Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
Though recession and war are probably higher on the public's immediate priority list, there is no challenge of greater historical consequence facing the next US president than the climate crisis. It is vitally important that the next chief executive enter the Oval Office committed to decisive and sustained action. He or she will need a firm grasp of the developing science, the political obstacles, the economic trade-offs, and the technological opportunities.
Does John McCain have that kind of deep understanding and commitment? If elected, will he be the climate champion we so desperately need?
Conventional wisdom says yes. The media touts McCain's stance on climate as evidence of his straight talkin' maverickosity. Conservative stalwarts assail McCain for his heresy (Romney attacked McCain's climate bill in Michigan and Florida). The public hails him for reaching across the aisle. Even Democrats and greens seem inclined to give him a grade of Good Enough on climate.
This is a classic case of what our president calls the soft bigotry of low expectations. Judged against his fellow Republicans, McCain is a paragon of atmospheric wisdom. Judged against the climate and energy legislation afoot in Congress, he falls short. Judged against the two leading Democratic presidential candidates, he is a pale shadow. Judged against the imperatives of climate science -- that is to say, judged against brute physical reality -- he isn't even in the ballpark.
It's time to stop grading McCain on a curve.
McCain's green bona fides, as far as I can tell, boil down to three things:
- He voted against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and has sponsored or cosponsored the occasional, modest environmental protection bill (protecting whales; awarding tax credits for energy efficiency; boosting fuel efficiency). (Note, however, that his lifetime rating from LCV is a measly 29%.)
- In 2003, he and Sen. Joe Lieberman introduced the first-ever climate bill to the Senate: the Climate Stewardship Act, which would establish a carbon cap-and-trade system to reduce US emissions. It was introduced and voted down in 2003 and again in 2005.
- He acknowledges, without hedging, that anthropogenic climate change is real, and speaks eloquently about the need to address it. He has frequently criticized the Bush administration for inaction.
These aren't chopped liver. All were acts of courage undertaken in a time of Republican majority, when they offered little political reward (other than the undying love of cable news talkshow hosts). The second, in particular, was a beacon of hope for greens in a time when there were very few.
Nonetheless, we must assess these acts in light of what has come after, and the political environment we find ourselves in today.
Cap-and-trade
Relative to what's offered by other Senate cap-and-trade bills (and the plans of his Democratic rivals), the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act -- even in its 2007 incarnation -- is weak. Unlike other such bills, McCain's specifically sets aside massive and unnecessary subsidies for the nuclear industry. Its emissions targets are exceeded even by the lowest-common-denominator bill now heading to the Senate floor, the Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act.
This is to say nothing of the Sanders-Boxer bill, the strongest extant climate legislation, which now boasts both Clinton and Obama as co-sponsors and includes even more aggressive targets. Beyond that, we have the plans offered by the leading Democratic campaigns, which offer bold targets, 100% auctioning of pollution permits (a crucial feature I'll return to in a subsequent post), and detailed plans for how to allocate the auction revenue to boost the green economy.
McCain has never updated his position on cap-and-trade legislation, despite the steady advance in public opinion and climate science since he introduced his bill in 2003. He has not discussed, much less matched, the ambitious targets of his Dem rivals. He has not signed onto the Sanders legislation, or even Lieberman's new bill. He has not said whether he'll vote for it, and has hinted (sub rqd) that he'll vote Nay unless big buckets of nuclear pork are added.
In short, McCain's take on cap-and-trade legislation is now anachronistic, lagging well behind what's current, what's possible, and what's needed.
Beyond cap-and-trade
As anyone familiar with the issue -- e.g., Goldman Sachs -- will tell you, a mandatory, declining cap on carbon is only the first step toward effective climate policy. It is necessary but not sufficient. That's why Democrats in Congress are pushing a number of supplemental bills, attempting to raise vehicle fuel-economy standards, remove tax breaks from fossil fuel industries, change utility regulation to encourage efficiency, boost basic research funding, extend production tax credits for renewable industries, and establish a Renewable Portfolio Standard to boost the amount of renewable energy in the U.S. mix.
Voting against these measures would boost McCain's cred with the conservative base, but damage his green credibility. Voting for them would do the reverse. So what has Mr. Straight Talk done?
He has gone AWOL:
- On June 21, 2007, the Senate voted on the Baucus amendment to the energy bill, which would have removed some oil company subsidies in order to fund renewable energy. The amendment failed to pass. Where was McCain? He didn't vote.
- On the same day, the Senate held a cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat and pass the energy bill. The vote succeeded. Where was McCain? He didn't vote.
- On Dec. 7, the Senate held another cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat on the energy bill, which had become substantially bolder after being aligned with the House version. The vote failed. Where was McCain? He didn't vote.
- On Dec. 13, 2007, the Senate held another cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat and pass the energy bill, which had the Renewable Portfolio Standard stripped out of it but retained a measure that would shift oil company subsidies to renewables. The vote failed -- by one vote, 59-40. Where was McCain? He didn't vote -- the only Senator not to do so.
- On Feb. 6, 2008, the Senate held another cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat and pass a stimulus bill containing a number of green energy incentives. The cloture motion failed, by one vote. Where was McCain? He didn't vote -- again, the only Senator not to do so.
You get the idea. The Democrats in Congress have been struggling to change US energy policy, to raise standards and shift some federal expenditures from fossil to renewable energy. In several cases, McCain could have made the difference between success and failure. In some cases -- as with regard to, e.g., the stimulus bill -- McCain's campaign has claimed that he would have voted against it anyway, so the result wouldn't have changed. In this way, McCain gets to signal to political insiders on the right that he's with them, without putting himself on record where the public can see it. That's a funny sort of straight talk.
On the campaign trail, McCain said: "Of course we want renewable energy. Of course we want better standards. I want to do everything I can to see that wind, solar, hydrogen, ethanol ... and all of these, including nuclear power, [are put to better use]." Everything he can? Well, one of the things Senators can do is vote on legislation. So maybe not everything.
Watch for my next post for more on McCain's easy ride from the press on climate change.
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
ROBERTS: ...there is no challenge of greater historical consequence facing the next US president than the climate crisis.
Mr. Roberts, laughable!!!
I absolutely guarantee you, and every enviro/global-warming cultists, that even if every legislation you wcan dream up & adopt (and impose) on all 6 billion+ human beings, you won't be able to control how much solar radiation is emitted at any time.
I believe in using all resources efficiently and waste as little as possible....that's it!
