Holding Bush to Account for Climate Lies, Neglect

Viewers of Fox News, listeners to Rush Limbaugh and all the other sorry deadenders who choose Bush administration propaganda over perspective will be shocked to learn that the debate about global warming has been over for a long time.

Climate change is real. And the cynical ploy by conservative politicians and commentators of suggesting otherwise has slowed the American response to a crisis scientists say has grown so severe that -- no matter what is now done to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases -- gases that have already been produced or are in production will continue to contribute to global warming and the rise of oceans for more than 1,000 years.

The message from the world's top scientists is sobering. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level,'' argues a new report from the climate scientists working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change formed by the United Nations' Environment Program and World Meteorological Organization.

The Bush administration has consciously and intentionally failed for six years to address the crisis. Worse yet, the president and his aides have actively attempted to foster the fantasy that global warming: a. does not exist, b. is a natural phenomenon, c. is a good thing or d. all of the above.

The combination of deliberate inaction and delusional denial has earned this president a place in history alongside all the past Neros who have fiddled while their Romes burned. But the evidence that the Bush administration tampered with scientific research on global warming in order to advance its agenda calls for more immediate sanction.

The president and those around him have, as evidenced by their actions over the past six years, proven that they cannot be trusted with power. Yet, without an intervention, they will retain power for another two years.

That is not a prospect to be considered casually.

"The Bush Administration is doing to the whole world what it did to New Orleans as Katrina began to descend on the city," says Green Party co-chair Rebecca Rotzler, who has been in the forefront of demanding an official response to the administration's assault on science. "By altering scientific research on global warming to fit his political agenda and refusing to take necessary steps to protect the public, President Bush has aggravated an impending environmental, public health, and security crisis.

What to do? The Green Party, for reasons both of its environmental commitment and the seriousness with which it approaches issues of political accountability, has proposed a proper response. Responding to complaints from more than 120 scientists from seven federal agencies that they have been pressured to remove references to global warming from research reports, press releases, and communications with Congress, the Greens have accused the Bush administration of conspiring to deceive Congress and the America people about fundamental issues facing the nation. And there is a proper sanction for so serious an offense.

"Congress must recognize the Bush Administration's tampering with studies on global warming and other scientific research as an impeachable offense," says Jody Grage, who serves as treasurer of the Green Party. "Ever since Vice President Cheney initiated private meetings with oil company representatives to determine energy policy, the administration has placed the demands for corporate profits over urgent human and environmental needs."

Just as there are still those who debate whether climate change is actually taking place, there are still those who debate whether this president has committed acts that merit impeachment and removal from office.

But the Greens are right on this one.

The founders intended impeachment not as a legal process but as a tool for the protection of the nation and its citizens from irrational, irresponsible and immoral executives. The point of creating a procedure that allowed the Congress to interrupt a presidential term was not to punish minor acts of wrongdoing, it was to preserve the republic -- both structurally and physically -- from a president whose actions, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, might be "productive of cruel distress to our country."

The European kings and queens against whom American revolutionaries took up arms had attacked science and free thought in order not merely to advance their pet theories but to improve their fortunes. A president who did the same, Jefferson argued, was no different from a monarch -- except that his tenure was constitutionally limited. That did not mean, however, that Americans should accept a king for four years.

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others," explained the author of the Declaration of Independence who would make himself the steadiest advocate for democratic principles in the early days of the republic.

Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason and their circle fought to assure that the Constitution would include a broad power of impeachment. It was, these men of the enlightenment knew, the essential corrective against an elective despotism that might see an imperial president reject even the logic of science in pursuit of whims, fantasies and self-interest.

The founders knew that the impetus for impeachment might not be an act, but rather an inaction. And if that inaction was the result of a choice by the president and his aides to serve their oil-industry partners and contributors rather than their country and their planet, then surely it is a high crime against the republic -- an impeachable crime in the sense intended by the authors of the Constitution -- that has been committed.

The Greens have wisely recognized this fact, and made an appropriate argument for booting a pathetic president from the Oval Office.

Perhaps if those of us who still retain a Jeffersonian regard for science begin to speak of denying climate change as the impeachable offense that it is, we can begin to put the issue in proper perspective for the folks at Fox -- who seem only to feel a sense of urgency when their dear leader is threatened with sanctions more immediate than those of history.

We may, as well, answer the most poignant of the questions left us by Thomas Jefferson. "Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic," observed the third president, who then turned his attention to those who would inherit that republic and asked: "But will they keep it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (192)

1. This has also been done for theological reasons. When the President's close advisors, spiritual role models and confidants are dominion theorists (those who believe the 2nd Coming of Christ will not occur until the Earth's resources have been used up), global warming is a good thing. Its icing on the cake when you can make millions in oil revenues in the meantime!

   Posted by bjkron at 02/06/2007 @ 12:57pm

2. i just find it funny that anyone here, who digs a little on the internet for their news knew this global warming book cooking was going on for years now.

   finally the msm reports the same in shocked tones of disbelief...

   where were you guys? two, three years behind the curve...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/06/2007 @ 1:08pm

3. Certainly, the denial of global warming for 6 years by the executive branch of the most culpable nation will be remembered by histrorians in the future as the much greater transgression than the Iraq debacle.

   Impeachment is the least we can do to demonstrate some semblence of a demonstration to future generations, and more importantly, to the rest of the contemporary world that democracy is at least effectual even as it is inelegant in its operation.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/06/2007 @ 1:08pm

4. Gosh darnit Mr. Nichols! House Speaker Pelosi just won't take you seriously!!! Demand her head!!!!

   Posted by ACook at 02/06/2007 @ 1:53pm

5. I'm sorry....."the Greens"..."want to impeach Bush"..."over global warming"?

   So, the NSA "Spygate" thing...Valerie Plame...Gitmo..."lying about WMDs to get us into Iraq" stuff....

   all of which Speaker Nancy concluded ranked impeachment being put "off the table".

   So instead....impeaching him over the fact that he didn't promote "An Inconvenient Truth" at his last State of the Union...or the fact that the Presidential limo isn't a hybrid....

   or the fact that he didn't push Kyoto...a treaty the Chinese and Indians will balk at and essentially call for our "unilateral disarmament" on CO2 emissions?

   Yeah.....THAT'S the ticket!

   Posted by Mask at 02/06/2007 @ 1:53pm

6. Careful Mask, John Nichols and the Green Party will demand your head too!!!

   Posted by ACook at 02/06/2007 @ 1:54pm

7. I'm sorry I left something out of my last post....

   ROFLMAO!!!

   Posted by Mask at 02/06/2007 @ 1:54pm

8. Posted by ACOOK 02/06/2007 @ 1:54pm

   With about as much efficacy, AC.

   Posted by Mask at 02/06/2007 @ 1:57pm

9. It's not a culpability that is restricted to your executive. The sale of SUV's in your country is increasing despite their bad environmental reputation. Anyone care to explain why?

   Your car manufacturers are still producing gas guzzling monsters with the preposterous names of Nitro and Magnum because that's what your car buying public responds to.

   Sadly, you have to face the fact that you're a nation comprised of too many LL's and CPT's, incapable of dispassionate thought independent of the propaganda your government and their media allies feed you.

   You have the adminstration you voted for and, come 2008, might well do again, particularly if the choice is between Jeb Bush on one side and someone with a fanny or black skin on the other.

   Posted by inveresk at 02/06/2007 @ 2:00pm

10. "And the cynical ploy by conservative politicians and commentators of suggesting otherwise has slowed the American response to a crisis scientists say has grown so severe that -- no matter what is now done to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases -- gases that have already been produced or are in production will continue to contribute to global warming and the rise of oceans for more than 1,000 years."

    So its ALL the conservatives fault? and if your statement is true...then why bother doing anything?

    So many things wrong with this statement, those are just two.

    And:

    "The founders intended impeachment not as a legal process but as a tool for the protection of the nation and its citizens from irrational, irresponsible and immoral executives."

    Really????? Gee Johnny, how do you explain that pesky old U.S. Constitution, which is the law of the land that says in Article II:

    Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Dont you hate it when pesky little laws like those enshrined by the Constitution conflict with your zeal to implement the liberal agenda?

    Posted by CPT at 02/06/2007 @ 2:09pm

11. Posted by INVERESK 02/06/2007 @ 2:00pm | ignore this person

    Gee whiz....i reckons yous bee rite on that thare bit of wisdom.

    Tell me Inversek, where do you live??? How enlightened it must be that you see so much, yet are unable to convince the rest of us of the crediblity of your argument.

    Face facts, people do not respond well to reactionary eco-freaks...you are viewed with dutiful skepticism, after you guys predicted that we would run out of oil by this time in the 70s, your penchant for forecasting future events is far from foolproof.

    Posted by CPT at 02/06/2007 @ 2:16pm

12. Tell me Inversek, where do you live???

    Why? Are you planning to invade ... perhaps to install a shining, new human rights regime that pivots on transparent governance? Yes, you know what is best for these uppitty little people, you "Soaring Eagle" you (yup, that is CPT's own description of himself, from one memorably self-inflated, self-administered verbal viagara of a post).

    Face facts, people do not respond well to reactionary eco-freaks...you are viewed with dutiful skepticism, after you guys predicted that we would run out of oil by this time in the 70s, your penchant for forecasting future events is far from foolproof.

    Posted by CPT 02/06/2007 @ 2:16pm

    Please, be our guest. Come out and just say what you are trying to insinuate: Global climate chnage is a hoax, James Inhofe is the prophet, the scientists who argue otherwise are on crack and have been unable to grasp the unfathomable wisdom that is uniquely lodged in your head.

    Say, it loud and proud, wave your freak flag high ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 02/06/2007 @ 2:33pm

13. While we're all debating the issue of CO2 and other chemical emissions in regard to global warming; the one crucial factor that is never addressed seriously is --- deforestation, the clearing of lands for whatever reason and especially in the tropics.

    With each cut down tree there is one less absorber of CO2 and one less tree to release fresh oxygen into our atmosphere.

    Posted by bohdan yuri at 02/06/2007 @ 2:42pm

14. You have the adminstration you voted for and, come 2008, might well do again, particularly if the choice is between Jeb Bush on one side and someone with a fanny or black skin on the other.

    Posted by INVERESK 02/06/2007 @ 2:00pm | ignore this person

    I hope this is what the choice comes down to........another Bush or Hillary/Obama.......would be one of the largest landslides in presidential history.

    Posted by jpolston at 02/06/2007 @ 3:07pm

15. I'm sorry....."the Greens"..."want to impeach Bush"..."over global warming"?

    So, the NSA "Spygate" thing...Valerie Plame...Gitmo..."lying about WMDs to get us into Iraq" stuff....

    all of which Speaker Nancy concluded ranked impeachment being put "off the table".

    So instead....impeaching him over the fact that he didn't promote "An Inconvenient Truth" at his last State of the Union...or the fact that the Presidential limo isn't a hybrid....

    or the fact that he didn't push Kyoto...a treaty the Chinese and Indians will balk at and essentially call for our "unilateral disarmament" on CO2 emissions?

    Yeah.....THAT'S the ticket!

    Posted by MASK 02/06/2007 @ 1:53pm

    Sadly, Mask, you really are the pinhead you've convinced me you are.

    George Bush should be impeached for lying to U.S. citizens (and the rest of the world, but his primary responsibility is to U.S. citizens) into a needlessly deeper hole, for shirking his responsibilities and the responsibilities of his administration so that his corporate buddies could make a few more bucks. He has done this environmentally: CO2, mercury, strip mining the mountains, focussing on oil and nuclear energy ("Cheap energy and soon, we won't need any more blankets, or night lights!"), not to mention the shame he has heaped liberally on this country. Acook, if you haven't noticed the degradation in the quality of all facets of life in this country under this administration, you're as dumb as Mask. BTW, Mask, we can't sell cars to China because their anti-pollution standards are HIGHER than ours.

    Posted by brantl at 02/06/2007 @ 3:19pm

16. Captain Caveman,

    This clip is dedicated to you and your fellow brutes, who somehow manage from time-to-time to slip away from your chained positions in the cave, drooling over shadows of great and hideous obesity projected from your idiot-god, Rush Limbaugh, and post comments of unrivaled ignorance:

    "This week, the UK Observer published photos of polar bears stranded on ice floes in the Arctic. Determined to deny the existence of global warming, Rush Limbaugh said on Friday that the bears were " just playing around …just like your cat goes to its litter box..."

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/06/2007 @ 3:30pm

17. Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/06/2007 @ 3:30pm | ignore this person

    You know that photo of the polar bears was a proven hoax right?

    Posted by CPT at 02/06/2007 @ 4:08pm

18. Posted by GLENN LEMON 02/06/2007 @ 2:33pm | ignore this person

    Easy my friend. I take exception to anyone not living in this country to assume the unmitagated arrogance to tell me how we and we alone are detroying the planet. Which is what the mental midget INVERSEK was implying.

    I do not tell them that the way you are living in your country is destroying the moral fabric of the western civilization. So anyone presuming to do such a thing is equally contemptible, as much as they are dubious for such statements

    Posted by CPT at 02/06/2007 @ 4:15pm

19. GLENN C. LEMON

    And of course global warming is real to the extent that man is SOLELY responsible it is not as easily discernable.

    The planet was after all covered by ice at one time, so it would seem that global warming has not always been a bad thing necessarily historically.

    I mean really, am i the only skeptic, hell i am the Catholic Christian here. I just ask simple questions.

