitate to the least expensive mass transit which will be the least carbon producing as it'll be taxed the least.----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/23/2007 @ 12:53pm

    And what happens to the poor in cities that DON'T have "least expensive mass transit"?

    Posted by Mask at 11/23/2007 @ 12:55pm

28. And I am talking to mostly people not already married to ignorance and fear...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/23/2007 @ 12:58pm

29. And what happens to the poor in cities that DON'T have "least expensive mass transit"?

    Posted by MASK 11/23/2007 @ 12:55pm

    What happens now? Subsidies and their limitations/conditions come immediately to mind... no?

    We're talking cutting polution. A mass paradigm shift.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/23/2007 @ 1:03pm

30. A whole new industry. More better jobs.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/23/2007 @ 1:05pm

31. And we'll be here, in one form or another, at the very end of everything, if there ever were to be such an event.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/23/2007 @ 11:23am

    are you talking about us a being or atoms. atoms yes. beings, fat chance.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/23/2007 @ 1:17pm

32. And what happens to the poor in cities that DON'T have "least expensive mass transit"?

    Posted by MASK 11/23/2007 @ 12:55pm

    c'mon dude, enter a new century.

    saying it won't work, it won't work, it won't work is just foolish.

    technologically advanced societies around the globe are adapting to new ways very quickly.

    looks like mr. howard will be gone tomorrow (fingers crossed) exactly because he has chosen to do nothing about this big rock under our feet.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/23/2007 @ 1:24pm

33. are you talking about us a being or atoms. atoms yes. beings, fat chance.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/23/2007 @ 1:17pm

    Now when you say 'fat', do mean like in 'phat' good/great or just obese/big-- chance?

    Ha -well, consider what the chances were that we'd ever be here in the first place and that we are able to consider what the chances are that it would be in this way. Or not.

    And that we 'consciously' exist in 4 diminsions, and science calculates 13 altogether. One has to ask, are our 5 senses somewhat limited by its organic hard-wiring? Would a more open flow of information limit our conscoius being or expand it? I don't pretend to know how we'll exist in a thousand years much less a few million or billion, but I suspect we will.

    Well I will anyway...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/23/2007 @ 1:48pm

34. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/22/2007 @ 7:26pm | ignore this person

    Conservatives: WRONG about Global Warming

    Conservatives: WRONG about Global Warming

    Conservatives: WRONG about Global Warming

    Posted by conshame at 11/23/2007 @ 2:03pm

35. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/23/2007 @ 12:09am

    Sorry Frosty, but I have posted on your previous links to the Royal Society. They are engaged not in science but political posturing.

    Every time you and the others who support this hoax of manmade causation of the current global warming cycle start posting your scientific evidence, I can counter equally with renowned scientists who disagree.

    Even the term consensus is a political statement in the context of global warming.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/23/2007 @ 2:10pm

36. A little something to digest for the CO2 hyperbole

    Methane gas, abundantly trapped as a half frozen slush in the northern hemisphere's tundra permafrost regions and at the bottom of the sea may well be a ticking time bomb, says geologist John Atcheson in an article published by the Baltimore Sun in December last year. Methane is about twenty times stronger as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Since arctic warming seems to procede faster than expected, there is a real danger that deposits of methane and similar gases trapped in normally frozen ground, may thaw out and "belch" into the atmosphere, wreaking havoc with our computer simulations of global warming.

    According to Gregory Ryskin, associate professor of chemical engineering at Northwestern University, "explosive clouds of methane gas, initially trapped in stagnant bodies of water and suddenly released, could have killed off the majority of marine life and land animals and plants at the end of the Permian era" -- long before dinosaurs lived and died. Ruskin believes that methane may have been the driving force in previous catastrophic changes of the earth's climate, where 95 percent of marine species and 70 percent of land species were lost in - geologically speaking - the blink of an eye.

