Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
After a decisive Super Tuesday win, John McCain is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. (Why? I'm with Ross Douthat: it was luck.) It's time to start thinking about what a campaign against him is going to look like.
According to the Villagers, McCain is a maverick, and nowhere is that alleged quality more evident than in his pundit-titillating (punditillating?) position on climate change. He is the Republican apostate, a visionary who has reached across the aisle. Why, now that McCain is the Republican nominee, we're practically guaranteed to get bold action on climate no matter who wins! Right?
McCain will be running as a climate champion against a Democrat who claims the same mantle. There's two ways the political media could cover it:
- It could probe a little deeper: seek to clarify the strength and detail of each candidate's climate/energy plan; uncover those policy positions that distinguish one candidate one another; compare their respective records on the issue.
- Or, the media could write off climate as a non-controversy that's not worth covering.
History does not inspire confidence. Recall, if you will, the 2000 presidential race. Seeking to counter Al Gore's perceived advantage on the environment, Texas governor George W. Bush pledged to instruct his EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
The media, which had covered climate change as a he-said she-said controversy if at all, breathed a sigh of relief. Aaah, now we can talk about interesting stuff. And poof! The issue disappeared. Al Gore gave speeches and released statements on global warming (yes, really), but he couldn't pay reporters to cover them -- or the public to give a damn. The political significance of global warming was reduced to nothing.
Could it happen again? Could climate vanish from the political radar just as it's gotten a toehold?
Let's hope not. Remember what happened last time. In March 2001, just three months into his presidency, Bush -- acting at the behest of energy lobbyist and future Mississippi governor Haley Barbour -- reversed his pledge on CO2 and withdrew from the Kyoto process. He embarrassed and rendered ineffectual his EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman. He sent an unmistakable signal to international partners that the US was not interested in multilateral action on climate.
And he set the stage for eight long years of obstructionism on climate. Just this past year, he has ignored a Supreme Court ruling that CO2 should be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and regulated by the EPA -- the agency is still dragging its heels on an endangerment finding. He had the EPA deny California the waiver it would need to implement its own CO2 regulations, defying the agency's own analysts, common sense, and even the positions of all four Republican presidential candidates. And he whittled the ambitious 2007 energy bill down with veto threats, only to claim credit for it when a weakened version passed.
Will the media learn from its mistake, or will it give the candidates another free pass on climate? If it does look a little closer, it will find that McCain is no green champion (more on that in a subsequent post). It might even force McCain to put or shut up on this issue -- while voters who care about it still have a chance to act on their convictions.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"Will the media learn from its mistake, or will it give the candidates another free pass on climate?"
The Media?....Mr Roberts, go back up a bit into your OWN article--
"Al Gore gave speeches and released statements on global warming (yes, really), but he couldn't pay reporters to cover them -- or the public to give a damn."
Seems your fight isn't TOTALLY with the Media, is it?
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2008 @ 11:12am
mask, you are only partially correct on that one, as the public might certainly give a damn if the media discussed climate change more often. indeed, they hadn't back in 2000, so it is a cause-effect relationship in this author's mind.
but, i happen to agree that is all about the public, and the media are largely irrelevant. human beings, and not the bush administration or the presidential candidates, are 100% responsible for the climate mess we are in, and the only way to reverse it is for human beings to (seriously) stop driving, flying, etc. and not only that, but human beings must seriously consider consuming products and resources which were grown and or manufactured locally, to reduce carbon even further.
when americans ask themselves, "what is the best thing i can do for my country?". the answer isn't, "get out vote for obama." the answer is: you can get stop driving.
cars, planes, trucks, trains are responsible for around 35% of carbon output. power plants and coal plants are responsible for another 35%. the remaining 30% is most likely from natural sources.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2008 @ 11:36am
Seems your fight isn't TOTALLY with the Media, is it?
Posted by MASK 02/07/2008 @ 11:12am
nope. stupidity is everywhere.
so why bother.
let's sit on our butts and ignore.
let's sit on our butts and ignore.
let's sit on our butts and ignore.
let's sit on our butts and ignore.
let's sit on our butts and ignore.
let's sit on our butts and ignore.
let's sit on our butts and ignore.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 11:40am
i repeat myself when under stress.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 11:41am
cars, planes, trucks, trains are responsible for around 35% of carbon output. power plants and coal plants are responsible for another 35%. the remaining 30% is most likely from natural sources.
Posted by DARLADOON 02/07/2008 @ 11:36am
don't forget livestock production. especially cows.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 11:42am
David, After reading your post, one thing is for sure. Bush is the anti Christ if one exists. Has W done one thing while in office, or maybe in his lifetime, that was to the benefit of someone other than he, himself and his wealthy friends? The answer to that is a very big noooo.
From what we've seen over the last eight years, there hasn't been one person on the right side of the isle willing to stand in W's way and very few on the left side of the isle and they've been pretty much marginalized.
So, the U.S. will continue to buy plastic as Frosty points out and the U.S. will continue to suck down fossil fuels because the big cheeseheads running the show are profitting heavily on poluting the atmosphere and running the economy into the ground.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/07/2008 @ 12:08pm
Alexander Cockburn -- CounterPunch.org --
'...Now imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper. The first rises to a crest, then slopes sharply down, then levels off and rises slowly once more. The other has no undulations. It rises in a smooth, slowly increasing arc. The first, wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil and natural gas. On this graph it starts in 1928, at 1.1 gigatons (i.e. 1.1 billion metric tons). It peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons. The world, led by its mightiest power, the USA, plummets into the Great Depression, and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 per cent drop. Hard times drove a tougher bargain than all the counsels of Al Gore or the jeremiads of the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change). Then, in 1933 it began to climb slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons.
And the other line, the one ascending so evenly? That's the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, parts per million (ppm) by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, to 307 in 1932 and on up. Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily. These days it's at 380.There are, to be sure, seasonal variations in CO2, as measured since 1958 by the instruments on Mauna Loa, Hawai'i. (Pre-1958 measurements are of air bubbles trapped in glacial ice.) Summer and winter vary steadily by about 5 ppm, reflecting photosynthesis cycles. The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 per cent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn't even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere's CO2. Thus it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels....
...Water covers 71 per cent of the surface of the planet. As compared to the atmosphere, there's at least a hundred times more CO2 in the oceans, dissolved as carbonate. As the postglacial thaw progresses the oceans warm up, and some of the dissolved carbon emits into the atmosphere, just like fizz in soda water taken out of the fridge. "So the greenhouse global warming theory has it ass backwards," Hertzberg concludes. "It is the warming of the earth that is causing the increase of carbon dioxide and not the reverse." He has recently had vivid confirmation of that conclusion. Several new papers show that for the last three quarter million years CO2 changes always lag global temperatures by 800 to 2,600 years....