    How long have we taken the temperature of the earth's climate???? 100, 150 years?? And just how accurrate were those methods a 100 yrs ago?

    Based on that

    How old is the earth? 6 billion years?

    How have climates evolved? over what period of time? and how long does it take to establish definitive proof a trend is legit recurring pattern? I would say alot longer than 20 yrs.

    Look i agree we need to cut pollutants going into the air.

    But we need to be smart and delibrate not reactionary and reckless.

    Posted by CPT at 02/06/2007 @ 4:30pm

20. Easy my friend. I take exception to anyone not living in this country to assume the unmitagated arrogance to tell me how we and we alone are detroying the planet. Which is what the mental midget INVERSEK was implying.

    I do not tell them that the way you are living in your country is destroying the moral fabric of the western civilization. So anyone presuming to do such a thing is equally contemptible, as much as they are dubious for such statements

    Posted by CPT 02/06/2007 @ 4:15pm | ignore this person

    Cpt,

    Look, the U.S. is the worst emitter of carbon dioxide on planet earth: with 4% of the world's population it produces 25% of all carbon emissions. This is a global issue, so other nations have every right to complain. How is it that their national interests are irrelevant- yet, you make the claim ours are good enough to justify unilateral war when allegedly jeopardized?

    Here's some scary data concerning elected politicians who are a danger to the planet, if you have any respect for scientific reasoning; and you should, considering conclusions recently released to the world.

    "Today's Think Progress blog at the Center for American Progress reports on a new National Journal poll that surveyed 113 Congress members about their position on global warming. It found that only 13 percent of congressional Republicans say they believe human activity is causing warming, compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats:

    Moreover, the number of Republicans who believe in human-induced global warming has actually dropped since April 2006, when the number was 23 percent."

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/06/2007 @ 4:45pm

21. Cpt,

    Please, I wish you would set aside political ideology. This is an article from the Financial Times, not a left-leaning source of news.

    "The White House has been accused of attempting to weaken or change crucial wording on the state of climate science in this and previous IPCC reports, which form the basis of international climate change policy.

    By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington and Fiona Harvey in London Updated: 5:12 a.m. ET Jan 31, 2007

    The Bush administration has routinely suppressed or ­distorted communication of climate change science to the public, a climate specialist at Nasa's Goddard Institute said on Tuesday.

    The accusation, before the chief oversight committee in the House of Representatives, was reinforced by claims by Democratic lawmakers that the White House was withholding documents proving that Philip Cooney, a former Bush administration official who now works as a lobbyist for ExxonMobil, regularly edited climate reports for political reasons.

    The testimony risks embarrassing the Bush administration ahead of the release on Friday of a landmark report on climate change science that will say there is a 90 per cent certainty that human activity is changing the world's climate and temperatures will rise by 3 degrees Celsius by 2100. It paints the most dramatic and comprehensive picture yet of a future of heatwaves, droughts and floods.

    The report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific body convened by the United Nations, is based on research carried out over six years by more than 2,500 scientists."

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/06/2007 @ 5:03pm

22. Liberty,

    Should we have indivdual comments posted by the 2,500 hundred scientists who recently contributed to the latest United Nations report? Of course, Dr. Ball is restricted to publishing his screechings in conservative newspapers or websites, due to his opinions failing to convince anyone in standard scientific journals.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/06/2007 @ 5:10pm

23. How in the hell have we gone from the hysteria over global COOLING ( 60's and 70's ) to global warming so quickly? So the experts must believe that our pollution at first caused cooling and then did a 180 and started causing warming. Science has shown that thousands of years ago, our seas were as much as 4 degrees WARMER! Was that due to SUV's? Probably not, given the fact that auto's didn't exist back then. Take the time to go back and read the fear mongerer's hysterical claims about global COOLING in publications such as Time etc. You morons are sheep and Al Gore's your sheppard ( a bloated, fat, sweaty one at that )! Grow up, grow a sack, and come back to reality!

    Posted by barry25 at 02/06/2007 @ 5:21pm

24. Can anyone here deny the fact that our oceans were warmer at times thousands of years ago? And if so, what caused it, since there was no human generated pollution back then?

    Posted by barry25 at 02/06/2007 @ 5:24pm

25. Liberty,

    Defend your lying hack if you wish, but if we cannot even trust this guy to accurately present his credentials, well, in any event, we know he is a shill who has never published any relevant material specific to the subject he claims authority over. But he sure sounds good from the safety of nonpeer-reviewd articles. Let us see the research publication where he proves his claims.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball

    Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball) Inflates credentials

    Ball and the oil industry Ball is listed as a "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the FOS admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August, '06 Globe and Mail feature, the FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding the fact that they were. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity, to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS.

    Ball inflates credentials Ball and organizations he is affiliated with have repeatedly made the claim that he is the "first Canadian PhD in climatology." Even further, Ball once claimed he was "one of the first climatology PhD's in the world." As many people have pointed out, there have been many PhD's in the field prior to Ball.

    Ball and the NRSP Ball is listed as an "Executive" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it's funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An Oct. 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group."

    Ball's research history Ball retired from the University of Winnipeg in 1996 and a search of 22,000 academic journals shows that, over the course of his career, Ball has published 4 pieces of original research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change Ball has not published any new research in the last 11 years.

    Ball sues researcher and Calgary Herald newspaper On Sept. 1, Ball, launched a libel suit against Dr. Dan Johnson, a current Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Lethbridge and a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Grassland Ecosystems. Here are the original Statements of Claim and Defence.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/06/2007 @ 6:12pm

26. Posted by BARRY25 02/06/2007 @ 5:21pm

    read real science...

    also check out any graph of global temps and notice the suspicious HUGEMUNGOUS spike at about exactly the time we shaved apes started spewing out lots of shit into the atmosphere (the idustrial revolution).

    that pretty much clinches it for me. the spike is simply too abrupt and too exactly synchronized with the industrial revolution to come to any other rational conclusion.

    now i find this disconcerting, so i could, intellectually speaking, reach around my head to pick my nose...i could expend great effort trying to believe in any other explanation which would excuse my gluttonous lifestyle, but i would be bullshitting myself and thats not good...

    are you sure your not just bullshitting yourself?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/06/2007 @ 6:48pm

27. I was gonna tear you sheep a new one but Liberty already handled that soundly! so, sheep, you just keep on listening to Al Gore, your sheppard, and protect your behinds as he helps you over the fence! Good work liberty! You sheep have just been castrated ( or at least the few of you who still had a sack)!

    Posted by barry25 at 02/06/2007 @ 7:34pm

28. Look, the U.S. is the worst emitter of carbon dioxide on planet earth: with 4% of the world's population it produces 25% of all carbon emissions.

    Posted by OUSTBUSH

    And yet, the US also manages to produce 35% of the world's goods and services......What are the percentages for China and India, two countries exempt from the Kyoto treaty's carbon reduction requirements????????

    IBBLE? ZERO? INVERESK?

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/06/2007 @ 8:01pm

29. LVLIBERTY,

    How about Max Mayfield, recently retired director of the national hurricane center, who was asked last summer whether the apparent trend toward stronger hurricanes might be caused by glocal warming...Max set the questioner straight by educating him about active hurricane cycles.....And reminded him that the current cycle might last another 10 years, much like the cycle of the 1940's did, when Homestead airforce base south of Miami was destroyed twice......

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/06/2007 @ 8:10pm

30. Viewers of Fox News, listeners to Rush Limbaugh and all the other sorry deadenders who choose Bush administration propaganda over perspective will be shocked to learn that the debate about global warming has been over for a long time.

    Translation: The debate about whether the loony left should jump onto the global warming bandwagon has been over for a long time.

    Moving forward, I guess the only real solution is for the UN to impose the carbon tax, and other punitive measures against the evil US of A....Nichols would love that, wouldn't he?

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/06/2007 @ 8:22pm

31. there is no point in talking to the dimwits who want to believe that human-induced global warming is some sort of vast conspiracy targeted against them. these people are idiots, stubborn idiots, who willfully disregard the information available to them

    Posted by ZERO

    So, ZERO, have you read State Of Fear yet? Especially the footnotes....Just curious.....

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/06/2007 @ 8:29pm

32. Posted by BARRY25 02/06/2007 @ 7:34pm

    well, if "cut and paste a buttload of questionable sources and footnotes" is tantamount to "tearing of a new one", well, yeah, sheer SIZE along explains the anal ripping sound...

    i'm just too gosh darned lazy to go out and cut and paste a proportionate volume of sources and articula that support THE side of the "argument", because that would be 19 TIMES AS LENGTHY A REEM OF CUT AND PASTES AS THOSE OF LL

    yeah, you know us pinkos, lazy as the day is long...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/06/2007 @ 8:30pm

33. so you win...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/06/2007 @ 8:30pm

34. So, Zero, where'd you get you climatology degree???? University of Dickhead?

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/06/2007 @ 8:31pm

35. Jeb Bush for pres? preposterous.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/06/2007 @ 8:47pm

36. DAVEBARTLETT,

    This story is simply about the alternative industry vs. the oil industry. Who gonna be king of the mountain?

    Posted by ACook at 02/06/2007 @ 8:51pm

37. Posted by BRANTL 02/06/2007 @ 3:19pm

    I'm sorry, BRANTL....instead of taking an INANE article by Mr Nichols and deriding it...I should have taken it seriously and said basically what CPT did.

    Find the CONSTITUTIONAL grounds for impeaching Bush for "lying" about global warming, but please wait until I stop laughing at THIS article!

    Posted by Mask at 02/06/2007 @ 8:58pm

38. Overwhelmingly, climatologists and Physicists have debunked the manmade global warming scare.

    This is complete nonsense...without even the slightest attempt to back it with fact. As any rational, sentient human can observe, quite the opposite is true. One could easily just go to an organization like the IPCC, formed with the specific intent to summarize the scientific consensus on the subject, and read it's previous 3 reports...all of which make the case that GW is both real and man made.

    One could also go to any of literally thousands of news reports on the subject...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html

    http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html?we lcome=true

    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

    http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0621.html

    or any number of other sources including...

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

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=80

    "Is there really "consensus" in the scientific community on the reality of anthropogenic climate change? As N. Oreskes points out in a recent article in Science, that is itself a question that can be addressed scientificially. Oreskes took a sampling of 928 articles on climate change, selected objectively (using the key phrase "climate change") from the published peer-reviewed scientific literature. Oreskes concluded that of those articles (about 75% of them) that deal with the question at all, 100% (all of them) support the consensus view that a significant fraction of recent climate change is due to human activities. Of course, there are undoubtedly some articles that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature that disagree with this position and that Oreskes's survey missed, but the fact that her sample didn't find them indicates that the number of them is very very small. One could debate whether overwhelming consensus is adequate grounds for action on climate change, but there are no grounds for debating whether such consensus actually exists."

    Or how about the Scripps Oceanographic Institute...

    http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=708

    "For Release: January 4, 2006

    Global Warming Can Trigger Extreme Ocean, Climate Changes, Scripps-led Study Reveals Scientists use deep ocean historical records to find an abrupt ocean circulation reversal caused by greenhouse gas warming

    New research produced by scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, helps illustrate how global warming caused by greenhouse gases can quickly disrupt ocean processes and lead to drastic climatological, biological and other important changes around the world. "

    Or how about we just look at our own National Acadamy of Sciences...

    http://dels.nas.edu/globalchange/

    "...the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

    Posted by Lillian at 02/06/2007 @ 9:11pm

39. I have added Dr Ball to the many other scientists including members of the IPCC panel who have come out against the manmade global warming hoax.

    Actually, the IPCC summary has already been released and completely contradicts the absurd notion that the IPCC panel considers man made GW to be a hoax...

    "The AR4 provides the strongest statement to date on the extent and causes of climate change. This report expresses much greater confidence than past assessments that most of the observed warming over the past half-century is caused by human activities (greater than 90% certainty). It notes that the rates of warming and sea level rise accelerated during the 20th century, the latter representing a major new finding. It also notes other important changes such as more intense precipitation, drought, and to some extent tropical cyclones.

    Because real-world observations have been greatly bolstered in this report, a particular strength of the AR4 over past reports is the overlap of nearly two decades between observational data and model projections. For certain aspects of climate change, such as the global temperature trends and rise in CO2, the models reflect the observed changes reasonably well. In other cases, such as observed sea level rise, the models undershoot the actual observed change.

    Another strength of the AR4 is enhanced detection of human influence on climate at the regional scale, such as increases in precipitation in the Eastern U.S. and decreased precipitation in the Southwestern U.S."

    Posted by Lillian at 02/06/2007 @ 9:13pm

40. As for Leave Liberty's links, let's take a closer look.

    One goes to the CEI, Competitive Enterprise Institute, a 'think tank' funded by the oil industry with one of it's specific purposes being to disseminate opinions contrary to the body of scientific consensus on GW. With People like Michelle Malkin writing for them, they are best be described by SOurceWatch...

    "CEI belongs to various conservative alliances, including the Alliance for America, Get Government Off Our Backs, Townhall.com, the National Consumer Coalition (a pro-corporate front group headed by Frances B. Smith, the wife of CEI founder Fred Smith), and the Environmental Education Working Group (EEWG), a national umbrella group for organizations working to undermine environmental education in schools.

    Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company."

    Another link goes to something called CO2 Science...