Posted by Happy at 02/11/2008 @ 10:22pm
I absolutely guarantee you, and every enviro/global-warming cultists, that even if every legislation you wcan dream up & adopt (and impose) on all 6 billion+ human beings, you won't be able to control how much solar radiation is emitted at any time
if it weren't abundantly clear to all of us already that this person has absolutely no idea what he/she is talking about......let's go to his next comment....
I believe in using all resources efficiently and waste as little as possible....that's it!
alrighty, then! thanks for the advice, happy!
Posted by darladoon at 02/11/2008 @ 11:43pm
all in all, a wonderful weblog! good work!
Posted by darladoon at 02/11/2008 @ 11:44pm
I'm curious on this one...who's to say that the green industry won't turn out to be just like the fossil fuel industry? My thoughts are if Congress takes money from one and gives to another, we will wind up with the same thing wrapped in a different package. Time to take out the hatchet.
The new industry will be more than happy to screw us over in the name of environmental justice.
Posted by ACook at 02/12/2008 @ 12:10am
She's been such a do-nothing in comparison to McCain!
do you want to provide evidence of this? serious, zero. show us how clinton was a "do nothing" compared to mccain. serious. can you?
I can't wait to hear why global warming is responsible for the -50 windchill in Chicago and much of the north central U.S.A. today
does this person need to say any further before we realize how.....uh.....ignorant he is? serious. how much more ignorant can you get than the above statement?
does "climate change" necessarily mean that every locality on the globe will see an increase in mean temperature? NO! do you hear that rio bravo?
let me spell it out for you LOUD AND CLEAR (and in english):
some parts of the world might see more rainfall
some parts of the world might see less rainfall
some parts of the world will get hotter
some parts of the world will get colder
NO climate scientist is saying "it will now get warmer, with each passing day, in every corner of the globe. we will now see more hurricanes every year."
it doesn't work like that, you see?
Funny thing, no one does stories on global warming in the national liberal media until spring and summer arrives! I guess it is just to darn cold to mention it now?
i used to teach kids, rio bravo, and you strike me as the type of kid who just didn't get it. couldn't get it. was like....you know....slow.
let me spell it out AGAIN:
global warming is sort of a misnomer. climate change should be the terminology to refer to a diverse set of weather conditions resulting from an increase of global mean temperature, over time. in this case, not much time, because things have grown so exponentially worse.
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 12:51am
why can't these christian anti-science people join the reality-based community?
people, the world is not 12,000 years old. ok?! we KNOW that! we don't need the bible to tell us how old the world is!
climate change is happening, ok? and WE ARE CAUSING IT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THIS, ALRIGHT?
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 12:54am
can't we just move on to more important topics?
i have an idea: why does america produce so many rio bravo's? i really would like to know.
in europe, there isn't a broad coalition of folk who are, like, prancing around and insisting that the world is 12,000 years old.
and, guess what? they're SOCIALISTS!
we could probably use some socialism around here.....
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 12:56am
and a hbigger increase delivered to you by the ALGOREs of the world, a CARBON TAx or some such...ypou will be taxed to "save the climate"...you can hear the hysterics in posts such as this above..
and the climate?..It will remain the same as it was before you were robbed...
and yet, on the other hand, we have these types of characters who insist that a 'carbon tax' is a gross injustice perpetrated by fringe 'cultist' idealogues.
it might be the instinctive solution, but is certainly the most pragmatic. pray, tell thee, how you propose to limit growth were it not for a 'tax' of some sort?
growth is the problem, and it must be curtailed, or diffused, in some way, else we run the risk of exacerbating existing climate patterns.
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 12:59am
Green industry will work very well if the govt stays out of the way...but,
given the nature of all those who "know better" and are here to help the people,of, course,...you need to be prepared for it to be very expensive and inefficient.
and what, honestly, has the government done? do you, personally, feel constrained by the government's doings? by their taxes on your consumption?
this government ain't doing shit, as far as i'm concerned. that's why i support, say, the redwoods league to buy up chunks of forests, and keep them as is.
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 01:01am
jommama,
you're creating different terms. if you want to talk about socialism, as it exists in europe, then we are definintely far to the right of europe.....
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 01:02am
The drive for profits is based on growth, which produces more products at a cheaper price to feed the growth in demand...
to grow..
fine, you keep on growing. and keep on polluting, and tearing down forests, and spoiling fresh streams and lakes, and reducing pristince habitats......for increased revenue.
love ya pal!
you make me want to smoke more weed....
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 01:21am
..we are too small to really effect in a large way during our short existance here on the planet so far.
Posted by JOMAMMA 02/12/2008 @ 01:08am
cfc's -- ozone layer.
NO, THIS IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING. IT JUST SHOWS THAT WE CAN AFFECT THE CLIMATE ON A GLOBAL SCALE. SHEESH!
TV 3 New Zealand-January 27 2008-Jonathan Shanklin was one of a group of scientists who helped bring about the Montreal Protocol – the international agreement on ozone control.
However, he says the world is still not moving fast enough.
On the Antarctic coastline where the ozone hole is open, he drew a diagram in the snow, illustrating how the world used to be with its protective layer; how it appeared 25 years ago when he first discovered the hole in the ozone layer and how that hole appears today.
"It's probably doubled in size since the first discovery," Mr Shanklin said. "And it was a wakeup call to the planet on how easily it is to change the atmosphere."
His discovery led to a world-wide ban on ozone-destroying chemicals in hairsprays and fridges, slowing the growth of the ozone hole.
In decades to come, the hole is expected to close again.
we messed it up and changed. it was our fault. now the holes are getting smaller because we did something.
Man-made chlorines, primarily chloroflourobcarbons (CFCs), contribute to the thinning of the ozone layer and allow larger quantities of harmful ultraviolet rays to reach the earth.
NO, THIS IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING. IT JUST SHOWS THAT WE CAN AFFECT THE CLIMATE ON A GLOBAL SCALE. SHEESH!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 01:52am
The Death of a Sea
Thre are few stories better than that of the sad fate of the Aral Sea to illustrate humankind's abuse of the environment and its devastating consequences. The inland sea is located between Kazakhstan to the north and Uzbekistan to the south. In 1960, when those countries were still part of the Soviet Union, the sea was the fourth largest inland body of water, covering 26,300 square miles, an area about the size of Belgium and the Netherlands combined.
Then, beginning in the 1960s, Soviet agriculture demands and horrendous planning began to drain water from the sea and from the two great rivers that feed it (the Amu Darya from the north and the Syr Darya from the south) faster than the water could be replenished.
The sea started to shrink rapidly. As it did, the level of its salinity rose, and by 1977 the catch from the once-important fishery had declined by over 75 percent. Still the water level continued to fall, as the sea provided irrigation for cotton fields and for other agricultural production. The same Soviet planning that brought the world the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster in Ukraine, stood by paralyzed as the Aral Sea began to disappear before the world's eyes.