...In fact, when it comes to corporate sponsorship of crackpot theories about why the world is getting warmer, the best documented conspiracy of interest is between the Greenhouser fearmongers and the nuclear industry, now largely owned by oil companies, whose prospects 20 years ago looked dark, amid headlines about the fall-out from Chernobyl, aging plants and nuclear waste dumps leaking from here to eternity. The apex Greenhouse fearmongers are well aware that the only exit from the imaginary crisis they have been sponsoring is through a door marked "nuclear power," with a servant's side door labeled "clean coal." James Lovelock, the Rasputin of Gaia-dom, has said, "Nuclear power has an important contribution to make."...'
'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally
Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/07/2008 @ 12:12pm
frosty,
cows would fall under the rubric: "natural sources"
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2008 @ 12:18pm
Posted by DARLADOON 02/07/2008 @ 11:36am
Going after "the Media" is easy. Going after "the public for not caring" is tougher, because it means your activism is adding up to nought.
Besides what does Mr Roberts offer as a solution? Somehow FORCE the Media to go after McCain on GW?
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2008 @ 12:28pm
Posted by DARLADOON 02/07/2008 @ 12:18pm
Pretty sure, FROSTY's going off on the "If we stop eating hamburgers and start drinking soy milk, we won't need the cows and that'll cut CO2/methane" tangent.
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2008 @ 12:30pm
The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 per cent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn't even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere's CO2. Thus it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels....
This bit contains a logical fallacy. I'll let you find it.
Posted by BlueSpark at 02/07/2008 @ 12:38pm
So, the U.S. will continue to buy plastic as Frosty points out and the U.S. will continue to suck down fossil fuels because the big cheeseheads running the show are profitting heavily on poluting the atmosphere and running the economy into the ground.
Posted by WOLFGANG1 02/07/2008 @ 12:08pm
ah, but plastic is a metaphor.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 12:40pm
Pretty sure, FROSTY's going off on the "If we stop eating hamburgers and start drinking soy milk, we won't need the cows and that'll cut CO2/methane" tangent.
Posted by MASK 02/07/2008 @ 12:30pm
not at all, oh one who assumes.
perhaps eating 7 hamburgers a week instead of 8 is a good place to start.
i don't particularly like soya.
i eat cheese, dude. but less than before.
less than before.
less than before.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 12:42pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 02/07/2008 @ 12:37pm
all right bruce!
how are you going to make all that electricity?
however, walking is a great idea.
great plans. but people are too lazy. and a few people are just too rich.
i'm worried, too.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 12:45pm
check this out.
we go to wars to get oil.
then we make plastic, use most of it for a few minutes.
and then fill up the pacific ocean with plastic.
you go! humans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 12:47pm
less.
it's easy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 12:47pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 02/07/2008 @ 12:46pm
Won't effect me...unlike that un-caring raper of the environment FROSTY...
I drink soy milk!
BTW, assume you were just joking about the "heavy fines" stuff!
(btw, just kidding, FROSTY...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2008 @ 12:50pm
btw, just kidding, FROSTY...heheh)
Posted by MASK 02/07/2008 @ 12:50pm
MOOOOOOOOO!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 12:55pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 02/07/2008 @ 12:55pm
i meant "vested interests"
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 12:56pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 02/07/2008 @ 12:55pm
Okay...so how do working families pay for either the switch or the fines?
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2008 @ 1:49pm
Posted by DARLADOON 02/07/2008 @ 11:36am | ignore this person
Luddite.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/07/2008 @ 3:59pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 02/07/2008 @ 12:37pm | ignore this person
what are you doing here? we're not discussing single payer health care.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/07/2008 @ 4:01pm
luddite?! now that's funny.
so, how is consuming less a primary, secondary, or even tertiary, indicator of luddite-ism?
i simply don't follow.
mask,
cows do far more damage than just methane.....they also take up enormous amounts of topography and water.....
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2008 @ 4:10pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=darladoon
you are myopic. some people must drive. I live in a very large city. I take public transport and do not own a car. when I go to work however I need a car, so I take a cab, or rent a car.
you lack empathy with others, that's putting it kindly.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/07/2008 @ 4:13pm
"some people must drive"
you are the one setting up a bifurcated plane: zero and infinity, where none is required.
i'm only calling for a drastic reduction in driving, not total-zero usage.
now, having said that, we must all use simple logic:
if carbon, a greenhouse gas, is causing the warming;
and if cars are releasing carbon;
then obviously, we must remove cars from the equation.
are you opposed to mathematics emile?
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2008 @ 4:28pm
Posted by DARLADOON 02/07/2008 @ 4:10pm
Ahh...but they need grass to graze, and grass is a plant which absorbs CO2. Where as if we get rid of the cows, no need for pastures needed means they can be developed into SUBURBS, which means suburbanites who'll need cars to drive into the cities!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2008 @ 4:29pm
even if you have entirely electric cars, everywhere, you still do not remove the problems of:
congestion
new road construction
plus, how are cars manufactured?
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2008 @ 4:30pm
mask, trees are cut down for pastures, because the pastures have vanished.
see: brazil and argentina
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2008 @ 4:30pm
anyone who thinks they can weasel their way out of the logical path i have created, is living in some sort of fantasy world.
you cannot simultaneously have widespread, inexorable development AND sustainability.
it is mathematically impossible.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2008 @ 4:32pm
human beings have one function: to grow and grow until they perish.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2008 @ 4:32pm
Darl, change comes in increments, not drastically.
maybe we could start with something a bit easier, increased mileage standards for example.
I do think that Herr Otto's engine has outlived its usefulness.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/07/2008 @ 4:32pm
Posted by DARLADOON 02/07/2008 @ 4:32pm
Difficult but not impossible. Underground arcologies, undersea living, lunar and then interplanetary colonization.
None of which is technologically impossible, difficult, and requiring committed efforts, but not impossible.
Regardless, the problem is not the United States...believe it or not. Our population is on the verge of declining as Europe's is. Only our massive immigration is stemming that effect.
The real "widespread, inexorable development" is in countries in Asia and Africa.
You want to do some real good, give up on "plowing over the suburbs and turning them into parks and farms"....and get over to Sub-Saharan Africa or China and India.
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2008 @ 4:48pm
see: brazil and argentina
Posted by DARLADOON 02/07/2008 @ 4:30pm
don't forget canada and the united states.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 4:48pm
Posted by MASK 02/07/2008 @ 4:48pm
ya, but a canadian uses 40 times the resources of a bangladeshi.
now.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 4:49pm
Darl, change comes in increments, not drastically
have i said anywhere that the government should force people to stop driving?
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2008 @ 4:52pm
the only way to reverse it is for human beings to (seriously) stop driving, flying, etc.
not nuanced, is it?