    "CO2 Science is run by Keith and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another. Keith Idso, then a doctoral candidate at the University of Arizona, was a paid expert witness for Western Fuels Association at a 1995 Minnesota Public Utilities commission hearing in St. Paul, MN, along with MIT's Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, and Robert Balling (The Heat is On). According to news from Basin Electr ic, a Western Fuels Association member, Craig Idso produced a report, "The Greening of Planet Earth." Its Progression from Hypothesis to Theory," in January 1998 for the Western Fuels Association (Basin Electric Latest News no date given). "

    Another of Leave Liberty's links goes to this website...

    http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/science/greenhouse.shtml

    ...which, apparently unknown to LL, actually discusses the problem of global warming and lists actions people can take to help, including this nuget...

    "The unrestricted use of cars, the burning of fossil fuels, and the waste gases produced by factories have all been shown to contribute significantly to global warming."

    Same with the link to this website...

    http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/global_wa rming.htm

    ...that clearly states "Global warming is real, it is happening more quickly in some parts of the world than others."

    Posted by Lillian at 02/06/2007 @ 9:15pm

41. Overwhelmingly, climatologists and Physicists have debunked the manmade global warming scare.

    Every time the subject comes up I challenge the left to dispute the scientific findings of the many scientists who are acknowledged experts in their fields in climatology and Physics. But all I ever see is name calling and more worship of the fallacy of manmade global warming.

    Translation: The debate about whether the loony left should jump onto the global warming bandwagon has been over for a long time.

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 02/06/2007 @ 8:22pm | ignore this person

    So, Zero, where'd you get you climatology degree???? University of Dickhead?

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 02/06/2007 @ 8:31pm | ignore this person

    Posted by Lillian at 02/06/2007 @ 9:19pm

42. The science of greenhouse gasses, and they're ability to increase temperatures globally, has been around for well over 150 years. Try googling the following names...

    Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier

    John Tyndall

    Svente Arrhenius

    Guy S Callender

    Hans Suess

    Roger Revelle

    Charles Keeling

    Posted by Lillian at 02/06/2007 @ 9:23pm

43. http://www.motherjones.com/index.html

    Posted by Lillian at 02/06/2007 @ 9:24pm

44. New link below...the article is called "The 13th Tipping Point"

    http://www.motherjones.com/science/index.html

    Posted by Lillian at 02/06/2007 @ 9:25pm

45. Tell me Inversek, where do you live??? How enlightened it must be that you see so much, yet are unable to convince the rest of us of the crediblity of your argument.

    Posted by CPT

    I'm an ex-patriot Scot, live in BC. There's clearly no need for me to try to convince anyone of my argument. The IPCC, supported by the USA government's appointed scientific representative, recently elevated the case for man made global warming beyond reasonable argument, at least for the rational among us who sensibly recognize the obvious - that the planet has hitherto been able to self regulate externally-imposed temperature fluctuations such as those caused by solar warming by removing the major natural greenhouse gas, co2. Through the process of photosynthesis this gas was trapped in trees then locked underground where it was transmuted into coal, oil and natural gas. Along comes homo sapien who, through the burning of fossil fuels over the period of a century or so, unlocks a great portion of the co2 which the earth took millennia to harvest and capture. In addition he emasculates the planet's regulatory capacity by cutting down great swathes of forest - the lungs of the planet.

    The sad fact is that even though you all know you need to change direction acutely and urgently, only a few of you have the balls to admit it. Without oil the USA would experience an economic depression and consequential civil unrest that would leave little for your current ruling elite to govern. Even the lilly livered democrats recognize this reality, which is why for the most part they aren't calling for a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq. You need your oil fix even at the cost of your children's future prosperity and health. But it's also why you're such a threat to the remainder of the west which has at least admitted the enormity of the problem and seems willing to face the need to confront of the realities of dealing with it.

    Posted by inveresk at 02/06/2007 @ 9:25pm

46. Just a few of the 3,840 scientific articles published in Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, the pre-eminent organization of the most knowledgable scientific experts on the subject...

    Human Impacts on Climate

    http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change.shtml

    Global warming: Evidence from satellite observations

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2000/2000GL011719.shtml

    Establishing a Connection Between Global Warming and Hurricane Intensity

    http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0629.html

    Simulated changes due to global warming in daily precipitation means and extremes and their interpretation using the gamma distribution

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002JD002928.shtml

    Sources of global warming of the upper ocean on decadal period scales

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002JC001396.shtml

    Global Warming Lengthens the Day

    http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0206.html

    Shifts in ENSO coupling processes under global warming

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026196.shtml

    Posted by Lillian at 02/06/2007 @ 9:35pm

47. Overwhelmingly, climatologists and Physicists have debunked the manmade global warming scare.

    I noticed Leave Liberty never presented any evidence to back this BS!

    Posted by Lillian at 02/06/2007 @ 9:38pm

48. You notice how quiet the leftists get whenever this subject is brought up and we flood them with the science

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/06/2007 @ 8:17pm | ignore this person

    You notice how utterly wrong this was? Still waiting on the science...not the BS from the paid shills.

    And BTW, I noticed that Leave Liberty also left out this little gem when he was cutting and pasting Yury Izrael's comments...

    "Global temperatures will likely rise by 1.4-5.8 degrees during the next 100 years. The average increase will be three degrees. I do not think that this threatens mankind. Sea levels, due to rise by 47 cm in the 21st century, will not threaten port cities."

    So while he starts off claiming global warming is a hoax, he ends up quoting a scientist who BUCKS THE REST OF HIS PEERS, inadvertently demonstrating that A) global warming isn't a hoax and B) the consensus of the vast majority of experts in the field is exactly the opposite of what LEave Liberty claims it is!

    Posted by Lillian at 02/06/2007 @ 9:52pm

49. John Nichols...you should pitch this article to Comedy Central. It was great entertainment. Would love to see the skit played out.

    Do liberals realize that they always trot out the GW voodoo at the absolute WORST times? Sub-zero temps across much of the country. The day after the headline on Drudge says: "-35f windchill in Chicago. Schools have been closed all week, and NOW you come out hyperventilating that the planet is too warm?? I believe it also snowed at the first Earth Day celebration (APRIL 22, 1970.) If you want to market your product, timing is everything.

    Certainly, the denial of global warming for 6 years by the executive branch of the most culpable nation will be remembered by histrorians in the future as the much greater transgression than the Iraq debacle.

    Oh really?? Would that include the 95-0 Senate vote against Kyoto in 1997? Or did all the hot air start just 6 years ago? Looks like there is gonna be alot of retroactive impeachment gonna be goin' on.

    I can see the religion on parade here when it comes to GW, as there is no "doubt" left to the science and the debate is clearly over. Say your hosana's and pass the collection plate. Get your asses in the air if you'd prefer.

    I'm looking forward to seeing all the hemp-wearing smelly hippies on their corn-powered bicycles next winter. Simultaneously feeling the Superman complex, while freezing their nuts off. Just remember to stay to the right. If you scratch my truck, I'm gonna be pissed.

    I also look forward to the grotesque irony 15 years into the future...when a few ELF members are rounded up for torching the ExxonMobil Ethanol Works, or the Conoco-Philips Hydrogen Research facility.

    Posted by Sliver at 02/06/2007 @ 10:11pm

50. not the BS from the paid shills.

    You're correct Lillian. Just accept the BS from the "We hope to somehow get paid to fix this" shills.

    Posted by Sliver at 02/06/2007 @ 10:14pm

51. I'm looking forward to seeing all the hemp-wearing smelly hippies on their corn-powered bicycles next winter.

    I'm looking forward to see you croak, you stinkin' lyin' varmint.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/06/2007 @ 10:18pm

52. Inveresk, your argument is fine. but for one thing, we are ALL in the same boat, US, Canada, everyone

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/06/2007 @ 10:20pm

53. This article unnecessarily wanders all around with no examples of just how this administration "cooked the books" on global warming. Is it not this kind of abstract wandering around that keeps people from taking global warming seriously in the first place? And is it not this same wandering around which keeps people from being able to judge just what the administration did/did not do???

    Posted by bradkin at 02/06/2007 @ 10:24pm

54. The Chinese today (2-6-07), and the Brazilians, not an unrepresentative duo to represent the developing world, made it clear in news reports today (which I do not reference - sorry) that the first world - read Europe and America - is responsible for the current global warming and therefore must sacrifice themselves first at the alter of carbon zero to get the planet "even". That is not an unreasonable position, because their premise is correct. After that, they state that carbon emissions must be equivalent per capita for all nations. Again, not an unreasonable position. And when I hit on my numerous carbon sites, I find that the current level of emissions is that which is present in Algeria and Indonesia. And if anyone reading this post thinks my children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren are gonna live live that way they have a severe case of recto-visualitis. Issues like this are why God gave America nukes. One way or the other, dude, it ain't gonna happen. Choose the way. God's will my ass! Morality my ass! Irrational idiocies, both of them. This is what I want, and I will get it because I want it and I can make it happen. If you cannot prevent it, too bad for you!

    Posted by malrox at 02/06/2007 @ 10:28pm

55. JR, we share the same boat, indeed.

    Will you therefore please elect a president who recognizes the injustice of adding 25% of the shit to the boat when you only have 3% of it's population.

    Posted by inveresk at 02/06/2007 @ 10:36pm

56. Posted by LILLIAN 02/06/2007 @ 9:52pm

    damn girl! i think you just surpassed LL's volume of posting and referencing! and you even used reputable science! we win again!!!

    whats yer angle here? you got some hot "profit from global warming" stock tips? wink wink...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/06/2007 @ 10:46pm

57. You're correct Lillian. Just accept the BS from the "We hope to somehow get paid to fix this" shills.

    Posted by SLIVER 02/06/2007 @ 10:14pm | ignore this person

    Are you trying to hang that label on the National Academy of Sciences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the American Geophysical Union? Or did you have some other group or scientific experts in mind?

    I'd really like to know...so I can gauge exactly how stupid that comment was.

    Posted by Lillian at 02/06/2007 @ 10:58pm

58. Ahhhhh! it's so enjoyable to watch as liberal lunatics get their asses handed to them. You vermin sooooo got worked over on page 2 that i had to read it twice because it was soooo enjoyable! Whether Al Gore has you fools believing that he created the internet or that we're all doomed because of SUV's, you twerps are consistently there for him to get the ball rolling. He knows this, and that's why people like him can continue to be relevent when they should just go away! Al Gore is a snake oil salesman and as long as illegal immigrants, drug addicts, stupid people, irresponsible people, uneducated people, felons and all other criminals are allowed to procreate, people like him will get enough votes to stay in power! The left in this country is an embarrassment, they are traitors of the highest order, lowlife vermin that will get their's someday soon. That day will come the moment the bombs start killing innocent civilians in this country, and that day is coming very, very soon. Terrorists and liberals beware. Don't get too comfy, it's right around the corner. You leftists have been coddled for way too long, causing you to feel so secure that you don't even fear the consequences of aiding the enemy your fellow countrymen face. payback is a bitch....I can't wait!

    Posted by barry25 at 02/06/2007 @ 11:08pm

59. This article unnecessarily wanders all around with no examples of just how this administration "cooked the books" on global warming.

    Posted by BRADKIN 02/06/2007 @ 10:24pm | ignore this person

    Brad, do you keep up with the news?

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/30/congress.climate.ap/index.html

    http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/31/america/NA-GEN-US-Congress-Cli mate.php

    http://www.ucsusa.org/

    http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=2519061

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/

    Posted by Lillian at 02/06/2007 @ 11:09pm

60. Malrox, Sweden is on target to be fossil fuel free by the year 2015. Last time I looked they hadn't invaded anyone to get their hands on oil reserves to tide them over during the transition and, come 2015, they'll have LESS carbon emmissions than either Algeria or Indonesia. They'll be free of the influence of OPEC, free of the fear of an oil war, free of home grown pollution and they'll hand to their children a thriving economy built significantly on the export of renewable energy technology to the rest of the world.

    Posted by inveresk at 02/06/2007 @ 11:10pm

61. When all of the scientists were absolutely sure that the ice age was starting in the 70's, they were claiming that the Ice sheet would be down to the Dakotas by the year 2000. I would like to see ONE study that gives the rise in temperature each year for the next 100 years so that we can see in less that 5 that they are as full of shit as the people that claimed the ice age was coming.

    Posted by cupera2 at 02/06/2007 @ 11:15pm

62. Invernesk, wow, Sweden was highly touted by my ultra-liberal college instuctors too. They had me believing that it's was a utopia ( before I woke up, began living in the real world, and graduated from that communist re-education camp...i mean college ). I wonder why liberals and academia think so highly of Sweden? Could it be SOCIALISM ( you know, that idea that has failed over and over and over . Anyway, scince Sweden has it all figured out, why don't you pack your bags and fucking MOVE! And again, why aren't people flooding from all over the world to get into Sweden like they are America? Dimwit!

    Posted by barry25 at 02/06/2007 @ 11:27pm

63. Oops, almost forgot to mention this other link fro LEave...Frontiers of Freedom...

    Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation has received $857,000 from ExxonMobil

    Posted by Lillian at 02/06/2007 @ 11:46pm

64. Barry, you had an education? Hell, boy, you conceal it so well.

    Somehow I doubt you've ever been near a reindeer (except, perhaps, with something carnal in mind), never mind Lapland. I'd avoid Sweden, not because of its socialist economy but because of the climate and the language. However, I've spent some time in the country which I very much like. No poverty anywhere, free healthcare, cheap and good public transport, pretty much free of crime, good quality housing, a clean environment, little unemployment and beautiful women. If George Bush could provide in the USA the general quality of life in Sweden for everyone, even I would be singing his praises.