Now, in reality, geographical name Aral Sea is a fiction, because it has shrunk in size and depth so much that a land bridge separates the so-called Greater Sea to the north from the Lesser Sea to the South. What was a single sea has lost 75 percent of its water and 50 percent of its surface area in the past 40 years. That is roughly equivalent to draining Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. The Uzbek town of Munak was once the Aral Sea's leading port, with its fishermen harvesting the sea's abundant catch. Now there are few fish, but even if there were many, it would not help the people of Munak. The town is now in the middle of a desert; the shoreline of the Lesser Sea is 50 miles away.
so you see, mr maasch, we really can muck things up very easily
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 01:53am
Posted by DARLADOON 02/12/2008 @ 01:21am
great work darla,
sorry i didn't get here earlier to back you up against these greedheads.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 01:54am
"national liberal media"
now here's an interesting phenomenon. it's about as vague as o'reilley's "secular progressive" (as if being 'religious' were a requirement for being a sane citizen)
first, what is the "national" media? does that mean NPR, or just all forms of media, both public and private?
second, is the national media always and already "liberal"?
where are there non-liberal media sources, and are these "national" or outer-national? just curious.
last time i checked, there were innumerable non-liberal voices all across the media spectrum. for instance, tom delay (is he liberal?) regularly makes appearances on television and radio, and he's a convicted criminal with a long history of serious abuse of power and money.
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 02:17am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/11/2008 @ 11:54pm
Showing ones ignorance in public, what courage. What a complete misunderstanding of climate change.
Posted by JOMAMMA 02/12/2008 @ 01:08am
duh, green tech produces growth, duh, nookyular industry produces gubment subsidies,
But hey, you keep that head buried with your dinosaur philosophies.
Why do you want to leave all of those green profits to the European socialists?
.ask a "working American family"....
Posted by JOMAMMA 02/12/2008 @ 12:59am
Let us know if you see one, John. Also, could you tell us who is paying for Free Iraq? If you want to bitch about taxes, why do you always leave out the $9,000,000,000 a month you are borrowing from your kids? Why does Chimpy leave it out of his budget?
hmm, I guess this is just more hippy lies, followed by damn hippy lies, and the "librool media put it right our front, on page 15:
By Jamey Keaten Associated Press Sunday, September 16, 2007; Page A15
Arctic ice has shrunk to the lowest level on record, new satellite images show, raising the possibility that the Northwest Passage that eluded famous explorers will become an open shipping lane.
The European Space Agency said nearly 200 satellite photos this month taken together showed an ice-free passage along northern Canada, Alaska and Greenland, and ice retreating to its lowest level since such images were first taken in 1978.
do us all a favor RIO and MAASCH, look up pictures of the arctic in 1970, then look at recent pictures, then tell us about the hippy lie of climate change. The hippy lie that the CEO of Mobil believes in.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/12/2008 @ 07:45am
"conservation is a hippy lie to run America into the ground. Why should I care if my kids don't have the energy they will need ? Science, which we eschew and mock as liberalism run amok, will save us at the last minute. We have faith."- Neo-con philosophy.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/12/2008 @ 07:48am
What's better than conservation?
WAR!!!
Much more fun, makes us feel all warm and tough, creates wealth in the hands of the well connected and it kills brown people that might want to use our oil.
Yeeehaahhhh.
Small buildings and cars are for the rest of the world, we AmerKins deserve to use up all we want, it is our God given right!!
Posted by crabwalk at 02/12/2008 @ 07:58am
Mr Roberts, really a waste of time.
If McCain wins, he's the best you'll get on the GOP side.
If he loses....the disappointment you'll feel will be doubled, as Obama or Clinton fail to live upto the agenda goals you want set.
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2008 @ 09:12am
DAVE,
keep fighting the good fight. people are finally starting to wake up to the very real and dire problem. some people will stick their heads in the sand until their asses burn off.
mccain is, even as i tap this out, trying to convince a pack of short sighted con-tards he is as con-tarded as them. if he weren't a regugnant i'd feel sorry for him. so he runs around talking right wing con-tard talk, reassuring the con-tards he's a con-tard, and at least manages to avoid voting his concience.
thats as good as it gets with the repugnants!
go O-TRAIN! woo wooo!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 09:29am
Posted by MASK 02/12/2008 @ 09:12am
FFFFFLLLuuush.............
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 09:36am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/12/2008 @ 08:52am
we means humans.
we made an ozone hole and we can make seas disappear.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 09:39am
This is a very serious problem," says U-M's Donald Scavia, professor in the School of Natural Resources and Environment (SNRE) and lead investigator of the project. "In the 1960s and 1970s, the Lake Erie dead zone was a key driver for enacting the Clean Water Act and stimulating the environmental movement.
"We thought the problem was solved, and the surprise is in the last few years the dead zone is back."
A dead zone is an area of oxygen-starved water that cannot sustain aquatic habitat, says Scavia, who is also the director of Michigan Sea Grant. The most recent zone, which was discovered through routine monitoring of the lake, materialized in Lake Erie's central basin and can cover as much as three-fourths of the area, he says.
************************************************************************
In the Lake Erie case, researchers will examine three main culprits and the relationships among them: excess phosphorous, zebra mussels and global warming. Of the three causes, nitrogen from farm runoff and treatment plants is the best known.
The nitrogen in fertilizer causes algae blooms that sink to the bottom and are consumed by bacteria, which diminishes oxygen.
The second theory is that the zebra mussels may shunt the oxygen-consuming organic matter from the near shore to the bottom waters. In the third scenario, global warming has caused the layer of bottom water to become thinner, with less oxygen.
The five Great Lakes contain 18 percent of the world's surface freshwater and 90 percent of the surface freshwater in the United States; Lake Erie is the smallest by volume. They serve as the focus for a multibillion-dollar tourist and recreation industry; supply 40 million people with drinking water; provide habitat for wildlife and fish; and support transportation and agriculture production.
************************************************************************
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Lake Erie has a dead zone and it is growing. Massive amounts of research are needed to solve the puzzle and, hopefully, find a cure.
More needs to be done to protect one of the world's finest freshwater fisheries. Funding for Lake Erie research must be found and the door slammed shut on the invasion of exotic species.
"There are so many things occurring on Lake Erie and they are happening so rapidly," said Reutter. "We may put all of the facts we have gathered together and come up with a hypothesis for the dead zone, but we must get out and do the research."