    Methane danger1 [tinyurl.com]

    Livestock are a leading source of greenhouse gases. Why isn't anyone raising a stink? October 15, 2007

    It's a silent but deadly source of greenhouse gases that contributes more to global warming than the entire world transportation sector, yet politicians almost never discuss it, and environmental lobbyists and other green activist groups seem unaware of its existence.

    That may be because it's tough to take cow flatulence seriously. But livestock emissions are no joke.

    Most of the national debate about global warming centers on carbon dioxide, the world's most abundant greenhouse gas, and its major sources -- fossil fuels. Seldom mentioned is that cows and other ruminants, such as sheep and goats, are walking gas factories that take in fodder and put out methane and nitrous oxide, two greenhouse gases that are far more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Methane, with 21 times the warming potential of CO2, comes from both ends of a cow, but mostly the front. Frat boys have nothing on bovines, as it's estimated that a single cow can belch out anywhere from 25 to 130 gallons of methane a day.

    Killer Cow Emissions [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/23/2007 @ 2:23pm

37. And some additional Greenhouse Science. I encourage all the die hards including the "experts" like Left of Center and I Love Physics read the complete paper, dissect it, and see if they can debunk the science.

    Cold Facts on Global Warming

    What is the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide to global warming? This question has been the subject of many heated arguments, and a great deal of hysteria. In this article, we will consider a simple calculation, based on well-accepted facts, that shows that the expected global temperature increase caused by doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is bounded by an upper limit of 1.4-2.7 degrees centigrade. This result contrasts with the results of the IPCC's climate models, whose projections are shown to be unrealistically high.

    The Greenhouse Effect There is general agreement that the Earth is naturally warmed to some extent by atmospheric gases, principally water vapor, in what is often called a "greenhouse effect". The Earth absorbs enough radiation from the sun to raise its temperature by 0.5 degrees per day, but is theoretically capable of emitting sufficient long-wave radiation to cool itself by 5 times this amount. The Earth maintains its energy balance in part by absorption of the outgoing longwave radiation in the atmosphere, which causes warming.

    On this basis, it has been estimated that the current level of warming is on the order of 33 degrees C [1]. That is to say, in the absence of so-called greenhouse gases, the Earth would be 33 degrees cooler than it is today, or about 255 K (-0.4° F) [2]. Of these greenhouse gases, water is by far the most important. Although estimates of the contribution from water vapor vary widely, most sources place it between 90 and 95% of the warming effect, or about 30-31 of the 33 degrees [3]. Carbon dioxide, although present in much lower concentrations than water, absorbs more infrared radiation than water on a per-molecule basis and contributes about 84% of the total non-water greenhouse gas equivalents [4], or about 4.2-8.4% of the total greenhouse gas effect.

    Of course, this 33 degree increase in temperature is not caused simply by absorption of radiation by the gases themselves. Much of the 33 degree effect is caused by the Earth's adaptation to higher temperatures, which includes secondary effects such as increased water vapor, cloud formation, and changes in albedo or surface reflectivity caused by melting and aging of snow and ice. Accurately calculating the relative contribution of each of these components presents major difficulties.

    http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/23/2007 @ 2:30pm

38. I can counter equally with renowned scientists who disagree.

    Even the term consensus is a political statement in the context of global warming.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/23/2007 @ 2:10pm

    Define the term 'equal'. Is that like every 1000 scientists saying man made pollution increases global warming for every 1 of your scientists paid by big oil corporations saying that pollution is actually 'good' for our environment? (While they smoke cigarettes and blow smoke into the camera...)

    For ¬v¬, science does not really exist anyway, except for making weapons to protect him and fellow reptiles, from what they must kill. (Remember, science does not kill, reptiles do.) And they still live on a flat world and disbelieve evolution is possible, because after all, they exist! And reptiles love to eat depleted uranium.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/23/2007 @ 2:31pm

39. ¬v¬,

    Your renowned scientist is a funny guy in a reptilian sort of way:

    PHYSICS ENVY AMONG BIOLOGISTS: FACT OR FICTION?