    Swedes are picky about who they let in. On the other hand, America has one aim in increasing its population, to expand its market for the corporations. Your country has already exceeded its carrying capacity but you're growing still through immigration. Corporate America is not particularly interested in the quality of the immigration market but it needs the volume to sustain the corporate lifestyle it's entitled to. That corporate environment is supported by your ruler, hence how they cosy up to the oil industry, how Ken Lay helped underpin the Bush energy policy, etc. Bush and Cheney nurture that corporate culture at the expense of the average citizen for whom the quality of life is depreciating. This is the first generation of Americans for whom the living standard of their children is likely to be less than that of their parents.

    Even if oil doesn't run out, even if global warming doesn't herald the sort of disasters that are predicated, do you think the Swedes will be better or worse off because of the action they're taking? Short answer, there's no advantage in your brand of ignorant denial. Being able only to parrot rather than think logically, you wouldn't, of course, know this. Loyalty to your leader is a fine attribute but BLIND loyalty to a thick-as-shit, couldn't-give-a-fuck, rich frat boy can only white, southern and working class.

    Posted by inveresk at 02/06/2007 @ 11:59pm

65. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/06/2007 @ 10:46pm | ignore this person

    Sorry, IB, get a little worked up sometimes. No 'economic' interest there...just kind of passionate about trying to keep healthy the only planet we've got!

    Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 12:19am

66. BTW IB, did you notice most of the volume of Leave's posts were long cut and pastes from either some paid shill or from someone 'sponsered' by some neocon group? What was really funny was how the rest of us were supposed to think that was actual 'science'.

    Even funnier was the post from the rouge IPCC scientist trying to make a name for himself by bucking the rest of the scientific community...that was supposed to support Leave's claim that "Overwhelmingly, climatologists and Physicists have debunked the manmade global warming scare."

    Funniest of all however, were the links to the 'antarctica' sites...that had tips on how the public could take steps to help combat man-made global warming. Got a good chuckle over that!

    Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 01:04am

67. Posted by ZERO 02/07/2007 @ 12:33am | ignore this person

    Sadly Zero, you may be exactly right on that. Like Sliver's comment that the scientific experts who aren't being paid by ExxonMobile are really "We hope to somehow get paid to fix this" shills.

    It never ceases to amaze me how some people can create a bizarre 'logical pretzel' in their heads...and then convince themselves that it was really a rational thought.

    Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 01:12am

68. Even as scientists work to make their climate models more accurate in the light of the new data, political opponents of the proposed Kyoto Protocol - which would limit human activity thought to cause atmospheric warming - are likely to pounce upon the results. The studies will likely be seen as vindication of their argument that the Kyoto treaty shouldn't be ratified until more is known about the science of climate change.

    Decades of Antarctic cooling

    Dr. Dornan's study points to an average cooling of 0.7 degrees per decade from 1986 to 2000 at the McMurdo Dry Valleys Long-Term Ecological Research Station. Using estimates from British data taken since 1966, the team calculates that the cooling trend has been under way since at least that date.

    The report, published in the current issue of the journal Nature, appears to confirm a study published last year in the Journal of Climate by Josephino Comiso, an atmospheric scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Using satellite data for the months of January and July from 1979 to 1999, he reported a drop in the continent's average temperature that amounted to 0.4 degrees per decade.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/06/2007 @ 6:57pm

    Liberty,

    The author of your cited study has already spoken out against the misrepresentation of his own study. Again all you can provide are slivers of out-of-context attacks against the larger structure. Here's his word against yours:

    http://www.onthemedia.org/yore/transcripts/transcripts_021602_science.ht ml

    Scientists Cry Foul!

    February 16, 2002

    BROOKE GLADSTONE: We're back with On the Media. I'm Brooke Gladstone.

    BOB GARFIELD: And I'm Bob Garfield. The finding published in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Nature was provocative. Climactic changes in Antarctica were resulting in cooling conditions on certain parts of that continent, but the press saw something more intriguing still -- what seemed to be juicy evidence against the prevailing theories on global warming. And so ignoring all the researchers who said otherwise, much of the media reported exactly that. Joining us now to discuss how they got it wrong is Peter DORAN, co-author of the Antarctica study. He says his finding does not in any way hurt the case for global warming.

    PETER DORAN: If you look at the warming trends that have been published recently, just this past year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is really the Bible of climate change, you can see that the majority of the globe is warming. There is really no doubt about that. What we did is we just went in and teased out what's going on spatially in Antarctica and showed that most of the continent is cooling.

    BOB GARFIELD: So your study appeared in Nature magazine and then you got to sit back and watch journalism take place. What were the results?

    PETER DORAN:There were some cases of glorification or sensationalization of the results, especially in the headlines, and if I could read you a few examples, I've got some in front of me. There's one here that says: Guess What? Antarctica's Getting Colder, Not Warmer. New Data May Affect Political Debate over Global Warming. Some other headlines: Scientific Findings Run Counter to Theory of Global Warming. Oh, Dear! What Will the Doomsayers Say Now?

    BOB GARFIELD:CNN ran a story in which the lead anchor began the piece by saying quote "A new study is casting doubt on the widely accepted theory of global warming. Now the strange thing about that CNN piece is they quoted you and another scientist saying well, no this really doesn't in any way discredit the conventional wisdom on global warming, and yet all of the body copy, the reporters' copy in the piece sent out an opposite message. When you see something like that, what do you do? How do you react?

    PETER DORAN:I think it's time. Time and deadlines are the big thing. I've noticed that a lot of the biggest errors were in the print stories that came out the very next day from the press release, and there seems to be this rush to get the story out first which is common in the media, and it's understandable for most things, but it doesn't seem to work with science. As we write these peer-reviewed papers, we're very careful with every single word in that paper. We choose carefully whether we can use an adverb or not in a particular location, and then that paper gets submitted to an-- a journal like Nature of Science and those papers get sent out for peer review. And then once it's accepted by Science or Nature or some other journal, it goes to press. Then the press release comes. It gets written usually with the scientists' input, but there's no peer review there. Then the press release goes out, and the press grab it, and they start writing a story based on the press release, but they add their own little touch to the story -- and that's what reporters do -- that's understandable - but at each step of the way there's some of the accuracy lost; there's some of the control lost.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/07/2007 @ 01:19am

69. BTW, regarding John's notion of impeaching Bush (or more accurately, his agreement with the notion of Jody Grage, Green Party treasurer) over Bush's attempts to 'fix the facts around the policy' concerning global warming, while I like and fully agree with this...

    "The combination of deliberate inaction and delusional denial has earned this president a place in history alongside all the past Neros who have fiddled while their Romes burned."

    I don't there's a a snowball's chance in...a warmed planet...of this...

    "But the evidence that the Bush administration tampered with scientific research on global warming in order to advance its agenda calls for more immediate sanction. "

    ...although I'd love to be proved wrong!

    Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 01:22am

70. Ok, Barry25, Libery, George Will, etc., all you denialists who continually manhandle the 1976 article predicting global cooling with abslutely no idea as to what the hell you're talking about:

    "30 years ago the fashionable panic was about global cooling." We find it especially disapponting that[George] Will repeats this historically inaccurate statement. The "panic" about cooling in the 1970's is an urban myth. In particular, the Science article from 1976 is totally misrepresented by Will. That article qualified its predictions by "in the absence of human perturbation of the climate system" as did many papers at the time. It is also telling that Richard Lindzen, a well known critic of other climate scientists, happens to agree with us on this. Writing for the Cato Institute, he says: "But the scientific community never took the issue [global cooling] to heart..." (see full text here).

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=90

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/07/2007 @ 01:29am

71. LILLIAN,

    Great posts in response to Liberty. He may be uninformed, but he is not on the level of those lazy ignoramuses who swipe at the truth with an almost pitiful lethargy.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/07/2007 @ 01:38am

72. The temperature record Gore uses is the so-called "hockeystick" graph produced by Dr. Michael Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University. Mann's methodology has been attacked in peer-reviewed journals, forcing him to issue a partial withdrawal of his findings. Other, more accurate, reconstructions of the historic temperature record show substantially more variation in the past, revealing that today's temperatures are not unprecedented.

    http://www.newcoalition.org/Article.cfm?artId=19358

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/06/2007 @ 7:29pm | ignore this person

    Do you you lisp with that forked tongue? Geesh, more feces thrown into the discussion. No, Mann was not forced to withdraw his findings. There were errors inconsequential to the results, quite minor really, but you boys will scratch and grasp at anything permitting the faintest clawhold, in your desperation to maintain ignorance with self-righteous dignity. I can tell you right now, all your attempts to muddle and confuse have been addressed by the larger scientific community not obssessed with this bizarre brand of theological industrial dogma.

    Below is the more accurate picture of your misleading claims:

    "Errors in the "Hockey Stick" undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous.

    This statement embraces at least two distinct falsehoods. The first falsehood holds that the "Hockey Stick" is the result of one analysis or the analysis of one group of researchers (i.e., that of Mann et al, 1998 and Mann et al, 1999). However, as discussed in the response to Myth #1 above, the basic conclusions of Mann et al (1998,1999) are affirmed in multiple independent studies. Thus, even if there were errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, numerous other studies independently support the conclusion of anomalous late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth.

    The second falsehood holds that there are errors in the Mann et al (1998, 1999) analyses, and that these putative errors compromise the "hockey stick" shape of hemispheric surface temperature reconstructions. Such claims seem to be based in part on the misunderstanding or misrepresentation by some individuals of a corrigendum that was published by Mann and colleagues in Nature. This corrigendum simply corrected the descriptions of supplementary information that accompanied the Mann et al article detailing precisely what data were used. As clearly stated in the corrigendum, these corrections have no influence at all on the actual analysis or any of the results shown in Mann et al (1998). Claims that the corrigendum reflects any errors at all in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely false."

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/07/2007 @ 01:59am

73. The planet was after all covered by ice at one time, so it would seem that global warming has not always been a bad thing necessarily historically...

    How long have we taken the temperature of the earth's climate???? 100, 150 years?? And just how accurrate were those methods a 100 yrs ago?

    How old is the earth? 6 billion years?

    How have climates evolved? over what period of time? and how long does it take to establish definitive proof a trend is legit recurring pattern? I would say alot longer than 20 yrs.

    Look i agree we need to cut pollutants going into the air.

    But we need to be smart and delibrate not reactionary and reckless.

    Posted by CPT 02/06/2007 @ 4:30pm

    I'm quite impressed that you spoke up the way that you did, CPT.

    "Look i agree we need to cut pollutants going into the air. But we need to be smart and delibrate not reactionary and reckless."

    I would be very interested to hear what you believe would be a "smart and deliberate" way to confront this situation.

    Serious question: Are you aware of how long man has been on the planet?

    Serious question: Are you aware of how long man has been releasing man-made (and accelerating the release of natural) pollutants into the earth, water, and atmosphere?

    For most of those six billion years you mentioned (best guesses actually place it around four and a half), long before man actually showed up, the earth's natural forces raged. Of course, you're right on about that. Keep in mind, however, that for most of that time, the earth was also a very inhospitable and uninhabitable place for carbon-based life forms, especially man.

    Eventually upright bipeds came along, and sure, for a couple of million years they coexisted with the earth pretty well, considering the natural upheavals of the planet, its climate, the ravages of untreatable (and terribly natural) disease and predators - the rough facts of life at the time.

    Soon after men began shaving, however, they got cocky and dangerously curious, and began coming up with all kinds of nifty ways to spew chemicals, both natural and unnatural, into the earth, air, and water. We have gotten amazingly good at it in the last hundred years - just look at the L.A. skyline through the haze sometime (if you can see it), or watch one of its explosively beautiful sunsets - it looks like the edge of the whole world is on fire with color. Of course, that's the effect of pollutants in the atmosphere, but who cares? It shore is purdy.

    Did you know that the greatest sources of harmful emmissions are what is euphemistically known to the EPA as "mobile sources", meaning automobiles?

    Those "mobile sources" did not affect the natural processes of the early earth, nor us, CPT because we weren't there. We're here now, though, destroying daily the atmosphere, water, and earth, and our children will have to live on with whatever world we leave them. It has always been this way, but our potential for self-destructive behavior grows with every new harmful chemical compoound we create and spew into the sky. And still, we just keep filling her up and putting the pedal down.

    Really, I think we can speed up the return to a time when the earth is completely inhospitable to man if we really try. Let's go back to using the non-biodegradeable styrofoam containers and CFC's in hair spray. I mean, what are we trying to save, really? The atmosphere? Feh, who needs it? I've always wanted a truly deep tan, anyway, say... one that goes all the way to the bone.

    Here's an analogy I know you'll follow, CPT.

    Imagine a brand new garbage dump. Before the first load of garbage pours in, the land is fairly flat and relatively pristine. It's just plain old, natural dirt.

    You following me?

    Now start up the garbage trucks and watch the garbage roll in every day. Watch them use a backhoe to roll it over itself, compacting it, and watch how, over time, the pile gets bigger no matter how much you compact it, because every day more garbage pours in. Eventually, you have to find a new dump because there is no more room for the man-made garbage rolling in every day.

    Now, instead of a pristine dirt lot with no men and their garbage around to muck it up, imagine a pristine sky, a pristine atmosphere...

    We are puking into the air at an alarming rate and the atmosphere will reach a point where it can tolerate no further chemical garbage without adverse effects on the land, sea, and humans it protects and shelters below.

    So, which is easier? Find a way for our atmosphere to "just deal with it" (and subsequently us), or practice a little less conspicuous consumption, raise the shit out of the fuel and vehicle and chemical emission standards... Maybe puke up a little less?