The problem could be the proliferation of quagga mussels, global warming or simply an inability to correctly estimate the flow of phosphorous into Lake Erie from sewage treatment plants and agricultural fields, said Reutter.
"We have to do the tests and do them over long periods of time," he said. "We have come up with a hypothesis before and we have been wrong."
Most at the hearing were surprised to discover that quagga mussels were now far more numerous than their cousins, the zebra mussels. Both are exotic species from Europe and filter-feed from Lake Erie's waters. Both spew phosphorous as waste but quagga mussels release more of it.
Zebra mussels are still prolific, covering every rock reef along the bottom of Lake Erie. Nine years ago, zebra mussels outnumbered quagga mussels 100-to-1. In Western Lake Erie test sites there are now 10 times more quagga mussels than zebra mussels.
Zebra mussels are bad for Lake Erie, despite that their filter-feeding has cleared once-dingy waters. Quagga mussels have been deemed worse. And the next little mussel -- there are three species that have yet to arrive in the Great Lakes -- may be even more devastating.
Exotic species that have arrived in recent years also include the round and tubenose gobies, the ruffe and spiny and fish hook fleas. All made the trip to America in the ballast water of ocean freighters.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 09:49am
MARYBRETBRAD:
so there you have it.
lake erie is dead again. up to 3/4 of it.
climate change + invasive species + pollution from fertilizers = WE
Last time I checked Lake Erie and Ontario were still the same size they always were, and the awful polution of Erie during the '70s (our most collectivist phase) had been completely reversed.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/12/2008 @ 08:52am
seems you don't check frequently enough.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 09:52am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/12/2008 @ 09:36am
Come up with a lists of 10 environmental policy agenda items....and I'll tell you how many of them Obama or Hillary will push. And I'll bet it's 5 or less.
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2008 @ 10:18am
And I'll bet it's 5 or less.
Posted by MASK 02/12/2008 @ 10:18am
nope.
2 or less.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 10:27am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/12/2008 @ 10:27am
Sorry...was trying to be optimistic!
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2008 @ 10:44am
the industrial paradigm shift greenward will not necc mean greedy conglomorates won't continue to make buttloads of money. it would be nice if in the first phase of the shift a far sighted and benevolent government would indeed redistribute a little wealth and enable small time players the ability to compete and possibly flower - inject some new blood into business and enable small scale, sometimes localized, green-esque business to prosper and grow.
eventually the technology that would result from a societal commitment to becoming ecologically beneficial and countering damage already done will yeild wondrous, unforeseen benefits.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 10:49am
furthermore i would think it nice to have a commitment to some higher purpose. a monument to and for posterity, more than simply the baddest military and biggest pile of bling - although both of those make our dearest dreams more possible should we act wisely).
an organized, civilization defining struggle to wisely master the secrets of stewarding our own world and implement such, is indeed not a pipe dream, but increasingly unavoidable.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 10:54am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/12/2008 @ 11:10am
actually, i imagine you "sit" corrected :=}
now, turn down the heat.
please.
fz.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 11:23am
Sorry...was trying to be optimistic!
Posted by MASK 02/12/2008 @ 10:44am
i'm optimistic.
i'm just not waiting for "goredot".
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 11:23am
ultimatly all the real, hard, applied, science that will have to go into solving problems of wastage and how much a given ecology can support of this or that stresser. blah blah blah...will have powerful positive repercussions in terms of quality and security of human life.
it also paves the way for serious exploration/colonization/harvesting of space. all star trek crap aside, there is a big solar system out there and good reasons to go there.
bereft of delusions of conquest i think people need such do-able dreams and its a pity that the end of the cold war resulted in...this, rather than the true human rennaisance it once seemed to suggest.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 12:26pm
Every single time the major media run a headline about storms and global warming, Drudge finds another article on a scientist who is warning about cooling and pairs them together
send me an article to which drudge has linked, and i will find a thoroughly discredited crackpot scientist, working alone in some lonely wing of some lonely natural sciences co-ed building.....and probable jerking off to drudge.
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 12:45pm
Posted by DARLADOON 02/12/2008 @ 12:45pm
or...getting lots of "research grants" from exxon....
the definition of scientist by the ostrich people is pretty squishy too...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 12:47pm
ibble,
yeah, exactly. and these lawyers who defend the environment for non-profits like save the redwoods, or greenpeace, or whatvever? many of them are lured by lucrative jobs in the private sector, but realize that true commitment to the environment is a very unrewarding, painful experience. because the marybretbard's of the world are out there defending their right to polllute, to tout the "reasonable" success of open markets and free trade, etc, etc.
hey, exxon pays more, i'll go for that. take care of my kids. buy a new home.
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 12:51pm
sorry for being so hard on you earlier, rio bravo, that was pretty mean.
we should all keep the dialogue civil, no?
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 12:52pm
Posted by DARLADOON 02/12/2008 @ 12:52pm
rio's like an old desert rock. besides, he probobly enyoys gettin a tongue lashing and ass branding from a black hippy lesbian....go figger, eh?
but the environment thing is serious and rio's got his head deep buried, like a lot of others. and notice how certain types project their rampant mammonism onto "thuh scientists"?
"its all a big lefty scientist plot to get rich and take my money!" lol!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 12:58pm
i'm just not waiting for "goredot".----Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/12/2008 @ 11:23am
No, there's ONLY ONE poster here who is doing that. Poor delusional bastard keeps posting stories on how Obama is winning...then posts on how it's "COULD be a brokered Convention and Gore would take the nomination".
It's another reason I'd like to see Obama lock it up on March 4th...shut up FRANKGRITS and knock that silliness out of HSUBFOOLS.
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2008 @ 12:58pm
"hey, exxon pays more, i'll go for that. take care of my kids. buy a new home."
Posted by DARLADOON 02/12/2008 @ 12:51pm
Well DD, what do you expect? Money before honor gets 'em everytime.
Posted by ACook at 02/12/2008 @ 12:59pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/12/2008 @ 12:58pm
I'd love to see a SERIOUS and drawn-out explanation from RIO on why he opposes the idea of global warming.
If purely "Them lib'ruls are going to use it to impose their socialism on us"...like to see EXACTLY how he sees that playing out. Does he think liberal politicians are going to drive a stake in the heart of the economy...just to satisfy a "bunch of tree-huggers"...and then LOSE the next election cycle?!?!? Or what?
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2008 @ 1:01pm
i find it odd that the right wing bashes al gore, when in reality, gore is the one person the right wing should be heralding, as he is such an incredible capitalist. a real free market guy.
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 1:02pm
anyone who sees more "green jobs"....more investment....etc....more revenue....etc...in green industry.....
this is al gore. and the marybretbards and maasch's should applaud him. he's giving financial incentive to green ideas....