    By T. J. Nelson

    Physicists often state their belief that all biologists would rather be physicists, but became biologists only because they were not very good at math. As evidence for this, they point to such findings as the fact that the vast majority of published studies in virology, cell biology, endocrinology, and even microbiology, use few if any partial differential equations or elements of number theory, and only one paper written by a biologist in the past 25 years (in the field of neurophysiology) has ever used tensor calculus.

    On the surface, this would seem to be a damning indictment of biology. Why, physicists ask, do biologists seem unable to utilize such simple concepts as the Riemannian-Christoffel curvature tensor or Galois fields in their work?

    I discussed this issue of alleged innumeracy among biologists with a physicist friend of mine a few weeks ago while he was driving me to the airport in his cab. Inevitably, however, the discussion turned to possible collaborative experiments which would combine physics and biology.

    In one such experiment, we considered the possibility of accelerating two rats to relativistic velocity, and smashing them together and counting the rat particles that would be emitted. For a time, there appeared to be the exciting possibility of discovering a new elementary particle, which would be found only in living matter, and which could tie the field of quantum mechanics with the emerging biological science of consciousness. However, with the help of the formidable mathematical skills of another physicist friend, we were able to estimate that the number of rat particles emitted would probably be too large to count [1], even if we put all our NIH postdocs on the problem. In fact, it would be too many even if our Howard Hughes fellows and all of our Summer Students pitched in and contributed their formidable math skills as well to the project. Thus, the elusive consciousness particle would have been impossible to detect.

    ...

    T. J. Nelson is a research associate professor studying the biochemistry of memory and Alzheimer's disease at the Blanchette Rockefeller Neurosciences Institute in Rockville, Maryland.

    http://www.scq.ubc.ca/physics-envy-among-biologists-fact-or-fiction/

    Has he looked into what depleted uranium does to reptiles' cognitive skills, I wonder...?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/23/2007 @ 3:01pm

40. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/23/2007 @ 2:23pm

    well, do you eat beef?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/23/2007 @ 4:19pm

41. http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/23/2007 @ 2:30pm

    well, after perusing this computer programmer's site, i can say he is not a climate scientist.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/23/2007 @ 4:24pm

42. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/23/2007 @ 2:10pm

    You are right about the Royal Society. No one doubts the basic science of the GH effect. That is trivial. The issue is whether the IPCC in fostering AGW has the expertise to make an assessment about the contribution of NGW to CC.

    I've been following the controversy on an Aussie site, over the last few weeks and noticed much discussion about the so called skeptics. In this case one sceptic mentioned is a top climatologists and "paid up" bona fide members of the IPCC itself. His scepticism is not about the science ,as it is today, but rather that the "political" conclusions are alarmist and go beyond the limits that today's science, ie factual scientific knowledge of the complexity that is Earth's climate system, will allow. Here is an article I noticed there that gives substance to that scepticism:

    NO CONSENSUS ON IPCC's LEVEL OF IGNORANCE

    By John Christy Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama

    As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts the finishing touches to its final report of the year, two of its senior scientists look at what the panel is and how well it works. Here, a view from a leading researcher into temperature change.

    The IPCC is a framework around which hundreds of scientists and other participants are organised to mine the panoply of climate change literature to produce a synthesis of the most important and relevant findings.

    These findings are published every few years to help policymakers keep tabs on where the participants chosen for the IPCC believe the Earth's climate has been, where it is going, and what might be done to adapt to and/or even adjust the predicted outcome.

    While most participants are scientists and bring the aura of objectivity, there are two things to note:

    * this is a political process to some extent (anytime governments are involved it ends up that way) * scientists are mere mortals casting their gaze on a system so complex we cannot precisely predict its future state even five days ahead

    The political process begins with the selection of the Lead Authors because they are nominated by their own governments.

    Thus at the outset, the political apparatus of the member nations has a role in pre-selecting the main participants.

    But, it may go further.