    What goes up, must come down.

    You following me?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 02:00am

74. Posted by BARRY25 02/06/2007 @ 11:08pm | ignore this person

    Barry25,

    Somehow I can imagine this being your vanity plate.

    Liberty, while more respectable than the likes of you and that sad, torpid intellect you insist on brandishing, nonetheless, Liberty has a very predictable hand of cards he likes to flash. Even though it is perpetually a losing hand, at least he plays the game--unlike you sorry-ass hecklers spitting and cackling inane and indecipherable commentary from the dark corners.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/07/2007 @ 02:23am

75. Barry25,

    Do you by chance, drive a 1993 Camaro? That would be my guess.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/07/2007 @ 02:24am

76. Invernesk, wow, Sweden was highly touted by my ultra-liberal college instuctors too. They had me believing that it's was a utopia ( before I woke up, began living in the real world, and graduated from that communist re-education camp...i mean college ). I wonder why liberals and academia think so highly of Sweden? Could it be SOCIALISM ( you know, that idea that has failed over and over and over . Anyway, scince Sweden has it all figured out, why don't you pack your bags and fucking MOVE! And again, why aren't people flooding from all over the world to get into Sweden like they are America? Dimwit!

    Posted by BARRY25 02/06/2007 @ 11:27pm | ignore this person

    Since you despise government, and ours still isn't small enough for that frighteningly creepy guy named Grover to drown in the bathtub...why don't you pack up and move your crap to Somalia; where there exists that libertarian utopia free from all the nastiness of government interference you're always bitching about.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/07/2007 @ 02:52am

77. That's interesting...everything wiped back to late last night???

    Oh well...

    Anyway, "treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors"....which one did Bush violate SPECIFICALLY by "lying about global warming"?

    And would we need Patrick Fitzgerald...or Mike Nifong to get a prosecution on it?

    Posted by Mask at 02/07/2007 @ 11:49am

78. Interesting article on "The global cooling myth" here...

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

    ...and another excellent compilation and analysis of question "Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No" here...

    http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

    ...not that I'd expect folks like CUPERA2 to actually expend the energy to investigate actual facts...so much easier to parrot the 'talking points', apparently.

    Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 12:07pm

79. Geez...I had a really good response to the "flat Earth" crowd that has apparently been erased by the mid-morning server spasm I emailed TheNation about a hour ago. I'll try to get back to it later on...but to Mask, CPT, etc.

    Is altering scientific results and reports in attempt to mislead the public (hell, the world) about matter of global security more or less serious than Bill's blow-job?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/07/2007 @ 12:15pm

80. Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). [1]

    Previously, Ball has been identified as a Canadian climate change sceptic who is a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. [2] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian think tank. [3]

    Ball is also a writer for Tech Central Station. [4]

    ..."oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science". In other words Mr. Ball is OWNED!!!!!

    Also, "The NRSP has been exposed recently as being controlled by energy industry lobbyists." [2] OWNED!!!!

    Posted by Chris C at 02/07/2007 @ 12:30pm

81. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/07/2007 @ 12:15am

    Again, LOC....what's the SPECIFIC law or statute being violated?

    Bush can "edit" all the reports he wants, and given it's not testimony in a court case...it's not "perjury" or "obstruction of justice".

    The OTHER charges...NSA Spying, etc....atleast have SOME legalistic basis for them.

    Either Mr Nichols is just "pumping the well" of impeachment with this silliness from the "Greens" to either keep the troops fired up or just to fill space (and maybe sell a few extra copies of his book).

    Posted by Mask at 02/07/2007 @ 12:36pm

82. Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/07/2007 @ 12:12am

    Rio's post above actually did not come from Rio (though he went out of his way to make the ideas discussed there look that way), but from Dennis Avery, and can be found all over the web.

    When you cut and paste someone else's article in its entirety, Rio, provide the actual author's name and link info, would you? You aren't fooling anyone.

    Avery, by the way, is widely known for PR spinning that seizes upon an element of truth and then distorts it in specific ways to serve his larger purpose. He is a chemical and pesticide advocate, rightwing think tanker, and just the kind of guy you'd fall right in behind without having a clue what you were doing, Rio.

    You're dumber than sheep.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 12:37pm

83. Great work the last day or two, Lillian.

    If Liberty is getting upset, then you're doing something right.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 12:40pm

84. BTW, on the whole thing of "owned scientists"...asked this on Ms vanden Heuvel's thread on an idea from ACOOK....

    If the "alternative fuel" that gets promoted by global warming advocates is something like ...bio-fuel...

    wouldn't "Big Farm" like Archer-Daniels-Midland, reap a fortune?!?!? [admworld.com]

    and, uh, wouldn't they support scientists and groups that endorse that?

    just curious

    Posted by Mask at 02/07/2007 @ 12:40pm

85. I'm with ZERO on this one. If the LL's and Barry 25's of the world don't want to objectively look at the collossal reams of scientific eveidence that clearly shows antropogenic GW is real and instead prefer to cherry pick non peer reviewed statistically outlying, oil industry generated articles then there is nothing that can be gained by having further dialogue with these people on this subject.

    Let's just move on without them and start the debate about what we're going to do about it.

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/07/2007 @ 12:41pm

86. Barry 25,

    I hope meet someday so I can kick your bush-kissing ass! Gonna be in the Grosse Pointe area anytime soon?

    Posted by Chris C at 02/07/2007 @ 12:43pm

87. LL

    on "the hysteria over Antarctica" South Pole

    on Greenland

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/07/2007 @ 12:44pm

88. LL

    Ooops...my bad. screwed up my HTML

    on "the hysteria over Antarctica" South Pole

    on Greenland

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/07/2007 @ 12:48pm

89. Let's just move on without them and start the debate about what we're going to do about it.

    Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/07/2007 @ 12:41am

    Righty-o. I'll throw out some novel ideas...

    From my post above:

    "...practice a little less conspicuous consumption, raise the shit out of the fuel and vehicle and chemical emission standards..."

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 12:51pm

90. Barry 25,

    I hope meet someday so I can kick your bush-kissing ass! Gonna be in the Grosse Pointe area anytime soon?

    Posted by CHRIS C 02/07/2007 @ 12:43am

    He'd run crying when he saw you coming, Chris. He's all talk, and better left in the iggy bin.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 12:52pm

91. That would be true if it weren't for the fact that without an abbundant amount of cheap and easy fossil fuel ADM would not be able to process the wears that make them so damn rich. The fact is that bio-fuel, while environmentally superior to fossil fuels is still very expensive to produce. ADM is much more interested in their short-term profit margins.

    Posted by Chris C at 02/07/2007 @ 12:59pm

92. Posted by NEW DAWN 02/07/2007 @ 12:51am

    What! You mean we don't really need 53 new and different cars every year....or 6-bezillion new kinds of cologne. Sound like treason or heresy or both..... (LOL) Sometimes the obvious cuts the quickest....good, obvious point ND

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/07/2007 @ 12:59pm

93. Republicans are indifferent to real science. Aids got a head start on us thanks to Reagan. None of those fags that died were probably Christians so what do Republicans care. Now they're denials on global warming have been revealed to be just more ignorant, partisan bias. Meanwhile the fastest selling car in America is the Prius! Gore will get the Nobel prize and Bush will go down in history as the worst President we have ever had!

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 02/07/2007 @ 1:00pm

94. LVLIBERTY1 is the kind of person who advocated sending Galileo to the stake or who was a loyal supporter of "Lysenkoism" in the Soviet Union.

    Pitiful. He cadges a few brochures from pollution industry mouthpieces and can't accept reality even after the originators of the anti-science campaign which is the source of his rhetoric recant.

    Bible-thumpers like him are currently engaged in a campaign to force scientists to hide anthropological evidence that undermines the bible account of creation.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/07/2007 @ 1:04pm

95. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/07/2007 @ 1:04pm

    "the bible account of creation." or as we scientists call it...the "Presto Theory"

    Posted by leftofcenter at 02/07/2007 @ 1:09pm

96. "The Presto Theory"

    Instant classic, LoC.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 1:19pm

97. great posts newdawn. i would say practice a lot less conspicuous consumption though. we are consuming pigs.

    i am enjoying your responses to leaveliberty, lillian. i wonder if any of the barrage of facts will sink in?

    oustbush, always love your posts and i'm glad you're posting more lately. i pictured a 78 camaro, though.

    thanks for the links leftofcenter. i can use those with a stubborn friend of mine.

    Posted by loveloki at 02/07/2007 @ 1:22pm

98. New Dawn,

    Raising the shit out of the fuel standards....I'm a bit more libertarian than that. I would suggest that gasoline be taxed to the extent that its TRUE cost be reflected in its consumer price (the true cost being not just the land rights cost, extraction cost, refinery cost, transportation cost and marketing cost, but also its ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, ITS GEOPOLITICAL COST, and so on).

    Assuming those new taxes are somewhere in the range of $2-5/gallon, we'd quickly see a drop off in the consumption of gasoline, smaller more efficient vehicles, greater usage of mass transit and car pooling and a slow down (or perhaps reversal) of the suburbanization of rural America. Of course, we could also then dramatically lower income taxes as revenues from source pollution increased.

    Posted by freedomplease at 02/07/2007 @ 1:28pm

99. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/07/2007 @ 1:28pm

    FREE...given a lot of FOOD is produced and distributed by vehicles running on petroleum (mostly diesel)...as well as other products...

    what would be the effect on INFLATION?

    Given you can't "car pool" or use a mass transit system with a trailer off on 18-wheeler?

    Posted by Mask at 02/07/2007 @ 1:34pm

100. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 12:18am | ignore this person

     Lillian,

     In all of your pontificating nonsense...

     Leave Liberty, vitually everything you posted was "pontificating nonsense". I've posted links to legitimate, peer-reviewed science. Did you read ANY of it? You've posted "junk-science" from oil industry hacks.

     I notice you made no attempt to reconcile the hysteria over Antarctica for example in which more than 90% of Antarctica remains well below subzero temperatures and is not subject to this current warming cycle.

     Nor do you attempt any serious rebuttal to the facts surrounding the historical climate record for Greenland that I cited.

     LOC beat me to it here...Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/07/2007 @ 12:48am | ignore this person.

     Oustbush here...Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/07/2007 @ 01:19am | ignore this person...also pretty thoroughly demolished much of your Antarctica BS with that nice interview with the ACTUAL AUTHOR YOU QUOTED, Dr. Dornan. I think his own words discredit your rather weak arguement rather thoroughly.

     I maintain and am confident that the science backs me up that it is a natural cycle and not significantly affected by manmade causes

     Well no, that's not quite right. Actually, you claimed that "Overwhelmingly, climatologists and Physicists have debunked the manmade global warming scare." You have yet to produce any evidence whatsover that would support your claim. A couple of industry shills, some out of context quotes that even the author himself refuted for you, a rouge scientist who's bucking the conclusion reached by the vast majority of his peers does NOT equal "overwhelmingly, climatologists and Physicists have debunked the manmade global warming scare" by an stretch of the imagination.

     Of course, now that you've softened your rhetoric down to "...the science backs me up that it is a natural cycle and not significantly affected by manmade causes"...you STILL have yet to produce credible scientific evidence to back it.

     It is the height of liberal arrogance to suggest that mankind has a greater affect on climate than the natural cycles of our earthly climate and the external affects from the Sun.

     Well, OK...now you've morphed your 'point' yet again. Not sure where you got the impression that anyone, anywhere has made the claim that mankind has a greater effect on climate than the Sun. Frankly, I find this new effort to claim a liberal viewpoint that no liberal has ever espoused to be rather...bizarre! Not to mention the fact that you somehow seem to be equating scientific consensus with liberals. Or the fact that you seem to be trying to make the case that mankind does NOT have the ability to adversely affect the environment. Hello? Try googling 'passenger pigion'.

     Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 1:34pm

101. "You know that photo of the polar bears was a proven hoax right?"

     Posted by CPT 02/06/2007 @ 4:08pm

     Would you be so kind as to link me to some supporting documentation?

     Posted by drhammer at 02/07/2007 @ 1:39pm

102. i am enjoying your responses to leaveliberty, lillian. i wonder if any of the barrage of facts will sink in?

     Posted by LOVELOKI 02/07/2007 @ 1:22pm | ignore this person

     Not a chance, Loveloki! I'm well aware that fighting delusion with facts is a wasted effort when the mind in question is sealed tightly as Leave Liberty's.

     I kind of assumed that the value in posting what I did was more in providing food for thought and links to actual science and facts on the subject for those who might be reading along and who might have an actual interest in educating themselves...as opposed to just drinking the koolaid.

     Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 1:41pm

103. New Dawn,

     Raising the shit out of the fuel standards....I'm a bit more libertarian than that. I would suggest that gasoline be taxed to the extent that its TRUE cost be reflected in its consumer price (the true cost being not just the land rights cost, extraction cost, refinery cost, transportation cost and marketing cost, but also its ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, ITS GEOPOLITICAL COST, and so on).

     Assuming those new taxes are somewhere in the range of $2-5/gallon, we'd quickly see a drop off in the consumption of gasoline, smaller more efficient vehicles, greater usage of mass transit and car pooling and a slow down (or perhaps reversal) of the suburbanization of rural America. Of course, we could also then dramatically lower income taxes as revenues from source pollution increased.

     Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/07/2007 @ 1:28pm

     My immediate knee-jerk reaction at your first couple of sentences, Free, was that charging more would do nothing to address the unfixable damage that would continue - meaning that, to me, that sounds like charging a tax for a burning building. You can't build much with ashes, no matter how much money you throw at them.

     After reading deeper and chewing your post over in my mind, I get your point, but I still wonder if hitting the consumers with higher prices (which would be inevitable even if we stuck to only taxing the producers) will make us use less.

     People have been bitching about those "novel ideas" I proposed earlier for decades, with little effect. We've gotten hybrids and the like, and some companies have become (slightly) more environmentally conscious, sure...

     but it's like watching a glacier move.

     Will charging more make the difference?

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 1:48pm

104. Have any of you considered the possibility that global warming might affect different parts of the earth in different ways? For example, cooler temperatures in one place and warmer temperatures in another?

     Other than that, global warming or not, we have the technology to create more efficient ways of living on planet Earth, so let's get cracking. No more wars for oil.

     Posted by boing007 at 02/07/2007 @ 1:49pm

105. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 1:41pm

     Don't come running to me seeking support, Liberty. I think you are sincere, sure, in that you really, really believe most of what you say here (often with your fingers crossed behind your back that no one will look too deep into your sources), but I also believe that you are patently full of shit on this topic, as I do on most others that have to do with the earth and the fate of mankind.

     Tell me... what does your holy book, the fundamental blueprint and life guide for your personal existence and the underlying filter through which you strain every opinion you have, say about man's destructive influence on this planet?

     Answer that, then explain how we can take a man like you seriously when, in accordance with your inherent biases (and as has been shown on this very thread), you regularly dismiss peer-reviewed research and selectively quote oil and chemistry industry hacks to support your widely-repudiated positions?

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 1:57pm

106. Too funny:

     So while he starts off claiming global warming is a hoax, he ends up quoting a scientist who BUCKS THE REST OF HIS PEERS, inadvertently demonstrating that A) global warming isn't a hoax and B) the consensus of the vast majority of experts in the field is exactly the opposite of what LEave Liberty claims it is!

     Posted by LILLIAN 02/06/2007 @ 9:52pm

     Lillian,

     In all of your pontificating nonsense, you again are guilty of misrepresenting my position...

     I continue to find the leftist manmade global warming hoax to be such utter nonsense that it seems irresponsible for any legitimate scientist to even align themselves with this garbage.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 12:18am

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 2:01pm

107. So, let us have debate and let it be vigorous. But I do wish that those who support the manmade global warming theory would respect the fact that there are significant numbers of respected scientists and lay people who hold to a different conclusion based upon the science.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 1:41pm

     I respect their minority opinions for what they are - minority opinions.

     Until they are peer-reviewed by the scientific community at large, however, I don't really count them as real science.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 2:04pm

108. EVEN FUNNIER:

     I continue to find the leftist manmade global warming hoax to be such utter nonsense that it seems irresponsible for any legitimate scientist to even align themselves with this garbage.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 12:18am

     I am not denying global warming.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 2:04pm

     "Stay the course" ----------- "We were never stay the course", anyone?

     Tell me, Liberty, do pollution and emissions affect the earth's atmosphere?

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 2:08pm

109. Posted by MASK 02/07/2007 @ 1:34pm

     But we CAN put those trailers onto trains powered by biodiesel and minimize impacts...n'est pas?

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/07/2007 @ 2:11pm

110. So, let us have debate and let it be vigorous. But I do wish that those who support the manmade global warming theory would respect the fact that there are significant numbers of respected scientists and lay people who hold to a different conclusion based upon the science.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 1:41pm | ignore this person

     NO LIBERTY, LETS NOT!

     According to the Union of Concerned Scientists....The oil industry paid a apoxy $24M to extend this ridiculous "debate" an extra 10 years. The goose is cooked...no more debate about WHETHER it's man made....time to get onto what we'll do about it.

     New Dawn / Mask,

     Yes, a shift in the tax burden onto source pollution and away from income will have micro-economic ramifications. None of which are insurmountable and none of which are not greatly outweighed by the benefits.

     And yes New Dawn, exposing the TRUE cost of carbon emmision onto the consumer will have an effect on consumption. So too, would your idea of raising fuel standards....but that would be inferrior as it would not seriously address mass transit utilization, car pooling or suburban sprawl....all of which are far more developed in countries where petroleum taxation adequately addresses the emmssions cost of petroleum usage.

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/07/2007 @ 2:14pm

111. Every time I find myself astounded by the apologists who blythely vomit corporate or wingnut talking points in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I think back to this quote by Michael Rivera:

     "Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

     Peace

     Posted by drhammer at 02/07/2007 @ 2:14pm

112. I swear, John, I think as long as its Bush, EVERYTHING's an impeachable offensive for you. The suggestion is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

     Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/07/2007 @ 2:20pm

113. ND, 1. I didn't seek out support from you. I don't expect it.

     Good thinking, cuz you ain't gonna get it on this topic, that's for sure.

     2. I have never made any statements on the environment and especially global warming where I utilized the Bible as a reference point. I have always sought out to use scientific evidence on this subject.

     That isn't what I asked you, and no matter what you say, I do not for one second believe you. Every good Christian uses the good book exactly like I said - as the fundamental blueprint and life guide for their personal existence and the underlying filter through which they should strain every opinion they have.

     2. I have quoted many emminent scientists which have zero connection to the oil lobby.

     Like who?

     They are always ignored by people like yourself who then screech about supposed contaminated scientists bought off by the Oil lobby.

     I don't screech, nor did I say anyone was "bought off".

     You and others like Lillian have no problem though with the very biased NGO's like the Union of Concerned Scientists which is a leftwing propaganda machine. That is hypocrisy.

     The UCS is a leftwing propaganda machine just because you say so? You say all kinds of shit that isn't true, so without some proof of that statement, I'll have to just dismiss it, too.

     Would you care to answer my legitimate question now?

     What does your book say about man's destructive influence on the planet?

     And do pollution and emissions affect the earth's atmosphere?

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 2:22pm

114. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/07/2007 @ 2:14pm

     Very interesting, Free - thanks for kicking me in the thinking cap.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 2:24pm

115. I still don't entirely agree, but I'm thinking about it.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 2:25pm

116. Okay, Free, I thought about it or a minute, and here's my biggest question:

     Who is going to vote for new gasoline taxes somewhere in the range of $2-5/gallon?

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 2:28pm

117. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/07/2007 @ 2:14pm

     How very true FP. Reminds me of a forum at my Master's on tranportation & Environment. All the talk kept going round to better motors, more efficient cars, new road materials, etc. etc. I asked them did this mean that personal automotive transportation was the only solution to transportation needs. They hemmed and hawed a bit and basically said "yes." I laughed and asked why have a forum that doesn't address the problem, but only entertains technology as applied to a foregone conclusion.

     I hurried up and got my degree and got down the road....

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/07/2007 @ 2:32pm

118. Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/07/2007 @ 2:30pm

     Or you can put on your paper hat and shout idiocy at the passing crowds as you have done today....

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/07/2007 @ 2:34pm

119. Rio Chickenshit exposed:

     Still merrily pasting other's words and trying to make them look like your own? You cowardly fraud.

     Rio cut and pasted his words from http://tzimisce.townhall.com/Default.aspx?ID=1&Month=12&Year=2006

     Of course, the notoriously right-wing horseshit factory that is Townhall.com (with opinion pieces by such intellectual giants as Coulter, Medved, and Malkin), would hardly sue you for plaigirism - they count on willing dupes like you to pass along their fertilizer...

     Rio adds a little blather of his own to the front and back of someone else's article (with no attribution), and attempts to make the others' words seem like his own creations.

     You're a cowardly fraud, Rio Chickenshit.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 2:38pm

120. ND,

     Nobody will vote for MORE taxation. What I hope people will do is recognize that we have already determined as a society that we want the government to provide us some certain things (a military, Medicare etc) and that it needs to be paid for and we therefore agree to be taxed. At this point a huge portion of the federal taxation is in the form of income taxes.

     As you lower income taxes and increase gasoline taxes you'll definitely start hearing a hollering from the trucking industry, taxi cab drivers and the like but overall the average joe should be NO WORSE off if he doesn't change his behaviour and if he does change his behaviour (by buying a hybrid or moving closer to work, or taking mass transit) he should be better off.

     Obviously, there will be unforseen consequences.....so you'd phase it in slowly....obviously always lowering income taxes every time you raised gas taxes.

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/07/2007 @ 2:40pm

121. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/07/2007 @ 2:11pm |

     LOC, since everybody has to produce "scientific evidence"...if you have some on how we take 25%...35%...50% of our trucked freight and put it "onto trains powered by biodiesel" in a space of time that "minimizes the impact" of a $2-5 a gallon "carbon tax"...

     love to see it.

     Even apologists for Jimmy Carter and the 1978-1979 recession recognize that GAS PRICES were a large component. Now...if you want to REPRODUCE that effect by a drastic rise in the gas tax (which would HAVE to be drastic to have ANY impact)....

     you might find even a few Democrats who would balk at "bringing back the 'good ol' days' of the last years of Jimmy Carter's economy".

     Posted by Mask at 02/07/2007 @ 2:46pm

122. Mask, the 'car-pool' for most of a 18 wheelers trailer's trip is that the cargo should be put into a RAIL CAR and put on a TRAIN. The fact that the Canadians and the Europeans weren't stupid enough to let their rail systems go to shit should have been a clue. You're slower than usual today, MASK.

     And Bush's 'high crimes and misdemeanors' are sufficient, in pushing for the vested interests instead of working for the best interests of all the citizens. Isn't increasing how much mercury is going into little kids' heads enough for you? That mercury is the direct result of his damned unimproved coal-fired plants that he's worked so hard to get exemptions from improving. The reason that isn't further specified in the constitution is for just such reasons as this, where any decent person can see the horror of what he's done. And if Clinton can be impeached over a between adults blow job, I'm sure we can impeach Bush for selling all of the ordinary people of this country down the river for a few more bucks.

     Posted by brantl at 02/07/2007 @ 2:48pm

123. Fair points one and all, Free, but I still have issues with them, and I know I'm not alone.

     I'm not tax-phobic like many posters here, as long as the taxes are going to security and infrastructure, with some also working the basic human needs of adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and education for every American.

     However, I do not want to pay more money for gas, period. I couldn't afford a hybrid if I wanted to (that's what I get for doing a job that I love instead of one that pays me better). I do not want to ride the rolling insane asylum that is a Bay Area city bus for a single minute longer than I have to (though I ride often, especially when my lady and I work different schedules and she has the car).

     And I'm really not sure, but might you be underestimating the "hollering" from the trucking industry if gas prices go up by dollars a gallon (even gradually), as well as the effect on the population at large, considering that every single thing we eat, wear, and use was trucked in from somewhere...

     I'm not arguing with you, mind you, just responding with my own thoughts.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 2:49pm

124. Yes, a shift in the tax burden onto source pollution and away from income will have micro-economic ramifications. None of which are insurmountable and none of which are not greatly outweighed by the benefits.

     Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/07/2007 @ 2:14pm

     Again, FREE....any data to support the idea that a "$2-5 a gallon tax" (your post) would have "surmountable" "micro-economic ramifications"?

     Or even HOW to "surmount" the fact that freight charges just DOUBLED, TRIPLED or even QUADRUPLED under that plan...and "are greatly outweighed by the benefits" by a effect on the climate that might take CENTURIES to overcome???

     Posted by Mask at 02/07/2007 @ 2:49pm

125. Posted by BRANTL 02/07/2007 @ 2:48pm

     BRANTL, before you once again call people "slow"....how about proving you are NOT?

     Do you have ANY data or facts to explain how we move all or even a sizeable portion (to lessen FREE's gas tax) to rail transport without tens, possibly HUNDREDS of billions in updates and renovations (including the costs of CREATING bio-diesel locomotives to pull the crap).

     and second....give me the SPECIFIC and EXACT laws that Bush broke concerning global warming, so that he could be impeached for a "high crime or misdemeanor".

     A "fast" guy like you shouldn't have any trouble with that...and prove us poor "slow" guys wrong.

     Posted by Mask at 02/07/2007 @ 2:52pm

126. Mask,

     After Katrina I paid $3.40 for a gallon of gas. Yesterday I paid $2.09.

     I missed the economic catasptophe in between....can you enlighten me?

     What you're missing MASK is that our system is efficient BECAUSE of low gas costs and countries that have high costs are efficient because of high gas costs....

     What do I mean by this?

     ONE EXAMPLE---

     We have big box retailing dozens of miles away from where people live...why? Because it's relatively cheap for thousands of us to drive to where the products are retailed. In highly gas taxed economies they have retailing in densely populated areas...why? Because its cheaper to drive the truck to where people live.

     Both systems are efficient given the variables that each system is working with.

     Also remember a phased in system doesn't produce a PRICE SHOCK like we had in the seventies.....the price of gas & diesel will be going up $0.50/gallon on Jan1 2008 another $0.50 on Jan 1 2009. Income taxes will be coming down 1.5% on each of those dates. Business now has time to build more efficient systems....it's not a SHOCK.

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/07/2007 @ 3:02pm

127. Have you ever seen the sky above the San Fernando Valley as you come over the rise on the freeway? It is a thick, gray/brown toxic cloud of filthy air. Global warming or no global warming, it is time to clean up the environment and start recycling like mad.

     Posted by boing007 at 02/07/2007 @ 3:05pm

128. Mask, the 'car-pool' for most of a 18 wheelers trailer's trip is that the cargo should be put into a RAIL CAR and put on a TRAIN. The fact that the Canadians and the Europeans weren't stupid enough to let their rail systems go to shit should have been a clue. You're slower than usual today, MASK.