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 1:03pm
Posted by MASK 02/12/2008 @ 1:01pm | ignore this person
guess its them damned reptilians!!! oops...wrong nutcase...uh...i mean "liberul scientist media east coast elite tree hugger dumpster divers!"
there he sits, a good natured, politically retarded, high plains rock, slowly succumbing to the wind and elements...holding his ground....
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 1:11pm
Posted by DARLADOON 02/12/2008 @ 1:03pm
good for gore.
and tapping into the small/mid entrepeneur capitalist with a set of green tilting laws, tax breaks, etc. would not be the dumbest move a political party could take.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 1:13pm
"a real free market guy".
Posted by DARLADOON 02/12/2008 @ 1:02pm
Yeah right!! That clown is all about his "free market" ride he'll get once his ponzi carbon scheme starts rolling.
Posted by ACook at 02/12/2008 @ 1:14pm
This is a re-post from previous thread.
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 02/09/2008 @ 01:43am | ignore this person
Posted by usc1 at 02/12/2008 @ 1:15pm
Anyone who disagrees with the "theory" that Global Warming is caused by man, is instantly branded a crackpot. This is not only un American but dangerous for science. Here is another secret... the earth is not flat! I know I'm a heretic but so be it!
Posted by abell12ct at 02/12/2008 @ 1:16pm
Someone also asked who the global activists turned skeptics were. Here is a partial list.
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=9469
Posted by usc1 at 02/12/2008 @ 1:16pm
Abell:
Here's another one: DDT is bad for the African continent.
Actually, with all the deaths caused by malaria that could have been avoided by DDT, it makes me wonder if DD thinks that it was a good thing for the world to ban DDT.
Posted by usc1 at 02/12/2008 @ 1:21pm
Anyone who disagrees with the "theory" that Global Warming is caused by man, is instantly branded a crackpot
we've moved well beyond the theoretical, my friend. unless of course you're talking about the theory that human beings could see bibilical catastrophes in the next 10 years. now i'm willing to debate that.....
but as for human-induced warming? there is simply no doubt. i mean, serious. there is no doubt. do some reading. 99.5% of climate scientists are not debating this anymore. they are debating what the effects will be. and where. and when. that's pretty much it.
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 1:22pm
it makes me wonder if DD thinks that it was a good thing for the world to ban DDT.
this is totally irrelevant, and you have brought it up before.
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 1:22pm
Another global warming activist turned "skeptic"
Lindzen (sp?) He's not 100% skeptic, last I heard, but was calling for more research because it's not as certain anymore.
Posted by usc1 at 02/12/2008 @ 1:23pm
folks, if you have children, i would start praying. it's gonna be bad before they die.
there will be wars of fresh water in the next 5 years.
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 1:24pm
sizzle sizzle - the sound of ostrich asses burning...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 1:25pm
DD:
It is relevant to the topic at hand, in a roundabout sort of way.
But I'm still curious what you think about all those preventable deaths in Africa. Good or bad?
Posted by usc1 at 02/12/2008 @ 1:26pm
usc1, we all know what ddt is about. i take no position on it.
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 1:27pm
It's very effective, and it is what conservatives have been bitching about on abortion, taxes, free speech, political freedom on campus, etc. for years.
It's what you guys have been bitching about with regard to corporations for years.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/12/2008 @ 09:01am
Yep, the conservatives run the corproations that print the news, but they are the victims. Always the victims. Victims of "activist judges", 70% of whom are appointed by republicans. victims of the 5% of Americans that are atheist. Victims of the wmd's that never were.
Poor victim cons.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/12/2008 @ 1:27pm
Well Darla in science everything starts as a theory. Thats where Human Induced Global Warming is right now. It's a theory. It is not an absolute or a law. The problem with the global warming debate is that people who don't know science are stating things that are just not correct.
Posted by abell12ct at 02/12/2008 @ 1:28pm
i take a non-ethnocentric position on all issues related to the environment. human beings are not the most imporant creatures on earth. all life on earth has equal value in my view.....
all species deserve to live and flourish. in relative peace.....
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 1:29pm
Well Darla in science everything starts as a theory. Thats where Human Induced Global Warming is right now. It's a theory. It is not an absolute or a law. The problem with the global warming debate is that people who don't know science are stating things that are just not correct.
this is actually incorrect. they have tested the theories, and arrived at certain basic conclusions. one of those conclusions is that most of the recent warming is human-induced. there is no doubt about this.
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 1:30pm
Posted by USC1 02/12/2008 @ 1:21pm ,
so, you have continued to use DDT when the underlying science had not been worked out? You would have doomed species in order to save how many lives?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/12/2008 @ 1:31pm
Also where are you getting your facts. please don't throw out a number like 99.5% of climate scientists are not debating this anymore.
Posted by abell12ct at 02/12/2008 @ 1:31pm
usc1, we all know what ddt is about. i take no position on it.
Posted by DARLADOON 02/12/2008 @ 1:27pm
Nice non-answer.
Posted by usc1 at 02/12/2008 @ 1:31pm
Ok Darla thanks for clearing up the fact that you don't care about facts.
Posted by abell12ct at 02/12/2008 @ 1:32pm
"the world" never banned DDT, did it?
If only we had not banned PCB's, and Thalidimide!!!
and Asbestos in schools and office buildings!!
and lead paint! And lead in gasoline!
Damn librools!
Haven't you all seen the economic collapse brought on by these do-gooders?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/12/2008 @ 1:35pm
Posted by ABELL12CT 02/12/2008 @ 1:28pm
evolution and relativity are theories too...problems with them?
the scientific consensus is just about as solid on anthropomorphic sourced damage as a large part of rapid global warming.
sorry thats a scary fact that may require a change in how we live. but i bet there is a certain economic theory to which you adhere that also is seen by many as threatened by the ramifications of the scientific findings on global warming. i dont know, but i don't think that ma, apple pie, amuhruhkuh, capitalism and all that good stuff are at all threatened by a greening of our way of life.
all those things and more are most definately threatened by a continued ostriching of the movers and shakers of our civilization as well as the ass burned masses.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 1:38pm
Can any of the cons comment on CO2 and it's relation to coral reef die off?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/12/2008 @ 1:38pm
the power of the left is so strong that we have tricked the Pentagon and DoD into believeing the effects of climate change may necesitate special plans for the deployment of defense resources.
all based on hippy lies.
AAAAAHHHH.
THE POWER!!!