Posted by emile duBois at 02/07/2008 @ 4:58pm
Darl, you did not say reduce driving, you said stop driving. that is the nuance I'm talking about.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/07/2008 @ 5:05pm
Alexander Cockburn -- CounterPunch.org --
'...The cycle of alarmist predictions is now well established. Not so long before some U.N. moot on What To Do About the Weather, a prominent fearmonger like James Hansen or Michael Mann will make a tremulous statement about the accelerating tempo and dimensions of the warming crisis. The cry is taken up by the IPCC, (and in the 1990s, by the Clinton/Gore White House), with the press releases headlined by the New York Times, with exactly the same lack of critical evaluation as that newspaper recycling of the government's lies about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Months and years later come the qualifications and the retractions, long after new contracts and grants have been awarded, and fresh legions hired to staff the ever-expanding empires of the threatmongers.
When measured reality doesn't cooperate with the lurid model predictions, new compensating "factors" are concocted, such as the briefly popular sulfate aerosols of the 1990s, recruited to cool off the obviously excessive heat predicted by the models. Or the existing, inconvenient data are water-boarded into submission, as happened with the ice-core samples that fail to confirm the modelers' need for record temperatures today as opposed to half a million years ago. As Richard Kerr, Science magazine's man on global warming remarked, "Climate modelers have been 'cheating' for so long it's become almost respectable."
The consequence? As with the arms-spending spiral powered by the Cold War, vast amounts of money will be uselessly spent on programs that won't work against an enemy that doesn't exist. Meanwhile, real and curable environmental perils are scanted or ignored. Hysteria rules the day, drowning really useful environmental initiatives, while smoothing the way for the nuclear industry to reap its rewards....'
'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally
Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/07/2008 @ 5:23pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 02/07/2008 @ 5:18pm | ignore this person
an absurd post, by an absurd poster.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/07/2008 @ 5:33pm
Ahh...but they need grass to graze, and grass is a plant which absorbs CO2. Where as if we get rid of the cows, no need for pastures needed means they can be developed into SUBURBS, which means suburbanites who'll need cars to drive into the cities!
heheh
Posted by MASK 02/07/2008 @ 4:29pm
pure foolishness.
cows eat corn and soya. in fact, most corn grown in north america is for feeding cows.
a supremely inefficient form of food production (and yes, that also means the sacred protein).
great swaths of rain forest are being destroyed by the minute to make room for cows to fill up the bellies of overweight cow-guzzlers around the world.
wake up.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 6:41pm
Darl, you did not say reduce driving, you said stop driving. that is the nuance I'm talking about
still no evidence of me saying that the government should force people to stop driving. so, indeed, there is some nuance to claiming that people should (as opposed to must) stop driving.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2008 @ 6:49pm
if one follow the logical course i have created, that driving = death, then the obvious conclusion is that people should stop driving, unless of course they are suicidal.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2008 @ 6:51pm
Regardless, the problem is not the United States...believe it or not. Our population is on the verge of declining as Europe's is. Only our massive immigration is stemming that effect.
i'll post you the resource usage map when i get home from work. we're the problem
The real "widespread, inexorable development" is in countries in Asia and Africa.
yep, they're trying to be as stupid as we are
You want to do some real good, give up on "plowing over the suburbs and turning them into parks and farms"....and get over to Sub-Saharan Africa or China and India.
you want to start doing some good, investigate how much blight our greed is inflicting on this planet. investigate how unregulated oil production to meet out of control demand is fucking up places from alberta to ecuador to indonesia. for example. investigate how invasive species are becoming a greater and greater problem globally because of greed inspired trade which must be done FAST instead of intelligently.
for example.
your 21st century kids deserve more than your 20th century attitude.
Posted by MASK 02/07/2008 @ 4:48pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 6:51pm
OH, I ALMOST FORGOT...
..THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WORLD AFTER ALL THESE CARBON FEES?
WON'T MOVE .000001 OF A DEGREE IN A GENERATION...
clearly, this person hasn't the data in front of him to make such wild claims. .000001 of a degree? try over 1 degree (at best), buddy. it has already moved 1 degree in the last generation, and now, problems are increasing so rapidly, that scientists have to continually downgrade their most optimistic scenarios, and upgrade their most catastrophic ones.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2008 @ 7:18pm
over 1/2 of the world's species has vanished since 1850, and many more are forecast to vanish in the next 50-100. over 75% of the world's rainforests. over 75% of fish stocks. over 1/2 of fresh water reserves. it's bad. it's really bad.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2008 @ 7:21pm
EMILE DUBOIS is JOHANNESROLF?!?!??!
But "Professor" Rolf swore he'd left, never to return, due our lack of respect for his superior wisdom?!!?!?
And ...he doesn't lie!?!?!!??
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2008 @ 7:21pm
DARLA, FROSTY....
you guys get together and commiserate over "rolling things back"....cuz it ain't happening. Hybrid tax rebates, credits for more solar, research money, etc. will clean up things here.
Meanwhile the population problem isn't in North America or Europe....and that's where you're focusing your energy.
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2008 @ 7:22pm
mask, it's all going up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_population_%28UN%29.svg
even europe. the only negative areas are, say, greenland, iceland and mongolia. everywhere else is at least growing between 0-1% or 1%.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2008 @ 7:34pm
No one is going to be able to claim the temp dropped or raised because of all the taxes the American economy will be strapped with, since there is so much doubt about the global warming/cooling debate
look, let's take an analogous example: alcohol taxes in finland. people in finland would drink a great deal more were it not for the high taxes on booze.
just as in america, with a higher gas tax, people in america would drive less. and if less people drive, less carbon would be put into the atmosphere (and we know that carbon output is, without doubt, increasing the earth's temperature. that's why they are called 'greenhouse' gases).
and furthermore, it is not only a question of global warming, it's also a question of air quality.
you are trying to play the 'no way out' card, and it doesn't add up.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2008 @ 7:40pm
why do you think the bay area has a 'ride BART for free' day on hot summer days?
because more cars = more pollution = bad air
plus more cars = more carbon
more carbon = increased global temps
it's simple mathematics.
Posted by darladoon at 02/07/2008 @ 7:42pm
"The Single-Payer Global Warming Reduction System"
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 02/07/2008 @ 5:18pm
Sounds like the perfect campaign platform for the `Change' Election.....for the `Change' candidate....sounds so Magically EASY! Al Gore to head up this Dept. of SPGWRD....perfect!
Posted by Happy at 02/07/2008 @ 7:56pm
HonestLiberal: I might suggest that you get your scientific information from respected scientific authorities like the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, ..., rather than from Alexander Cockburn.
The crap you quote from Cockburn shows how ignorant of the science he is. His comments about CO2 and the Great Depression show that he thinks there should be a drop in CO2 just because emissions dropped. In fact, since the emissions did not drop to zero, the CO2 levels would have continued to rise...albeit a little more slowly than they would have had the emissions stayed higher.
Furthermore, before accurate time-resolved measurements of CO2 started in the late 1950s, there is no way to even get good enough experimental data on the CO2 rise to resolve what happens on a timescale of a year or a few years. So, Cockburn couldn't possibly see the effect he is talking about in the data even if he tried.