     More trains, less trucks. Thank you.

     Posted by boing007 at 02/07/2007 @ 3:09pm

129. But we CAN put those trailers onto trains powered by biodiesel and minimize impacts...n'est-ce pas?

     Posted by LEFTOFCENTER

     And also reduce wear and tear on the highways and byways. Canada was just beginning to use more truck/train containers when the Progressive Conservative decided to reduce CN Rail's yearly budget by a half a billion dollars, in order to appease the trucking industry.

     Posted by boing007 at 02/07/2007 @ 3:16pm

130. You seem to be guilty of Lillian's offense. I am not denying global warming. I am disputing manmade causation.

     Warming and cooling cycles are a natural part of our ever changing climate.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 2:04pm | ignore this person

     Liberty1,

     Your arguments are about as nifty and accurate as those pre-Iraq War pretexts about Al-Qaeda sharing a bed with Saddam and the alleged nuclear programs.

     Lillian and Leftocenter have already dealt with your nonpeer-review-grounded talking points, but I'd like to address a couple more.

     You and your crusty outlaw, bad-assed scientists riding petrocapital dollars into the public arena- as substitute for lacking real empirical arguments that would muster the tests of their peers--are receiving too much attention from well-meaning types prone by political ideology to side with the business leaders, in any controversal matter, despite the serious consequences.

     Your infamous claims as to the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" are addressed by numerous sources. One of the prominent denialists of human activity accelerating the global warming is Lord Monckton, a repectable man within his field of expertise: Classics, but not so competent in Climate Change. His articles are given popular distribution and audience by those who reflexively defend human industrial activities at any cost.

     Monckton, like yourself, claims that scientists are trying to hide the data showing this Medieval Warm Period because it was "real, global and up to 3C warmer than now" thus disproving manmade climate change. Well, George Monbiot, writing for the British paper the Guardian, who does have a background in science, decribes why the claim as to this warm period in relation to current data is false and irrlevant:

     http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1947245,00.html

     "What of his other claims? Well, the reason the "medieval warm period" doesn't show up on the UN panel's graphs is simple. As far as climatologists can tell, there wasn't one. So why did the Vikings, as Monckton points out, settle in Greenland?

     As a paper published in Reviews of Geophysics shows, Vikings first arrived in Greenland at the very beginning of the "warm period" Monckton discusses, when temperatures, even according to his graph, were lower than they are today. They did so because life had become too hot for them in their adopted home (Iceland): not climatically, but politically. There does appear to have been a slight warming in some parts of the northern hemisphere. There is no reliable evidence that this was a global phenomenon. As for the Chinese naval squadron sailing round the Arctic, it is pure bunkum - a myth long discredited by serious historians.

     So what of those graphs? Look at them carefully and you see that they are measuring two different things: global temperatures (the UN panel's progression) and European temperatures (Monckton's line). You will also discover that the scales are different."

     Posted by Oustbush at 02/07/2007 @ 3:39pm

131. I neglected to add that when Canada's Progressive Conservative Government under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney pulled the plug on CN Rail in 1990, they also reduced the number of train/truck container routes. There was a lot of talk about a highspeed train to connect the Quebec/Windsor corridor, but it was decided to upgrade Pearson Airport in Toronto instead. Meanwhile, trucks have been tearing up the highway road surfaces all over the country to the tune of billions of dollars for repairs in the last 16 years. Ultimately, did we save money, break even, or lose money because of this political decision? Anybody know?

     Posted by boing007 at 02/07/2007 @ 3:40pm

132. I have quoted many emminent scientists which have zero connection to the oil lobby. They are always ignored by people like yourself who then screech about supposed contaminated scientists bought off by the Oil lobby. You and others like Lillian have no problem though with the very biased NGO's like the Union of Concerned Scientists which is a leftwing propaganda machine. That is hypocrisy.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 2:09pm | ignore this person

     Leave Liberty, you seem to having quite a problem with your honesty today. I posted 25 different links. Many links I provided were to research conducted by The National Academy of Sciences, Scripps Oceanographic Institute, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and American Geophysical Union. You then select out the one (that's one, as in singular) link to UCS, label them as leftist organization (which is utter BS) and then try to desperately dismiss everything I linked to as being from "very biased NGO's".

     That's weak...very weak!

     Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 3:52pm

133. oustbush, always love your posts and i'm glad you're posting more lately. i pictured a 78 camaro, though.

     Posted by LOVELOKI 02/07/2007 @ 1:22pm | ignore this person

     Thanks Loveloki. You display an admirable spirit and character in your comments, it makes me happy to see your posts.

     Probably you're correct regarding Barry25; fuzzy dice and pictures of naked women dangling from the rear view mirror, too.

     Posted by Oustbush at 02/07/2007 @ 3:56pm

134. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/07/2007 @ 3:02pm

     FREE, 50 cents a year sounds fine....except you STILL get inflation. Your "Katrina" example doesn't work, because the prices eventually came down again...you're talking EVER-increasing gas prices with NO reduction in cost.

     So...all those people who move products on freight lines will HAVE to raise prices. And despite BRANTL and BOINGG's "Let's put it all on trains", the substantial amount of interstate trucking needed to be shunted to rail...can't be in a few years. (After all, on YOUR plan gas prices would be up TWO dollars a gallon more by only 2011)

     Do you think any large percentage of interstate trucking could be moved to rail in less than four years???

     Again, to you, BRANTL, and BOING....lovely IDEAS, but let's see some hard numbers on freight costs, conversion of interstate truck-loads to rail transport, time-tables, etc.

     BTW, I'm asking for all of this before pointing out the MOOT point of this idea, given that some DEMOCRATS reject higher gas taxes since they, like all sales taxes, effect "the poor most of all".

     Posted by Mask at 02/07/2007 @ 4:03pm

135. I have quoted many emminent scientists which have zero connection to the oil lobby. They are always ignored by people like yourself who then screech about supposed contaminated scientists bought off by the Oil lobby. You and others like Lillian have no problem though with the very biased NGO's like the Union of Concerned Scientists which is a leftwing propaganda machine. That is hypocrisy.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 2:09pm | ignore this person

     There are significant distinctions between motivations of public interest groups, like the UCS or Sierrra Club vs. special interest groups devoted to maintaining status quo for increased profit margins; and if you care to portray/compare the monetary interests of a nonprofit like UCS as a primary motive equitable to petrol companies like Exxon, go ahead, but you'll just betray your stupidity. That being said, sure the individual scientists, even among your clan, are sincere and not operating within the very narrow parameters of corporate greed, but don't try and conflate the monetary motivations bewteen public-orientated groups trying to preserve healthy ecosytems beyond our short-term grab for selfish greed and special private interests protecting their private scratch.

     Posted by Oustbush at 02/07/2007 @ 4:10pm

136. Looks like liberty is bringin' forth some " Inconvenient Truths " on this blog and it's quite enjoyable. You twerps...I mean sheep, will never learn. Talk about blindly following your leader ( Al Gore, HAH )!

     Posted by barry25 at 02/07/2007 @ 4:10pm

137. The fact that you dimwit liberals constantly act as if the bush administration are just puppets for corporations and dem's aren't is a testament as to how ignorant you are. Dem's are also in the pockets of corporations, they own corporations, they don't use labor unions in their corporations or businesses ( see: nancy " I had this smile surgically pasted onto my face" Pelosi )even though they complain that corporate america doesn't use them ( see: hypocrisy ), they OUTSOURCE for their corporations even though they publicy condemn the act ( see: John and theresa Hienze kerry - hypocrisy ) Etc. Etc. Etc. These are just more facts in the mountain of evidence showing the total and complete hypocrisy of the left and their sheep/flock er.....i mean followers! You people should be ashamed of yourselves and like I said before, do humanity a favor and set yourselves on fire to protest the evil George Bush!

     Posted by barry25 at 02/07/2007 @ 4:18pm

138. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 3:14pm | ignore this person

     Leave Liberty, I'm at work and don't have a great deal of time to devote to this but this new list of experts you've produced...of a "number of prominent scientists with no connection to industries..." already seems to have some MAJOR problems...

     Christopher Landsea - while he disputes the influence of global warming on the strength of hurricanes, here is a direct quote regarding GW "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming." So it seems the first of Leave's experts doesn't actually agree with Leave's "disputing manmade causatin".

     Richard Siegmund Lindzen - charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels. A speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC. So it seems the next of Leave's experts isn't at all a scientist "with no connection to industries".

     Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 4:20pm

139. I'll be back to debunk you further later, Liberty, although Lillian (even while busy at work) already seems to have you taken care of.

     I adore you, Lillian. ;)

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 4:32pm

140. Posted by MASK 02/07/2007 @ 4:03pm | ignore this person

     You'd be surprised at how much interstate freight hauling is already done on rail....and you'd be surprised at how much more could be done given a financial incentive (higher diesel costs) without very much adaptation. The track capacity is already there for massive increases and the railcar / engine capacity can be added within a couple of years.

     We don't go in the dircetion of higher gas taxes....because we romanticize the American car and the American road, which prevents us from thinking rationally about our overall transportation structure.

     Try it one day....try walking into a bar and telling them you think it would be great if gas cost $5/gallon but income taxes were lower. If you're not lynched instantly you're lucky!

     But after the initial xenophobia has passed many of us wouldn't mind paying $5/gallon for gas if the roads weren't clogged with trucks and single occupancy vehicles.....and if our income taxes were lower.

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/07/2007 @ 4:45pm

141. Why is anyone still humoring LVL and discussing his insane fringe "scientists"?

     Oh, Oh, Oh....I've got an idea, if I find 8 "scientists" who dispute the existence of gravity....can we discuss it for several years....and in the meantime we'll ground the aviation industry while the debate goes on???

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/07/2007 @ 4:48pm

142. Lillian is obviously not too busy at work. She's also obviously getting paid for doing nothing ( it's every liberal's dream ). I wonder if her employer knows that he's paying for services not rendered? I bet, though, that she is a gov't employee in some capacity ( most liberals are because they can't make it in the real world so they infect jobs in gov't and academia where they are protected, coddled, and free from that dirty word: ACCOUNTABILITY! )So lilian, get back to work, stop riding on the backs of others ( a liberal attribute ), carry your own weight ( liberals don't believe in this ), have some pride and self-respect, AND GET BACK TO WORK, LOAFER-LIBERAL! Absolutely shameful, yet predictable!

     Posted by barry25 at 02/07/2007 @ 4:51pm

143. "I have yet to see it."

     Well, have you thought about, oh, say, looking at what people show you?

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 4:51pm

144. Why is anyone still humoring LVL and discussing his insane fringe "scientists"?

     Oh, Oh, Oh....I've got an idea, if I find 8 "scientists" who dispute the existence of gravity....can we discuss it for several years....and in the meantime we'll ground the aviation industry while the debate goes on???

     Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 02/07/2007 @ 4:48pm

     Because willfully blind people are amusing in a sick, sad way?

     I think that is an excellent idea, Free - I've never really believed in gravity anyway. The earth is flat, too, by the way.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 4:54pm

145. Secondly, you continue as you always do to misstate my case. I have said that global warming is not caused primarily by man as the IPCC summary and people like Al Gore contend. It has as I stated to New Dawn and as I stated back in 2005 to I Love Physics, a very small contribution, probably less than 5%.

     Did I miss someone here claiming that global warming is "primarily" caused by man?

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 4:58pm

146. I get it - you're using that phraseology to insinuate that everyoneM here blames the entire phenomenon on man...

     I don't believe that's correct, but I can't speak for anyone else.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 5:01pm

147. Liberty, you'll be waiting a very long time for that proof. They'll continue to use techniques of debating that can be found in the "Liberals handbook on how to debate an issue that you can't win" ! In this handbook, liberals are shown how to deflect, dodge, squirm out of, or change the language of issues they can't justify debating. An example: change Illegal Aliens to Undocumented workers, then when you have the population conditioned to that term, change it again to just plain "immigrant". Slowly but surely you've changed the whole argument and when someone questions the negative effects of ILLEGAL Immigrants, the liberal can say, " we're a nation of immigrants, why are you against IMMIGRANTS"? These are the typical despicable techniques used by low-life liberals to debate issues that they are on the wrong side of!

     Posted by barry25 at 02/07/2007 @ 5:01pm

148. And arent you misstating the IPCC's conclusions a bit, Liberty?

     According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this era of global warming "is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin" and "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence of the global climate."

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 5:06pm

149. Humans are PART of this planet so anything they do could be considered " NATURAL"!

     Posted by barry25 at 02/07/2007 @ 5:10pm

150. Remember, you lunatic liberals want to call 2 men buttfcuking each other " Natural " even though they are not physically, or biologically to reproduce or have sex! So if that's NATURAL then ANYTHING humans do is natural!

     Posted by barry25 at 02/07/2007 @ 5:12pm

151. Keep up the pompous attitude, Liberty.

     As I said earlier, I will find more time for you later.

     I've already got your claim that your religion has nothing to say about global warming debunked - I'll post on that later...

     Wading through the rest of your fluff shouldn't be too tough.

     Later.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 5:15pm

152. Get back to work, New dawn, and stop making other's carry the load while you loaf ( it's the liberal way )!

     Posted by barry25 at 02/07/2007 @ 5:17pm

153. This is one issue where I am perfectly comfortable debating any and all who want to step up to the plate. All I have seen is the usual personal attacks and refusal to acknowledge scientists who are well accepted in their scientific communities purely on the basis that they dispute manmade causation as a significant contributor to global warming.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 5:09pm | ignore this person

     Of course you want to keep debating......it's filibustering....we debate....time goes on....you win.