Posted by crabwalk at 02/12/2008 @ 1:43pm
Posted by CRABWALK 02/12/2008 @ 1:38pm
solar flares! or something...
here...here's a great authoritative website that explains it all!
www.werenotfundedbybigoilwellnotreallyscientistsagainsttruth.com
see?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 1:46pm
Only thing I find curious is....
the climate scientists who dispute global warming is man-made...
always seem to have a grant from something usually called the "Global Climate Research Institute"...
which in turn is funded by something called "Americans For Energy Independence"....
which in turn is funded by the American Petroleum Institute.
Just...odd.
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2008 @ 1:48pm
Just...odd.
Posted by MASK 02/12/2008 @ 1:48pm
i have yet to find one which isnt! lol!
"over 20,000 scientists, many with advanced degrees..." claimed one...
MANY with "advanced degrees"? in what??? lol...oh my, guess at least they weren't OUTRIGHT LYING!!! lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 1:51pm
hey...you got an mba...yer a scientist...whaddaya think about global warming?
"well uh...i'm an mba...uh..."
unsure it is! we'll count that as "against"...next "scientist" please!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 1:54pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/12/2008 @ 1:52pm
sure, but you guys are now able to grow subtropical plants unthinkable outside greenhouses just 20 years ago. the people sounding the alarm ain't brother free love and the psychadelic moonies of zeta rticuli.
they are the vast majority of respected phd holding scientists!!!!! and not some kinda brainy nerdiac donald trump legion with how to make a killin in science degrees...
you know?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 1:59pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/12/2008 @ 1:51pm\
That's like "creation scientists"...check out their creds sometimes. It's usually a "physics master's" or a "economics doctorate" or a "honorary doctorate from The John Calvin Institute of Zurich"
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2008 @ 2:17pm
the senate just passed the new fisa bill: now, the white house has vast new warrantless spying powers. AND, not only that.....but all telecoms have been granted retroactive immunity for breaking the law.
oh, and the prez can break the new law if he wants.
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 2:19pm
Posted by MASK 02/12/2008 @ 2:17pm |
or even a law degree...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 2:25pm
Posted by MASK 02/12/2008 @ 2:17pm |
no no no! its not "creation scientists" its "intelligent design theorists"...like in christian biology textbooks the term, "creation scientists" was replaced by the term, "intelligent design theorists" and re released for fundyvangelists trying to sneak "creationism" and religion into publicly funded science curiculla...lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 2:37pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/12/2008 @ 12:13am
Once again Rio your lack of knowledge overwhelms me. How do you explain the Global dought thats going on. LA finally got some rain after almost a year of none. When I was younger we used to get lots of rain. Global warming isn't precisely just a warming up of everything. It leads climactic abnormalities. Such as tornadoes in Los Angeles which I had never seen till 4 or 5 years ago.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/12/2008 @ 2:38pm
The hypothesis that humans are causing the planet to warm has not been demonstrated beyond doubt.
mary, i'm not sure how you spend your free time, but.....i hate to tell you this......but there was no doubt about this even 5 or 6 years ago. nobody, and i mean NOBODY, is debating whether climate change is anthropogenic.
even those paid off by exxon willingly concede that humans are causing at least much of the recent warming.
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 2:39pm
at no time in recorded history is there an instance of such increased magnitude of temperature in such a short period of time.
and guess when things really got really bad: right after WWII, when the west went through on orgy of economic growth.
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 2:42pm
Posted by DARLADOON 02/12/2008 @ 2:42pm | ignore
the graphs approach singularity - scary...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 2:51pm
mary, we're not "debating" anything. there IS no debate about whether much of the recent warming is anthropogenic.
i'll take the IPCC's conclusions over yours any day of the week.
their own conclusions were "much of the recent warming".
let me repeat that:
"MUCH OF THE RECENT WARMING"
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 2:53pm
the medieval warming period was, besides, a 400 year period.
we're talking about a 50 year period here, post WWII, in which temps have dramatically spiked in direct correlation to increased carbon output from increased economic growth and productivity.
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2008 @ 2:56pm
All of the people on here saying because we are having a cold winter right now means there is no global warming don't understand that global warming is not the proper term. Which means all of your data about how it's getting cold means nothing. Global warming doesn't cause it to just get warmer. It raises the mean temperature of the globe but in it's real effects causes global climactic abnormalities. Like worldwide droughts like the one we are in now. Abnormally large huricanes, massive tornado activity (such as the the one that hit in LOS ANGELES two years ago), random uncommon snowfall (like the snow that has fallen in Los Angeles in the last 4 years or the hail storm in Compton.) These aren't typical weather occurences. I don't think I'd ever heard of snowfall or hail or tornadoes in Los Angeles previous to the last 5 years. All of a sudden our weather is all over the place and this is common trending amongst many places aournd the world. Odd climactic changes on a massive scale.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/12/2008 @ 3:03pm
For informational purposes only, see http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/category/global-warming-hoax/ And also: http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=2659 I have no formal knowledge on this but from the mounting evidence most scientists are not in agreement on what the actual root cause of global warming, or climate change, is. But the current analysis from leading scientists suggests that the Sun has more to do with this problem than our own contributions have been promoting.
Posted by dobropet at 02/12/2008 @ 3:20pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/12/2008 @ 3:11pm |
Ever heard of acid rain?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/12/2008 @ 3:21pm
Hundreds of thousands. With DDT, marlia deaths were measured in tens to hundreds. Without, they went back up to tens of thousands per year.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/12/2008 @ 2:03pm
so, what would the long term effects of lead based DDT dispersal have been on eco-systems?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/12/2008 @ 3:22pm
See this is the problem with us as a society we are too short sighted. We only look at the now and never the future. What will happen to us if we keep using fossil based fuels 100 or 200 years from now. Human's are unlike any other species on this planet. We don't act instinctively to increase the ability of generations and the human race to survive. Instead we act selfishly to horde as much money as possible with no care of what happens to future generations or the results of our actions. If people could think about the future beyond the limit of their own greed and lust for power. If people could have seen that far ahead, guns would never have been created, the atom bomb would never have been made. Or the government would have at least listened to the Alamo scientists who said that it should never ever be used.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/12/2008 @ 3:27pm
Isn't it funny, ironic not ha ha, that the same people that were afraid of the non-existent Iraqi WMd's are many of the same people that would like to sit idly by while Climate change increases, because they do not want to admit that their lifestyles are detrimental to their children?
the same people that crow about business creating jobs want to stifle creativity in engineering because it is part of a liberal plot to undermine the status quo.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/12/2008 @ 3:28pm
How do Believers balance one of Gods species with lost human lives? If God chose to make a critter, and our actions cause it's total extinction, how do you guys decide the morality of outcome?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/12/2008 @ 3:41pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/12/2008 @ 3:27pm
What will be the results of your actions on the 7th generation out? Is your profit more important than the well being of your grandchildrens grandchildrens grandchildrens kids?