As for the idea that the current warming is causing the increase in CO2 rather than the other way around, this idea is ridiculous. First of all, the circumstantial evidence alone is overwhelming: CO2 levels are significantly higher than they have been for at least the last 750,000 years (and likely the last 15 million years or so), and the rise began just as the industrial revolution got going. Furthermore, the amount of increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere corresponds well with the amount that we have emitted by burning fossil fuels. (In fact, the levels have risen only about half as much as they would have if all of the CO2 we emitted remained in the atmosphere, demonstrating that the oceans and biosphere are able to take up about half of what we emit.) Also, if the oceans were outgassing CO2, the concentrations absorbed in the upper oceans would be decreasing, rather than increasing as it is (and which is in line with the idea that the oceans are taking up some of our emissions). Finally, scientists can look at the isotope ratios of the carbon and oxygen in the CO2 to see that there is a growing component in the atmosphere due to burning of fossil fuels.
In other words, Cockburn has no idea what he is talking about...and frankly he is ignorant diatribes are an embarrassment to The Nation and intelligent liberals everywhere.
Posted by jshore at 02/07/2008 @ 8:39pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 02/07/2008 @ 8:26pm
PB, take Mask's word for it...Emile is not JR. The rhetoric is totally different. Go back to any post from last year and re-read some of his responses. ED's responses are just reactionary. JR's are smug and belittling. Not to mention he also like to respond in Germany because he knows no one understands him but JOMAMMA.
Posted by ACook at 02/07/2008 @ 9:51pm
Posted by ACOOK 02/07/2008 @ 9:51pm | ignore this person
thanks Cookie.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/07/2008 @ 10:23pm
cows do far more damage than just methane.....they also take up enormous amounts of topography and water.....
Posted by DARLADOON 02/07/2008 @ 4:10pm
not too mention all that corn.
and the poooooooooo.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 10:25pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 02/07/2008 @ 5:18pm
haaa-yaaaaaaaaaaa! [wtf.org]
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 10:28pm
Posted by ACOOK 02/07/2008 @ 9:51pm
I tend to agree. The format of cutting and pasting the posting he is referencing at the top of his reply is BRANNIGAN/McQ/MASK2/etc.
Plus I doubt Professor ROLF would return...we underlings didn't show him the proper respect and if he came back under a different nick...and we STILL didn't respect his sage wisdom...
he might figure out it ...wasn't us who had the problem!
Posted by Mask at 02/07/2008 @ 10:29pm
Meanwhile the population problem isn't in North America or Europe....and that's where you're focusing your energy.
Posted by MASK 02/07/2008 @ 7:22pm
PLEASE BEGIN READING WHAT I WRITE -- skimming doesn't count!
the problem is that MY AND YOUR fat asses use as much as 40 times the resources of someone in a poor country.
chalice de tabernacle!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 10:32pm
I can guarantee it. His pre-existing enmity towards me (in particular) made me suspicious. Then, on the last health care thread, "ED" said, "NO COUNTRY HAS EVER GIVEN UP THEIR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FOR OURS," or something to that effect, all capitals included. Classic JR. It was a dead give-away.
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 02/07/2008 @ 8:26pm | ignore this person
what enmity?
and the second part is true. no one has disputed that. not even you. there is no copyright on facts.
I am NOT GERMAN, never have been. OK? I did take German in High school and college. nice language. of course it's not FRENCH
Posted by emile duBois at 02/07/2008 @ 10:33pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 02/07/2008 @ 8:26pm
PB, take Mask's word for it...Emile is not JR. The rhetoric is totally different. Go back to any post from last year and re-read some of his responses. ED's responses are just reactionary. JR's are smug and belittling. Not to mention he also like to respond in Germany because he knows no one understands him but JOMAMMA.
Posted by ACOOK 02/07/2008 @ 9:51pm
plus, if jr came back, the first thing he would do is put mask on ignore.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 10:35pm
Finally, scientists can look at the isotope ratios of the carbon and oxygen in the CO2 to see that there is a growing component in the atmosphere due to burning of fossil fuels.
Posted by JSHORE 02/07/2008 @ 8:39pm
finally.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 10:36pm
less is easy.
stop waiting for goredot
or hybrid solar wind saviours
in fact:
1) forget "turn off that light"--don't turn it on in the first place. many things people do require no electric light. blind people learn their way around the house pretty well.
2) wear lots of clothes in the house in winter time. keep the heat at 15.5 C (60 F). heck, i see people wearing shorts outside on a 60 degree spring day.
3) walk (bike) 75% of your trips (it makes your butt look good).
4) don't water your lawn. save the "exit" water from your shower and use it to flush the loo. shower with the coldest water possible (good for you). don't clean your driveway with the hose.
4.5) if you can see through it, don't flush. remember avoid asparagus.
5) when driving, don't accelerate to a red light.
5.5) drive more slowly--people tear by me on the expressway, yet i invariably pull up to them at a red light. learn the timing of traffic lights in your city so that you can choose the best speed to make all greens. remove any junk from your trunk. don't drive a giant metal box.
6) buy less stuff (doesn't include food--buy less meat)
7) wash your clothes with cold water. don't use bleach
8) buy used stuff
9) learn to sweat. turn off the a.c.
10) never watch 24
11) use the manual door at the grocery store. take your own bags with you. don't buy "far-away" food unless there's nothing else to buy (i can only eat so many rutabegas in winter). pick out refrigerated and frozen items buy looking through the transparent glass doors, then quickly open and close said doors.
11.5) don't buy "convenient, individually wrapped" anything
12) if you must eat meat, eat it very infrequently.
13) eat as few processed foods as possible
14) hang your clothes out to dry. they even dry in winter time (plus for a while they're freeze and feel really cool)
15) don't use your computer all day long to post on some looney lefty website--shit!
16) never use anything disposable [confession--i buy disposable razor cartridges]
17) reuse, reuse, reuse. why throw away that yoghurt container and then go buy cheap chinese tupperware clone?
18) recycle, recycle, recycle. every little scrap. every little lid.
19) separate your organic garbage and compost it. i personally don't have a garden (apartment dweller) so i throw it into a field next to a nearby train yard (all the animals and fungus love it)
20) grow your own food if you have space. if not, buy local (yum)
21) keep your fridge and freezer full. if they are not, fill them with water-filled containers. water is an excellent retainer of cold, and thus you will reduce compressor on time.
22) use your oven as little as possible
23) close the blinds when using your a.c.
24) avoid the drive-thru.
25) care.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 10:42pm
people tear by me on the expressway, yet i invariably pull up to them at a red light.
Froz, you got traffic lights on the expressway up there? hows that working out?