    Unsound bites

    At an IPCC Lead Authors' meeting in New Zealand, I well remember a conversation over lunch with three Europeans, unknown to me but who served as authors on other chapters. I sat at their table because it was convenient.

    Read a different view on the IPCC from another of its leading scientists, Prof Martin Parry After introducing myself, I sat in silence as their discussion continued, which boiled down to this: "We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol."

    Politics, at least for a few of the Lead Authors, was very much part and parcel of the process.

    And, while the 2001 report was being written, Dr Robert Watson, IPCC Chair at the time, testified to the US Senate in 2000 adamantly advocating on behalf of the Kyoto Protocol, which even the journal Nature now reports is a failure.

    Follow the herd

    As I said above - and this may come as a surprise - scientists are mere mortals.

    The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the "informational cascade") is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the "ones who know" (from the Latin sciere , to know).

    You dare not be thought of as "one who does not know"; hence we may succumb to the pressure to be perceived as "one who knows".

    This leads, in my opinion, to an overstatement of confidence in the published findings and to a ready acceptance of the views of anointed authorities.

    Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I'm identified as an IPCC Lead Author.)

    The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: "We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans."

    We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don't have thermometers marked with "this much is human-caused" and "this much is natural".

    So, I would have written this conclusion as "Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change."

    Slim models

    To me, the elevation of climate models to the status of definitive tools for prediction has led to the temptation to be over-confident.

    Here is how this can work.

    Computer models are the basic tools which are used to estimate the future climate. Many scientists (ie the mere mortals) have been captivated by an IPCC image in which the actual global surface temperature curve for the 20th Century is overlaid on a band of model simulations of temperature for the same period.

    The observations seem to fit right in the middle of the model band, implying that models are formulated so capably and completely that they can reproduce the past very well.

    Without knowing much about climate models, any group will be persuaded by this image to believe models are quite precise.

    However, there is a fundamental flaw with this thinking.

    You see, every modeller knew what the answer was ahead of time. (Those groans you just heard were the protestations of my colleagues in the modelling community - they know what's coming).

    In my view, on the other hand, this persuasive image is not a scientific experiment at all. The agreement displayed is just as likely to do with clever software engineering as to the first principles of science.

    The proper and objective experiment is to test model output against quantities not known ahead of time.

    Complex world

    Our group is one of the few that builds a variety of climate datasets from scratch for tests just like this.

    Since we build the datasets here, we have an urge to be sceptical about arguments-from-authority in favour of the real, though imperfect, observations.

    In these model vs data comparisons, we find gross inconsistencies - hence I am sceptical of our ability to claim cause and effect about both past and future climate states.

    Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris (think of predicting the complexities of clouds).

    Of all scientists, climate scientists should be the most humble. Our cousins in the one-to-five-day weather prediction business learned this long ago, partly because they were held accountable for their predictions every day.

    Answering the question about how much warming has occurred because of increases in greenhouse gases and what we may expect in the future still holds enormous uncertainty, in my view.

    Explosive view

    How could the situation be improved? At one time I stated that the IPCC-like process was the worst way to compile scientific knowledge, except for all the others.

    Improvements have been adopted through the years, most notably the publication of the comments and responses. Bravo.

    I would think a simple way to let the world know there are other opinions about various aspects emerging from the IPCC font would be to provide some quasi-official forum to allow those views to be expressed.

    We should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this statement: 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know...' These alternative-view authors should be afforded the same protocol as the IPCC authors, ie they themselves are their own final reviewers and thus would have final say on what is published.

    At that point, I suppose, the blogosphere would erupt and, amidst the fire and smoke, hopefully, enlightenment may appear.

    I continue to participate in the IPCC (unless an IPCC functionary reads this missive and blackballs me) because I not only am able to contribute from my own research, but there are numerous opportunities to learn something new - to feed the curiosity that attends a scientist's soul.

    I can live with the disagreements concerning nuances and subjective assertions as they simply remind me that all scientists are people, and do not prevent me from speaking my mind anyway.

    Wise teachings

    Don't misunderstand me.

    Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have some climate impact through CO2's radiation properties.

    However, fundamental knowledge is meagre here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are not occurring.

    The best advice regarding scientific knowledge, which certainly applies to climate, came to me from Mr Mallory, my high school physics teacher.

    He proposed that we should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this statement: "At our present level of ignorance, we think we know..."

    Good advice for the IPCC, and all of us.

    John R Christy is Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, US

    He has contributed to all four major IPCC assessments, including acting as a Lead Author in 2001 and a Contributing Author in 2007

    Posted by lrjones4 at 11/24/2007 @ 02:39am

43. Posted by LRJONES4 11/24/2007 @ 02:39am

    get out and vote.

    mr. howard needs your help.

    look, more and more hydrocarbon wars are coming. the skies and ground and water are fouled by petroleum.

    even if humans aren't responsible for global climate f#@k up, we'll be WAY better off if we stop burning oil and gas so greedily.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/24/2007 @ 09:31am

44. even if humans aren't responsible for global climate f#@k up, we'll be WAY better off if we stop burning oil and gas so greedily.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/24/2007 @ 09:31am

    FZ,

    Our new PM is Kevin Rudd and for all intents and purposes he is a Howard clone. It seems that Howard who is 68 was considered a bit past it. Unlike America we put our politicians out to pasture early. That our past PM lasted 11 1/2 years is a tribute to his popularity and intellectual vigor. On climate change about the only practical difference is Howard's suggestion that nuclear power should be considered in the mix of alternatives which included "clean" coal. As a lot of Australia's prosperity has been built on coal it will be interesting to see what Rudd's attitude to that industry will be. If nuclear is not in his solution set it possibly leaves him more beholden to coal, clean or dirty.

    As most know, China and India are the countries that will do what they want to in building industrialised societies so one can expect CO2 emissions to grow at an even greater rate for the next few decades at least.

    As I see it the problem is not so much CO2, but rather the potential carcinogens and other emission by products that tend to produce respiratory illnesses. That needs to be dealt with more urgently.

    You are probably aware that when Svante Arrhenius discovered a few things about the GH gases he thought the spewing of CO2 into the atmosphere would improve the life of the many by warming the planet which in turn would lead to more land being available to grow food and prevent those cold snaps that seem to kill many more people than hot weather ever does.

    Haven't seen much about this but my non-scientific observation is that our summers and winters overall are getting milder. Though I notice parts of the US and parts of South America are experiencing record cold periods. Some climatologists suggest the latter (Brazil particularly) is due to ocean current oscillations rather than AGW.

    Perhaps we need more info on what average global temperature means. We tend to think that a period of hotter years means some extremely hot days. It could mean that the winters are warmer and the summers are cooler or other combinations. You will find there are few "thermometers" on the peaks in the antarctic of in the middle of Australia (did Christy say that) so until those who measure our global average temperatures are more forthcoming we can imagine all sorts of Garden of Eden on one hand or hellish inferno scenarios on the other.

    Perhaps we will yet bless Svante for his insights about CO2 before we run out of hydrocarbon fuels or at least the Asians stop burning them with such wild abandon.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 11/24/2007 @ 2:33pm

45. Perhaps we will yet bless Svante for his insights about CO2 before we run out of hydrocarbon fuels or at least the Asians stop burning them with such wild abandon.

    Posted by LRJONES4 11/24/2007 @ 2:33pm

    well, the asians are just playing catch up.

    here, we will have only two seasons soon, as spring and fall are quickly disappearing. we'll be left with a mediterranean climate of hot and dry followed by cool and wet.

    we used to get a lot more snow, but now winter is the time of fog and drizzle. sure it gets cold (and colder!) but those days seem to be becoming fewer and fewer.

    be safe,

    fz.

    p s no, i didn't know about arrhenius (i'm a musician (albeit one who reads a lot), not a scientist) and i thank you for pointing him out to me. i shall read on......................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/24/2007 @ 6:11pm