More damn hippy philosophy.
Posted by crabwalk at 02/12/2008 @ 3:59pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/12/2008 @ 2:37pm
Sorry, yeah, you're right. Most of them have abandoned "pure creation science" for the vagueries of "ID", since they've hit a brick wall trying to dispute evolutionary evidence.
So I guess NOW the theory is that "Adam" was actually SEVERAL individuals from proto-Australopithecenes to Cro-Magnons...all named "Adam" and all made from dust over 2 million years by a "Designer"!
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2008 @ 4:34pm
The "7th generation" approach to decision-making resonates very strongly for me. But then, I lived in Greenwich Village in the sixties and seventies.
My gut feeling is there's a really strong chance that the whole climate change "debate" will come to an abrupt end in the very not distant future due to natural events that make an indelible impression regarding the raw power of the earth. I'd much rather my gut is mistaken, and I hope that's not what we need to get us beyond this sort of nonsense.
The problems that lead to human-caused climate change can be viewed on the surface by our exploitation of fossil fuel, but I think they're really much more fundamental problems with our approach to things. I don't expect us to resolve these deeper issues very quickly, but a lot of bright people think we really are running out of time. We need to take a long hard look at ourselves and ask if we're all being as deeply honest as we can be. I don't think it's a good idea to be patient with a lack of honesty, in ourselves or others, any longer. I'm not saying anyone here is being dishonest or anything. I'm just saying.
Posted by Donald Weed at 02/12/2008 @ 4:37pm
Posted by MASK 02/12/2008 @ 4:34pm
2 steps forward, one back...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 4:48pm
You know whats going to be funny though. Is if the climate change issue DOES explode and they figure out we are destroying the planet. Republicans will claim to have known all along and blame the damn liberals for the problems they are creating. Just like they have with the economy even though the recession kicked in on Bush's watch. Awesome isn't it?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/12/2008 @ 5:20pm
You know whats going to be funny though. Is if the climate change issue DOES explode and they figure out we are destroying the planet. Republicans will claim to have known all along and blame the damn liberals for the problems they are creating. Just like they have with the economy even though the recession kicked in on Bush's watch. Awesome isn't it?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/12/2008 @ 5:20pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/12/2008 @ 5:07pm |
are you a climatologist?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 5:35pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 02/12/2008 @ 5:20pm
What I think is funny is when GW activists claim that the debate is over and scientists agree, and when faced with the evidence that it isn't and they aren't, the activists continue to say that the debate is over.
As far as the recession goes...the funny part is that the economy was already starting to slow down before Bush took office and the recession was in effect before Bush's first economic plan was approved. It's also funny that you guys try to pin the recession on Bush but never give credit to him for making it one of the mildest on record.
Posted by usc1 at 02/12/2008 @ 7:10pm
Frosty,
Current (Feb.) issue of Nat'l Geographic has an article "Drying of he West" that talks about drought cycles and water, your favorite subject!
It turns out, based on studies of tree rings from about the 8th century, there were several megaDrought periods that lasted for 50 to 200 years.....one of which may have led to the disappearance of the Anasazies who dwelled in the Mesa Verde area (BTW: spectacular & highly recommended). Turns out the 20th century was one of the wettest and allowed Hoover Dam to be so successful in building up an uniquely American culture out in the SW desert!
El Paso & San Diego are both considering Desalination plants....recognizing that one hundred yrs of record is just a tiny speck compared to over a thousand years' of tree-ring records. Mono Lake in Cal, at one time was a tiny lake, trees grew around it and later were drowned when the lake grew tremendously.....now tha LA has diverted most of its water and level has dropped almost 50 ft., tree stumps are showing up....providing samples for the scientists.
Oh, did I mention those megaDrought periods coincided with WARM periods!
This article is a Must-Read for anyone that are affected by the on-going drought in the American SW.....
Another thing before I head out.....farmers have the first dibs for Hoover's water...for $0.50 per acre-foot, that's over 320,000 gallons, for less than nothing.....administering that pittance seems hardly worth the paper & ink!
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2008 @ 7:55pm
....recognizing that one hundred yrs of record is just a tiny speck....
Posted by HAPPY 02/12/2008 @ 7:55pm
Should have clarified that "one hundred yrs" are the precipitation record on which water use and water storage have been based on. Not the much more extensive (over 1,200 years) and highly correlated tree ring data found in several studied areas of the SW.
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2008 @ 7:58pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/12/2008 @ 7:55pm
living in the desert is stupid.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 10:34pm
living in the desert is stupid.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/12/2008 @ 10:34pm
Maybe that's why those who've done it for thousands of years.... ahem, Arabs & Muslims, can come up with dreams of 72 Virgins, flagellate (?sp)themselves into a mess, stones people, cut hands off (and more),....for diversions......sensory deprivation of the extreme kind.....360 degrees of sand, cloudless skies, no wonder cavorting w/72 virgins sound so good!
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2008 @ 11:53pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/12/2008 @ 11:53pm
there are many fertile regions in the middle east.
don't forget civilization started there.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 12:43am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/13/2008 @ 12:43am
You specifically said "desert" in response to my Hoovering w/SW desert!
We're NOT talking about the "fertile regions" or the sporadic oasis of the desserts! Focus...on sleeeeeeeeep!
Posted by Happy at 02/13/2008 @ 12:47am
I think you're `triangulating' me.....how did I coin that? I know you know!
Posted by Happy at 02/13/2008 @ 12:48am
We're NOT talking about the "fertile regions" or the sporadic oasis of the desserts! Focus...on sleeeeeeeeep!
Posted by HAPPY 02/13/2008 @ 12:47am
'scuse the inaccuracy.
having a modern city of millions in the desert is stupid.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 12:55am
having a modern city of millions in the desert is stupid
unless millions of people lived like the tuareg, which they don't.
Posted by darladoon at 02/13/2008 @ 01:49am
Campbell wants British Columbians to fight climate change, improve health care
4 hours ago
VICTORIA - British Columbia's success in fighting climate change and reforming health care is largely up to the public, says B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell.
The throne speech said British Columbians will be given the opportunity to join the fight against climate change by participating in energy-saving programs that include reducing power use, dumping old cars and planting trees.
Campbell announced what he said was the most aggressive green plan in North America in last year's throne speech and this year's speech again focused on measures to meet the government's goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 33 per cent by 2020.