Posted by emile duBois at 02/07/2008 @ 10:47pm
9) learn to sweat. turn off the a.c.
you tried this in Phoenix, Az in the summer? or Durham, NC for that matter.
but your heart is in the right place. too bad your brain has not quite caught up.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/07/2008 @ 10:50pm
but your heart is in the right place. too bad your brain has not quite caught up. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/07/2008 @ 10:47pm
perhaps the red light isn't on the expressway.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/07/2008 @ 10:50pm
living in the desert is stupid.
if you need your a.c., put it at 72 instead of 70.
"but your heart is in the right place. too bad your brain has not quite caught up."
well, at least i've pointed one of them in the right direction.
enjoy your beefcar, fatboy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 10:56pm
You called me, and I quote, an "ass."
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 02/07/2008 @ 11:04pm
that's normal for E.D.
always prefers one syllable insults.
i just like to call you "wrong".
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 11:10pm
Scientists sometimes refer to the effect a hotter world will have on this country's fresh water as the other water problem, because global warming more commonly evokes the specter of rising oceans submerging our great coastal cities. By comparison, the steady decrease in mountain snowpack -- the loss of the deep accumulation of high-altitude winter snow that melts each spring to provide the American West with most of its water -- seems to be a more modest worry. But not all researchers agree with this ranking of dangers. Last May, for instance, Steven Chu, a Nobel laureate and the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, one of the United States government's pre-eminent research facilities, remarked that diminished supplies of fresh water might prove a far more serious problem than slowly rising seas. When I met with Chu last summer in Berkeley, the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, which provides most of the water for Northern California, was at its lowest level in 20 years. Chu noted that even the most optimistic climate models for the second half of this century suggest that 30 to 70 percent of the snowpack will disappear. "There's a two-thirds chance there will be a disaster," Chu said, "and that's in the best scenario."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/magazine/21water-t.html?_r=1&em&ex=119 3112000&en=409568d61448aa92&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin
what happens in vegas, dries up like a prune.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 11:13pm
Thunder, Hail, Fire: What Does Climate Change Mean for the U.S.?
The U.S. heartland can look forward to hotter, wetter summers, according to the latest climate research. Global warming will cause more severe thunderstorms--convective cloud fronts that could produce wind gusts of 58 miles (93 kilometers) per hour, 0.75-inch (1.9-centimeter) size hailstones and even more frequent tornadoes--in the region, according to research led by atmospheric scientist Robert Trapp at Purdue University. At the same time, according to independent environmental consultant Kristie Ebi, heat waves like the one in Chicago that killed 700 people in 1995 will become more commonplace.
The reports findings, in addition to increased heat waves, include:
Western Wildfires--The increasingly destructive and widespread fire seasons of recent years are likely to continue.......
Gulf Coast Swamped--Human engineering efforts such as levees have reduced the ability of the wetlands of Louisiana and other Gulf Coast states to keep pace with subsiding land and rising sea levels, according to coastal scientist Robert Twilley of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge.
"Dead Zones" Deader--One of a number of large and growing seasonal areas in bodies of water from which all oxygen has been leeched drives the degradation of Chesapeake Bay. Marine scientist Donald Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, warns that climate change will also complicate the already difficult task of restoring this important watershed and food source. "Climate change impacts are not straightforward," he says, "but are multiple and interactive."
Stronger Storms--Much of the country will experience severe thunderstorms, but major eastern and southeastern cities are likely to see the largest jumps in storm frequency, according to Purdue's Trapp--a finding buttressed by a NASA study earlier this year.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=thunder-hail-fire-what-does-climate- change-mean-for-us
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 11:22pm
http://cbc.amnh.org/crisis/resconpercap.html
The consumption rates of natural resources vary widely among individuals and nations. Americans, for example, on average use more wood and paper products and consume much more beef (which takes about 10 times as much energy to produce as the same nutritional amount of grains or vegetables) per person than almost any other nationality.
Indeed, people in the United States and Canada account for approximately 5.3% of the global population, yet they produce about 26% of global CO2 emissions, one indicator of the amount of energy consumed.
WHILE PEOPLE OFTEN EQUATE THE AMOUNT OF CONSUMPTION WITH THE LEVEL OF COMFORT OR THE STANDARD OF LIVING, LARGE REDUCTIONS IN TOTAL CONSUMPTION CAN BE ACHIEVED WITH SMALL IMPROVEMENTS IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY, RECYCLING OF MATERIALS, AND CHANGES IN PATTERNS OF PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 11:27pm
http://atlas.aaas.org/natres/intro_popups.php?p=top
http://atlas.aaas.org/natres/intro_popups.php?p=top2
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 11:36pm
Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. Using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861v1?maxtoshow=&HITS =10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=biofuels&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sort spec=date&resourcetype=HWCIT
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 11:53pm
attention sens. obama and clinton and mccain:
The land-use issue makes the balance sheet far more problematic: The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land, said Joseph Fargione, the lead author of the other study and a scientist at the Nature Conservancy. "So for the next 93 years, you're making climate change worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon emissions."
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/07/2008 @ 11:56pm
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 02/08/2008 @ 12:01am
jr used capitals.
jr would ignore mask in a second.
hey guys, i've found jr!
johannesrolf
Recent comments by this user
Torture is Back!
when I was a young man, I visited the infamous Nazi death camp Mauthausen in Austria.It was there that I saw documentation of the many cruel tortures the Nazi criminals visited upon their mostly Russian prisoners.It was a shattering experience. Never in a million years did it occur to me that my newly adopted country would engage in these shameful practices. I have been an American for 45 years now, and just like I was ashamed during the Vietnam war, I am now ashamed to be an American. The only way to wipe away this shame is to expose and punish the modern torturers, no matter how long it takes. Just like Nazi war criminals, who are hunted down to this day, these creeps should never feel safe in their beds again, and that includes those at the very top of this mis-administration. posted 10/10/2007 at 09:51:42
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/johannesrolf
that is jr
volunteering to go to Iraq indicates approval, to say the least, of an illegal and cruel war of occupation. that is not a choice that I respect.
McCain is a militarist. that is a moral choice, or better an immoral choice.
many vets have come back echoing my sentiments.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/07/2008 @ 10:42pm
hey maybe you're right plain bruce
Get Over Yourselves, Airports
don't fly? I needed to get from NYC to Louisville, Kentucky. Train? 24 hours by train to Chicago, with layovers. then a bus to Louisville. total travel time 36 hours. by plane, FOUR hours with a change of planes. Get real, people. posted 10/17/2007 at 11:35:25
that jr post does seem very e.d.
as does this:
you teach college? I hope it's not English you are teaching. it should read fewer and fewer children, instead of less and less children. posted 10/13/2007 at 13:04:41
or maybe e.d. is posting as j.r. at huffington
let's check an old post from the nation:
DO you consider Roosevelt, Truman, and Churchill to be "terrorists"?
I don't recall being asked this question, which I think is simplistic beyond discussion
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/29/2006 @ 09:41am
AND
goddamn Mask, can't you fucking read? I have NEVER said that everything will be hunky dory once this illegal and disastrous occupation ends. it is almost impossible to have a discussion with you. I suggest you argue with yourself.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/29/2006 @ 10:33am,
AND
nonsense. in order to save these dialogues from bickering I will put you on ignore for a while, as much fun it is to skewer your pretensions.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/27/2006 @ 12:15pm
AND
Fools, Wilson was not a good pres. he was a bumbler. he was taken to the cleaners at Versailles by Britain and France. an idealist yes, but a failure, in my opinion. I think JFK belongs in the Pantheon, he saved us from nuclear destruction during the Cuba crisis.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/04/2006 @ 10:30pm
O.K.!!!!! GOT IT!!!!!
certainly not. Mean Rudy was a divisive figure during his terms as mayor.
if you want an urban agenda Michael Bloomberg is the best candidate.
Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/05/2008 @ 12:24pm
AND
Bloomberg is a reasonable man with great personal charm and a great personal fortune. he is the anti Giuliani here in new york. his accomplishments are legion and his skeletons in the closet are nil, again the opposite of Giuliani. with exception of the repub convention in NYC, where he allowed the police too free a hand, he has been a fine mayor, and would no doubt make a fine pres.
but I don't think he stands a chance.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/22/2007 @ 5:32pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 12:42am
WELCOME BACK, JR!!!!!
now, let me call YOU an ass.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 12:44am
...but I love a good mystery.
Posted by PLAIN BRUCE 02/08/2008 @ 12:01am
When ED showed up, he also let loose a few sniveling barbs my way that left me w/impressions of vague familiarity. I think the Prosecution (you, the Doctor, right?) won....as this is a `civil' case, don't have to be unanimous!
ED knows MASK well enough to `morph' himself better since MASK has never show much mercy to JR in the slightly >1 yr I've been posting.
Posted by Happy at 02/08/2008 @ 12:47am
pride bay, your posts are descending into gibberish, getting desperate? maybe you should get out a bit more. melting ice caps on mars, indeed
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/30/2005 @ 5:03pm
get out more.
hmmmmmmmm?
i heard that one just the other day.
hey mask, you remember that one. you said how could i expect humility from BRANNIGAN/MCQ
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 12:55am
heheh
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 01:05am
who's JR?
amusing how a guy who doesn't post here gets so much attention. I bet his ears are ringing. that concentration camp post looks pretty good, more so now than ever.
unlike the puppy dogs yapping at his heels, he really had something to say.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/08/2008 @ 07:37am
perhaps the red light isn't on the expressway.
you just can't admit that you posted nonsense, can you Froz? whatta jerk.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/08/2008 @ 07:45am
where have all the posters gone, long time passing? where have all the posters gone, long time ago?
New Dawn, From redbird, and so many others. and who could forget our dear Bloppy.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/08/2008 @ 08:08am
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/08/2008 @ 07:45am
offramp.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 08:10am
offramp.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/08/2008 @ 08:10am | ignore this person
traffic lights on the off ramp? hahahahahha. yeah that'll work.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/08/2008 @ 08:13am
Plain Bruce: You say, "Maybe this is why the public doesn't care. A relatively simple thing such as figuring out the effect of biofuel production on greenhouse gases and the smartest of the smart made a major blunder. Yet, when discussing something as complex as the climate, John Q. Public is expected to believe that the so-called climate experts have it pegged? When you consider that the "hockey stick" graph was completely false and the IPCC continually adjusts the end result of global warming--seas rising 20 feet is now down to 18 inches over a hundred years--and some former IPCC climatologists now claim that it's political hocus pocus, it's understandable that the public is indifferent."
Almost none of the facts in your statement are correct. First of all, there has been a long-running argument regarding the net gain from biofuels once one really includes all the inputs into their production. Second of all, the "hockey stick" graph is not completely false. There have been, and continue to be, legitimate questions about the quality of the various temperature proxies but the basic picture of temperatures now warmer than any time in the last 1200 years has also been found by several other groups, as the National Academy of Sciences study on the issue noted. At any rate, the anthropogenic global warming theory is built on multiple lines of evidence of which the hockey stick is only one small (and, in fact, the most circumstantial) piece.
Third of all, the IPCC never predicted a 20 foot rise in sea levels within 100 years. There has always been less uncertainty around how much sea levels would eventually rise for a given rise in temperature than how long it would take to do so. So, while the IPCC has and still predicts such rises become likely eventually with moderate temperature rises (e.g., either the complete melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet or of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would lead to roughly a 20 foot rise...and double that if both melt), it has never claimed they would happen within a century. That said, the 18 inch rise that the IPCC projects for this century is not really an upper bound because they admit that this estimate is not including the sort of dynamic effects that could lead to a much faster breakup of ice sheets than is predicted by purely melting processes. (There is more and more evidence building up that such rapid dynamic processes can occur but unfortunately there is not enough knowledge yet to accurately model them, which is why the IPCC "punted" on making any estimate that included these effects.)
I have no idea which specific "IPCC climatologists" you refer to but I know the usual suspects...and they are in fact the ones engaged in political hocus-pocus. (By the way, since the IPCC is an open process and anyone can participate as a reviewer, some people trade on that fact when they are not actually respected members of the field at all in terms of their contributions on the subject in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.) This is shown by the fact that major scientific societies in the world have almost unanimously supported the IPCC's conclusions.
Finally, yes, there are scientific uncertainties that remain. However, as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the analogous academies in the other G-8 countries plus a few others (like China, Russia, and Brazil) have said in a joint statement, enough is known to take immediate actions and the remaining uncertainties are not large enough to justify inaction. If anything, they tell us that we may be in for unpleasant surprises that we have yet to fully comprehend. Public policy is rarely formulated in a climate of complete certainty and there is much much more understanding of this problem than of problems that we have committed a lot of money to (like invading sovereign nations that pose no threat to us).
Posted by jshore at 02/08/2008 @ 08:14am
forget "turn off that light"--don't turn it on in the first place. many things people do require no electric light. blind people learn their way around the house pretty well.
one of your more absurd posts. have you no shame? hahahahahaha.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/08/2008 @ 08:16am
hey Froz, let's put these put downs in context. I have complimented you many times on your thoughtful and we;; researched posts. which you have seldom if ever reciprocated. but that's OK, I don't crave your approval, or anyone's. I am a well respected professional in my field, and my work will be looked at and used long after you and I have left the planet. bragging? you betcha.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/08/2008 @ 08:22am
Posted by JSHORE 02/08/2008 @ 08:14am | ignore this person
nicely done.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/08/2008 @ 08:32am
A TOOLBOX FOR REDUCING QUEUES AT FREEWAY OFF-RAMPS
Spillback creates a potentially hazardous condition where high-speed traffic on the freeway suddenly comes upon traffic stopped and queued from the off-ramp.
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_TE/FDO T_BD544_10.pdf.