The goal is founded on personal responsibility, science and economics, Lt.-Gov. Steven Point read from the speech Tuesday.
"It will be driven by one simple truth: It is people who cause global warming and it is people who must act to stop it," he said.
Waiting for others to act on global warming is not a solution because it compounds the problems, Point said.
wow. planting trees. reducing power usage. what strange ideas. don't you agree mr. mask?
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyGVjmOc4X4_fgQKCOqC2NMdX3 XQ
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 01:51am
Sorry to impose reality on your existence, but quite a few people are still debating.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/13/2008 @ 12:56pm
forget climate change.
tell me why burning fossil fuels is healthy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 1:30pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kVlu3kh7DU
President Bush will clear up the matter. Enjoy.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/13/2008 @ 1:54pm
that was hilarious oustbush! but i already knew that adam and eve drove an excursion. i mean, duh! of course.
Posted by loveloki at 02/13/2008 @ 2:15pm
that was hilarious oustbush! but i already knew that adam and eve drove an excursion. i mean, duh! of course.
Posted by LOVELOKI 02/13/2008 @ 2:15pm | ignore this person
I'm glad you liked it, Loki. I really appreciate how he calls it "Global WarmingS."
By the way, I enjoyed your descriptions of Butte and Montana on a previous thread not too long ago.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/13/2008 @ 2:49pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/13/2008 @ 1:54pm
yeah!
nature needs to listen to us.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 3:09pm
thanks oustbush. we are overrun by pine beetles here. all of the forests are turning red. we are having a normal butte winter this year. but for the past five years, a person barely needs a coat. if we could have a few normal winters in a row, with the usual 40 below, the pine beetles would die off. they couldn't survive the cold.
of course, the anti-global warming people around here say the pine beetles are here because of the environmentalists. ya see, if they'd just allow anything-goes logging like they used to, (lots of clear cuts and roads everywhere), those pine beetles would just go away!
Posted by loveloki at 02/13/2008 @ 3:32pm
i love winter. it's my favorite. it would be great to have winter every year, not once every five. there are stunning mountains south of town here in beautiful butte called the highlands. my entire life until about 10 years ago, the snow did not melt off them til august. this was like clockwork. the snow never ever melted off the highlands til august. for the past five years, the snow is gone from the highlands by may. its a sad situation.
Posted by loveloki at 02/13/2008 @ 3:38pm
Loki,
I am in the Blue Ridge "mountains" and we almost never get snow. Every year this depresses me more and more--so I know what you mean. That's sad about the beetle infestation. And the loss of true winter and snow. The mountains I used to see there still haunt me with their beauty. There's a place up in northwestern Montana, near my old home, called Rock Lake in Sanders County, that is slated for a potentially devastating mining operation--so, when I saw that Obama is opposed to reforming the 1872 Mining Act, I was shocked. There is much to like about him and he is probably our best hope for some Democratic gains in the legislature, but that is personally a huge disappointment.
Thanks for the Montana perspective.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/13/2008 @ 4:42pm
yeah!
nature needs to listen to us.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/13/2008 @ 3:09pm | ignore this person
And you listen to George: leader of the World!
Posted by Oustbush at 02/13/2008 @ 4:46pm
Frosty, what a coincidence....or just competitve `science'......the Nat'l Georgraphics does a major story on "Drying of the West" and today, from the Scripps Institute:
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Lake Mead Could Be Dry by 2021
Analysis of current and scheduled use and human-induced climate change sparks urgent warning from researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego
Scripps Institution of Oceanography/UC San Diego There is a 50 percent chance Lake Mead, a key source of water for millions of people in the southwestern United States, will be dry by 2021 if climate changes as expected and future water usage is not curtailed, according to a pair of researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego.
Without Lake Mead and neighboring Lake Powell, the Colorado River system has no buffer to sustain the population of the Southwest through an unusually dry year, or worse, a sustained drought. In such an event, water deliveries would become highly unstable and variable, said research marine physicist Tim Barnett and climate scientist David Pierce.....
Posted by Happy at 02/13/2008 @ 8:27pm
The difference between the Geographics & Scrpps' is the much more rigorous science-based study of 1,200 yrs of tree rings cited by the Geographics as compared to global-warming cultists w/Scripps.
Posted by Happy at 02/13/2008 @ 8:31pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 02/13/2008 @ 3:32pm
wow. my brother is a lumberjack in b.c.
not one pine tree left. all dead. the beetles used to die back in winter.
now it is alberta. no one ever thought it could cross the rockies.
wrong.
this will ultimately kill ALL the pine trees in north america.
and probably make its way to eurasia soon, too.
after all, we've got the CHINESE emerald ash borer here. all the ash trees are dead.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 10:11pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/13/2008 @ 4:42pm
soon you'll have the pine beetle
AND
the emerald ash borer
AND
the asian long-horned beetle.
LORAX, HELP US QUICK!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 10:13pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/13/2008 @ 8:27pm
and golf in the desert is even stupidester!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 10:14pm
...golf in the desert is even stupidester!
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/13/2008 @ 10:14pm
LOL!! Awwww....you're hurting the feelings of all them Hollywood Libs w/homes in Palm Spring.
In the same Geographics article, on...hmmm....pages 92-93, show an aerial shot of Nevada's Primm Valley Golf Club...looks to be 36 holes of "stupidester".
Hey, but golf courses are popping up in the Mid East too ....irrigated w/desalinated water...Those amazing Arabs....seen Dubai's artificial islands in the shape of the world & its continents, palm tree, etc....pretty mind-numbing in their scale!
Posted by Happy at 02/13/2008 @ 11:31pm
Hey, but golf courses are popping up in the Mid East too ....irrigated w/desalinated water...Those amazing Arabs....seen Dubai's artificial islands in the shape of the world & its continents, palm tree, etc....pretty mind-numbing in their scale!
Posted by HAPPY 02/13/2008 @ 11:31pm
stupiderest.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 11:59pm
my eyes well every time i read the lorax, frosty. on the east end of town here in butte is the largest superfund site in the nation, the copper pit. and the wind does smell slow and sour when it blows. and i think that stuff is grickle grass!
Posted by loveloki at 02/14/2008 @ 12:46am
RIO BRAVO: Please stop talking from your rear, even Fox News reports on Climate Change now. If you haven't noticed most idiots like you are no longer arguing that "It's not happening", they're on the "It's not our fault" argument. Regardless of what anyone thinks is causing it, most everyone now agrees that it is happening, even some of the Oil Industry's think-tanks for hire. So please just be quiet and let the grown-ups figure out how to protect the world for the our children.
Posted by JimC at 02/14/2008 @ 08:41am