New traffic signal, turn lanes open this week for I-84 Eagle Road westbound off-ramp
BOISE - Motorists can expect to see two new turn lanes and a new traffic light this weekend at the Eagle Road westbound off-ramp, the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) announced.
http://apps.itd.idaho.gov/apps/MediaManagerViewer/NewsRelease/NewsReleas e.aspx?Id=937
From I-110 Southbound
From the I-110 South, take Exposition Boulevard Exit Continue through traffic signal at base of offramp. Stay to the left side of the road and make a slight left.
http://ttc.usc.edu/directions.asp
etc.,
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 08:40am
you're right, I'm wrong. pardon my provincial view. we don't got them where I live.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/08/2008 @ 08:47am
Compelling evidence FROSTY & PLAIN BRUCE, but still not sure....
Here's a final test-
Ask EMILE BRANNIGAN....if he felt the aerial bombardment of German industrial centers by the Allies in World War-II was justified!
Posted by Mask at 02/08/2008 @ 08:50am
yes I know JR left you and your ilk in the dust. he posts at Huffington occasionally.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/08/2008 @ 08:51am
my work will be looked at and used long after you and I have left the planet. bragging? you betcha.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/08/2008 @ 08:22am
Art, sculpture, paintings?? Paper mache bird feeders?
You and this JR guy seem to have some commonalities.
Posted by Sliver at 02/08/2008 @ 09:03am
Newsweek Magazine -- April 28, 1975
'...Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent ... But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is a profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.'"A major climatic change would force economic an social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences,"because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century." A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals...'
'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally
Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/08/2008 @ 09:17am
BLOOMBERG FOR PRESIDENT!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 09:23am
Since the media is being taken to task about McCain, how about taking our present leaders to task on our "good allies" in Saudi Arabia. While we are "promoting democracy abroad" the people we are in bed with arrest a U.S. woman for sitting in a Starbucks with a male collegue. The Suadi's are backwards idiots and no friend to the U.S. Never have been and never will be. They and their OPEC buddies are screwing us and our politcal leaders keep sucking up to these thugs who wish to turn the clock back about 1000 years. See the link below.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/07/world/main3800725.shtml?source =mostpop_story
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/08/2008 @ 09:28am
social adjustments on a worldwide scale,"
Social adjustments...i.e. Fascism. Where the pro-choice crowd is anything but.
Only in this religion, you can buy your penance monetarily. To the high priests of course (Gore, the UN, etc.)
Please forward your donations to: Global Climate F*#&-up First Avenue at 46th Street New York, NY 10017 - across from Trump tower.
Posted by Sliver at 02/08/2008 @ 09:30am
ya got me there. I own no car, and I don't live in the suburbs. let's not let this not distract from the more important issues, some of which I believe I've touched upon.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/19/2007 @ 4:46pm
you are myopic. some people must drive. I live in a very large city. I take public transport and do not own a car. when I go to work however I need a car, so I take a cab, or rent a car.
you lack empathy with others, that's putting it kindly.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/07/2008 @ 4:13pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 09:49am
Posted by SLIVER 02/08/2008 @ 09:03am | ignore this person
research materials. thanks for asking.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/08/2008 @ 09:50am
don' own no car? lives in a big city? must be the same guy. yeah right.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/08/2008 @ 09:52am
phoney.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 09:53am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/08/2008 @ 09:53am |
FROS...really no matter. If EMILE is JOHANNES, he's shown that JR is a liar and a fake.
If he's not, he's just a completely different arrogant sphinchter....plenty in the world.
Posted by Mask at 02/08/2008 @ 10:28am
It takes co2 to make a tree. When a tree is burned, it releases the co2 into the atmosphere. The problem with fossil fuels is that their co2 has been "trapped" for eons. When you burn fossil fuels, they release their co2, thus upsetting the balance. Vegetation uses co2 and releases oxygen and acts a "scrubber". I have a relative that works in a high rise in Chicago. By the time Clinton left office, he could look out over the skyline and not see smoke boiling out of industrial chimneys. It wasn't long after W got in office that he allowed the energy companies to stop implementing and using "scrubbers". Now, my relative looks out over Chicago's skyline and can barely see it. And people say there is nothing we can do. When your house becomes unlivable, a person can build another house. When our Earth becomes unlivable, how are we going to build another one? Why take a chance just because there is so much money to be made by ignoring the danger signs. It seems to me that the rich and powerful are content to live with the attitude that says: Global warming will not affect me before I die. Leave it up to future generations to figure it out.
Posted by terry byrd at 02/08/2008 @ 10:34am
Posted by MASK 02/08/2008 @ 10:28am
at least i know my buddy "mask" (talk about irony) will always be mask.
peace, brother.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 10:34am
It seems to me that the rich and powerful are content to live with the attitude that says: Global warming will not affect me before I die.
Posted by TERRY BYRD 02/08/2008 @ 10:34am
it will when the dispossessed seeking shelter from the "storm" come to tear down the gates of the gated.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 10:38am
It seems to me that the rich and powerful are content to live with the attitude that says: Global warming will not affect me before I die. Leave it up to future generations to figure it out.
Posted by TERRY BYRD 02/08/2008 @ 10:34am
Couldn't be more true. Take care of number one and screw the rest of the world is the motto of the wealthy folks defending their position in polluting the atmoshpere.
The middle class and poor people defending these polluters of our eco system are just plain good ole ordinary idiots spewing out garbage fed to them by their masters. I call them idiots because any person willingly allowing someone to lie to them, screw them over, tell them that it's for their good, and buys into that, is indeed an idiot.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 02/08/2008 @ 11:04am
FROSTY, nick changes are cowardly. It basically means you don't want to get linked to your former comments or positions.
For instance, if EMILE is JOHANNES (which I tend to doubt)....he's a liar-
BLOG | Posted 10/05/2007 @ 10:50am What Democracy Looks Like in Costa Rica by John Nichols
OK kids here it is, I'm outta here.this will be my last post.----Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/08/2007 @ 10:04am
Posted by Mask at 02/08/2008 @ 12:16pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 02/08/2008 @ 11:04am |
Isn't the Marxist dichotomy stuff a bit passe'? "It's all the capitalist exploiters and the ignorant proletariat"???
Posted by Mask at 02/08/2008 @ 12:18pm
Posted by MASK 02/08/2008 @ 12:16pm
no, it's him (i ain't got fingerprints but hey, i can recognize 95% of regular posters by their style without having to read their particular typings.)
whatever.........
if it's not, he's equally obnoxious (even though i usually agree with ITS point of view)
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 1:26pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/08/2008 @ 1:26pm
It don't matter. Again, I thought BRANNIGAN once told us he was a 20-something college student, who just happened to have an odd affinity for 1970s John Wayne flicks. If he told the truth, it doesn't matter, because he's just a kid who thinks he knows-it-all.
If JR, he's a phoney (for coming back under a new nick) and is the same ol' OLD MAN who thinks he knows-it-all.
BTW...here's another class "Professor" ROLF moment-
BLOG | Posted 07/18/2007 @ 1:45pm Republican Hypocrite Caucus Keeps George Bush's War Going by John Nichols
nah. I am 60 years old, I am a scholar, I am an artist, I am technician, I am a thinker. the ducks always envy the swan. if you have something to discuss, pridey, be my guest.----Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/18/2007 @ 8:56pm
BLOG | Posted 07/18/2007 @ 11:29am Comments for "Sleepless in the Senate" by John Nichols
incidentally I have a job, and it's not as an artist or a scholar.---Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/18/2007 @ 11:15pm
Posted by Mask at 02/08/2008 @ 1:45pm
Posted by MASK 02/08/2008 @ 1:45pm
well, as BIG JAKE, it told me it was a long haul truck driver!
hey look at this:
"for an interesting take on that Solomon story see "The Caucasian Chalk Circle" by B. Brecht
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/08/2008 @ 1:54pm "
brecht? that's the second reference in two days.
ol' JR was a huge weimar culture fan.
The Mask Of Evil
On my wall hangs a Japanese carving,
The mask of an evil demon, decorated with gold lacquer.
Sympathetically I observe
The swollen veins of the forehead, indicating
What a strain it is to be evil.
Bertolt Brecht
i bet THAT one's special in the JR household!
heheh
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 2:16pm
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76
'...When viewed coarsely, historical CO2 levels and temperature show a tight correlation. However, a closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records reveals that, yes, temperature moved first.
Nevertheless, it is misleading to say that temperature rose and then, hundreds of years later, CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!), so for the majority of that time (90% and more), temperature and CO2 rose together. This remarkably detailed archive of climatological evidence clearly allows for CO2 acting as a cause for rising temperatures, while also revealing it can be an effect of them.... So it is correct that CO2 did not trigger the warmings...'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/08/2008 @ 2:49pm
Posted by HONESTLIBERAL 02/08/2008 @ 2:49pm
which war for oil do you support next?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 2:51pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Tar_Sands
'...The open-pit mining of the Athabasca oils sands destroys the boreal forest and muskeg, as well as changing the natural landscape. The Alberta government does not require companies to restore the land to "original condition" but only to "equivalent land capability". This means that the ability of the land to support various land uses after reclamation is similar to what existed, but that the individual land uses will not necessarily be identical. Since the government considers agricultural land to be equivalent to forest land, oil sands companies have reclaimed mined land to use as pasture for buffalo, rather than restoring it to the original boreal forest and muskeg. For every barrel of synthetic oil produced in Alberta, more than 80 kg of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere and between 2 and 4 barrels of waste water are dumped into tailing ponds that have replaced about 50 km² of forest. The forecast growth in synthetic oil production in Alberta also threatens Canada's international commitments. In ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Canada agreed to reduce, by 2012, its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% with respect to 1990. In 2002, Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions had increased by 24% since 1990.
A Pembina Institute report stated "To produce one cubic metre (m³) of synthetic crude oil (SCO) (upgraded bitumen) in a mining operation requires about 2–4.5 m³ of water (net figures). Approved oil sands mining operations are currently licensed to divert 359 million m³ from the Athabasca River, or more than twice the volume of water required to meet the annual municipal needs of the City of Calgary." and went on to say "...the net water requirement to produce a cubic metre of oil with in situ production may be as little as 0.2 m³, depending on how much is recycled". Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail paraphrased this report, saying: "A cubic metre of oil, mined from the tar sands, needs two to 4.5 cubic metres of water. Approved oil sands mining operations -- not the in situ kind that extract oil from tar sands far below the surface -- will take twice the annual water needs of the City of Calgary. The water will come from the Athabasca River, from which 359-million cubic metres will be diverted." ...
Ranked as the world's eighth largest emitter of greenhouse gases, Canada is a relatively large emitter given its population....'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 02/08/2008 @ 4:49pm
Posted by HONESTLIBERAL 02/08/2008 @ 4:49pm
yep. and take a guess where most of that oil is going.
it's disgusting.
but don't blame me. i can only control shell et al. by buying as little gas as possible.
greed is a disgusting thing.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 6:23pm
Well, this should send the GW crowd into a tizzy.
The Sun Also Sets By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV -- the sun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
Related Topics: Global Warming
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.
To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.
And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.
Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.
Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.
Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.
This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.
Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.
Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.
In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.
As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.
For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.
R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."
Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."
Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."
"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."
In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves -- and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" -- by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.
A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.
"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."
But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.
Posted by usc1 at 02/09/2008 @ 01:43am
hey folks, how about those glaciers, and those ice caps? and those permanently snow covered mountains? it's called DENIAL.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/09/2008 @ 09:45am
Here's a bit of real scientific theory on Ice Sheets and Glaciers:
http://tinyurl.com/36xg3f
Posted by harvey 79 at 02/09/2008 @ 11:19am
Posted elsewhere but may work here too:
As for me voting for McCain: I used to remember thinking that I'd wake up one day and the headlines in the newspapers would read that McCain wipes out the entire hsuB/cHenny admin in a crazy Rambo clean up the dirty torturing lying dic'tatorshit they've covered all over D.C. and our US Constitution.
But no, it never happened. What happened was McCain turned into one Sen. McCave that is willing to be use however the GOP wants to use him. He'll roll over and play dead-- even with torture. What the Hanoi Hellton couldn't do to him-- the GOP/hsuB/cHenny admin/MIC way of life has done, they have broke McCain and now give us the new and improved McCave, for our consideration.
No, I will not vote for McCave, nor will I vote for Billary.
I do not like going to raves, nor do I like eating celery.
I will not vote for more time, or for more whine.
No, I will not vote for McCave, nor will I vote for Billary.
...
Yes, I would vote for Al Gore, or I could vote for Barack.
I do like seeking the core and working for good bank.
I will vote for more science. I will vote for alliance.
Yes, I would vote for Al Gore, or I could vote for Barack.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/09/2008 @ 11:29am
Posted by USC1 02/09/2008 @ 01:43am
It has a pulse...
http://www.n3kl.org/sun/images/noaa_xrays.gif
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/09/2008 @ 11:34am
Analagous? Why haven't we stopped smoking? They tax that shit at 80% at least..
A LOT less people are smoking these days, thanks to taxes and anti-smoking laws.
have you been living in poland or something?
Posted by darladoon at 02/09/2008 @ 11:40pm
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."
that hoover study has been thoroughly discredited by most in the climate science community.
Posted by darladoon at 02/09/2008 @ 11:44pm
Yes they will give McCain a pass, and Barack too. there won't be anydifference between McCain, Barack, and Chris Mathews and friends. It's settled already, they al;l believe in the power of corporate majic to save us from climate change.
Clean coal, nuclear power, and fuel farming, that's what the green agenda will be. Just as it is now, largely a non-issue in main stream mass delusional media.
Posted by amazingdrx at 02/10/2008 @ 3:56pm