     Too much time has already been wasted and that wasted time is going to cost us billions perhaps trillions (and the time was bought for a poxy $24 million). SICKENING.

     Posted by freedomplease at 02/07/2007 @ 5:17pm

154. Remember, you lunatic liberals want to call 2 men buttfcuking each other " Natural " even though they are not physically, or biologically to reproduce or have sex! So if that's NATURAL then ANYTHING humans do is natural!

     Posted by BARRY25 02/07/2007 @ 5:12pm

     "God" "created" sex because it feels good, Barry, and love because loving and being loved is wonderful, not that you'd have a clue what being loved is like, universally loathed as you are.

     And it's funny how you seem to dismiss the rampant polygamy, rape, and incest in the Bible...

     We started, according to the good book, with only two people on the planet - where did all of the others come from, genius?

     Don't ever wonder why no one responds to your inane and childish ranting, little fella - they all have you on ignore.

     And now, I do, too.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 5:19pm

155. You're a cowardly fraud, Rio Chickenshit.

     Posted by NEW DAWN 02/07/2007 @ 2:38pm

     -----------------------

     Poor child, left with nothing but name calling and no scrape of refuting evidence. Ideologically, you can only repeat the banter of superior leftwing P.C. intellects. You are to be pityed indeed!

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/07/2007 @ 5:16pm

     Poor wasted old man, with nothing to post but the words of others, which you try to take credit for.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 5:20pm

156. Ah, the IGNORE button! I feel honored to have been put on ignore once again! It's the typical / predictable reaction of those "free-speech" liberals! You know, those people who block streets, destroy property, shout down people whose ideas they don't agree with, etc. I find it hilariously hypocritical of those lunatic liberals who whine and cry about free speech when they are not allowed to DISRUPT Presidential addresses, yet all the while, they are the one's who are INTOLERANT of any speech they don't agree with. Anyone who cannot/will not see the hypocrisy/contradiction of the looney left when it comes to free-speech, has their head in the sand. You fools have been clowned yet again, now who wants some more? I gonna have to start charging soon!

     Posted by barry25 at 02/07/2007 @ 5:44pm

157. Rio, the technique being used by New Dawn is called the "defect by name-calling " technique. Widely used by liberals worldwide, it has been used effectively with the help of the MSM!

     Posted by barry25 at 02/07/2007 @ 5:46pm

158. Just took time to post another quick tidbit on one of the scientists Leave Liberty's posted about...

     ROGER A. PIELKE SR. - A quote from his personal statement regarding those who have attempted to portray him as some kind of global warming skeptic..."It is highly misleading to characterize me as a climate skeptic as certain members of the media have done. I have discussed this mischaracterization on my blog (http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu//). This seems to me an effort to put my views in a convenient box. I have consistently written on the complex nature of the Earth's climate system, and the diverse types of anthropogenic climate forcings and significant human effect on climate. The climate system is complex enough to allow for a diversity of legitimate perspectives; scientific assessments should embrace and accommodate this diversity rather than impose a single perspective."

     So, it seems yet another of Leave Liberty's scientists DOESN'T support his assertion that GW has no manmade cause.

     Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 5:48pm

159. I'm still waiting for Lillian or anyone else to debunk the science that disputes manmade causation of global warming. I have yet to see it.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 4:45pm | ignore this person

     Only because you refuse to look Leave Liberty! That and the fact that you haven't posted any such science.

     Try this, pick any of the papers I linked to at the American Geophysical Union. Then actually read the science. It's a little more complex than just regurgitating the koolaid from your wingnut sites, but you could find yourself actually learning something about the true scientific consensus on the subject.

     Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 5:50pm

160. Ma'am, get back to work and stop letting other's caryy your ass for you ( typical liberal )!

     Posted by barry25 at 02/07/2007 @ 6:02pm

161. So refute what I posted! It is your put up or shut up moment!

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/07/2007 @ 5:42pm

     You first, you impotent old fraud.

     I suggest you head back to the "Compromising Compromises the Senate" and "put up or shut up" yourself, since you ran like the mouthy old coward you are from any real discussion with me, just like I predicted you would.

     The best you could come up with to respond to my half dozen lengthy posts was:

     Why did they kick you of the L.A. police force, was it that psychologically unfit for duty thing that finally got you?

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/03/2007 @ 01:42am

     You are a chickenshit coward and a fraud.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 6:22pm

162. By the way, that coward that refused to serve the military he signed up for voluntarily is in court. I say, deport the coward, shame him and his family publicly, and use people like him as an example to our children of how irresponsible and cowardly liberalism causes one to be. He is a shameful, seditious, low-life, dirtbag who should be deported or locked up immediately!

     Posted by barry25 at 02/07/2007 @ 6:24pm

163. LL, IQ_25, and any of the rest of the "Flat Earth Society" wandering by

     Okay...let's try a new idea ...put on your thinking caps and follow the bouncing ball.

     Mount Pinatubo in 1991 ejected (among other things) some 17 million tons of SO2 into the atmosphere. This amount of gas caused around 0.5C global cooling for the next 5-6 years. One volcano. One event.

     Volcanoes emit 13% of global sulfur output in the atmosphere. Humans do the rest. It would seem that humanity can also have a significant cooling effect. (Sulfates make clouds whiter, increasing albedo in the upper atmosphere.) This effect is more temporary than CO2 cycling though, as these sulfates are short-lived aerosols that rain out fairly quickly as acid rain.

     Similarly, natural sources of CO2 inputs total around 130-150 million tons/year while anthropogenic sources come in at around 24-30 BILLION tons/yr.

     Those 130-150 million tons are the "natural" background oc CO2 cycling thru the biosphere - hydrosphere - atmosphere (and minor releases from degradation of carbonate rock) What humans do is take old sequestered carbon - fossil fuels, stored across millions of years (no apologies to "young Earth" types) by the gigaton and inject them into the atmosphere. Then we hear claims that natural sources are larger? What resolute hogwash. Humanity puts out over 200x the natural flux.

     As to claims of "ancient CO2 spikes"...sure, there have been times in the geologic past when CO2 levels have risen real high. Most times these correlate with events like the Cretaceous - Triassic extinction boundary. (not to mention, if it was a bolide impact in an ocean basin, lots of carbonate ooze probably got vaporized as well.) Simply put, when you kill most living things, the "natural flux" gets interrupted a mite.

     An interesting aside....if ocean water gets to warm the thermocline might get low enough to destabilize the methane clathrates in the nearshore muds. This in itself could create one huge methane "belch" that could be the next extinction event (see last ref)

     http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6189600.stm

     http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

     http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

     http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011212methane.html

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/07/2007 @ 6:41pm

164. Here is the challenge which you and Lillian and others all shy away from. Debunk their scientific papers. I just provided a list with links to peer reviewed papers...

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 4:45pm | ignore this person

     Well actually, you didn't. You posted a bunch of statements from some indusrty shills. You also provided names and bios of people you SAID were reputable scientists with peer-reviewed papers supporting your claim that GW had no man made cause and who weren't industry shills. Except when your sources are vetted, it turns out that some WERE industry shills and others DIDN'T support you assertion. Still other links, the ones for antarctica in particular, actually REFUTE your assertion.

     As for peer-reviewed papers, post the links to them.

     Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 6:42pm

165. Christopher Landsea from...

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

     Although Landsea disputes the link between global warming and recent hurricane activity, his views on the larger issue of global warming are in agreement with the broader scientific opinion on climate change. Landsea agrees that "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming."[

     Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 6:44pm

166. LET'S WATCH THE AMAZING MOPHING OF LEAVE LIBERTY'S POSITION ON GLOBAL WARMING. first these...

     It is becoming of paramount importance to determine why leftists seem so ignorant of the truth about so-called manmade global warming.

     Overwhelmingly, climatologists and Physicists have debunked the manmade global warming scare.

     ...including members of the IPCC panel who have come out against the manmade global warming hoax.

     ...you again are guilty of misrepresenting my position...There is no conclusive evidence of manmade causation

     I continue to find the leftist manmade global warming hoax to be such utter nonsense

     I am not denying global warming. I am disputing manmade causation.

     THEN SUDDENLY, AFTER HEARING POST AFTER POST OF LINKS TO TRUE SCIENCE, THE RHETORIC SOFTENS...

     And do pollution and emissions affect the earth's atmosphere? Yes, but in relatively insignificant degrees as regards global warming.

     Secondly, you continue as you always do to misstate my case. I have said that global warming is not caused primarily by man as the IPCC summary and people like Al Gore contend. It has as I stated to New Dawn and as I stated back in 2005 to I Love Physics, a very small contribution, probably less than 5%.

     Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 6:56pm

167. You then select out the one (that's one, as in singular) link to UCS, label them as leftist organization (which is utter BS) and then try to desperately dismiss everything I linked to as being from "very biased NGO's".

     That's weak...very weak!

     Posted by LILLIAN 02/07/2007 @ 3:52pm

     actually I listed two links; here are 2 more

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

     http://www.womenforpeace.org/peacelinks.htm

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 4:29pm | ignore this person

     Leave Liberty, you selected MY one link to UCS, called it a leftwing propaganda machine, then tried to use the weak (and completely stupid) notion to dismiss the 24 OTHER links I provided to the scientific papers of the National Academy of Sciences, the IPCC, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and the American Geophysical Union.

     Posting 2 more sites that list UCS as a progressive organization, doesn't even support your assertion that UCS is a leftwing propaganda machine, let alone debunk all the other links I posted!

     Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 7:08pm

168. Here is the challenge which you and Lillian and others all shy away from. Debunk their scientific papers.

     Actually, I'd be happy to...except you've never posted links to any.

     Here's a MUCH better challenge...post links to the scientific papers debunking the consensus view of scientific community, based on the past 150 years of research, that GHG and manmade GHG can and does cause GW.

     Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 7:11pm

169. wrong!!!!!!

     Posted by barry25 at 02/07/2007 @ 7:18pm

170. Now, let's get to work on debunking the preacher...

     Given the massive volume of C&P's, this may take a minute or two...

     How about we start with an easy one? Liberty claims that his good book does not in any way address man's destructive effects on the planet. I will counter with this:

     God appointed man to be the steward of this world (Genesis 1:28), not the destroyer of it.

     That was easy!

     Liberty stands alone against many of his evangelical brothers concerning global warming, too. I don't agree with all of it, but there's some good stuff here: http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement

     Let's see what else he's got, shall we?

     Oh, boy, voluminous lists of his preferred scientists...

     This may take a while...

     As Lillian already told you, Christopher Landsea states only that he does not find global warming to be responsible for increased hurricane activity, but we're not dicussing hurricanes. He also states, as Lillian quoted, "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming."

     You mock her with how you "don't know where [she] got that quote", which is funny, because if you weren't so pompous and intellectually lazy, you might have looked up Landsea's WIKIPEDIA entry, where the quote is prominently featured.

     Let's move on, shall we?

     You reference Professor Richard Lindzen, and his Wiki entry, but fail to note that the article in question has been flagged with the following:

     This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. This article has been tagged since July 2006.

     So, that's shaky stuff at best... Lillian has already addressed his connections to industries who loathe the very idea of cutting emissions (and thereby, thier profits), but here is some more interesting reading on the Professor's stance: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-h ol-testimony/

     Lessee now, what else you got?

     Claude Allègre... a man whom various French publications describe as a hérétique surrounded by chronique controversée. I notice that you didn't add a single word as to why you referenced him - maybe so you could appear magnanimous by mentioning a socialist? I wouldn't put it past you.

     Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov states that "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity." The solar radiation as a sole cause theory is as widely contested as anything we've discussed here today - it is hardly as definitive of anything as Liberty would like it to be.

     Marcel Leroux says "Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned" but fails in your C&P to make any valid argument why that's so incredible...

     While it is undoubtably true that there are some cycles and natural variations in global climate, anyone who wishes to insist that the current warming is purely or even just mostly natural has two challenges.

     Firstly, they need to identify just what this alledged natural mechanism is, because absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. So, natural or otherwise we should be able to find this mysterious cause. Secondly, a "natural cause" proponent needs to come up with some explanation for how a 30% increase in the second most important Greenhouse Gas does not itself affect the global temperature.

     In other words, there is a well developed, internally consistent theory that predicts the effects we are observing, so where is the sceptic model, or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature and where is the evidence of some other natural forcing?

     I'm out of here for the day, but I'll likely come back with more later - there's so much more to debunk!

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 7:20pm

171. ND

     On solar activity....what I've been reading indicates that about now we should be in a low spot on the solar variability cycle. Can't wat until it warms up around here!

     ...and for LL, Rio Loco, IQ_25 (excerpted from the Stanford Solar Center) ["...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues. ]

     http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

     We ARE a dominant force on the planet's surface.....

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/07/2007 @ 7:39pm

172. Overwhelmingly, climatologists and Physicists have debunked the manmade global warming scare.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/06/2007 @ 5:01pm | ignore this person

     But I do wish that those who support the manmade global warming theory would respect the fact that there are significant numbers of respected scientists and lay people who hold to a different conclusion based upon the science.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 1:41pm | ignore this person

     So wait, Leave Liberty started out saying "overwhelmingly" scientists had debunked man made global warming...

     ...and then petered out to just "significant numbers" of scientists who "hold to a different conclusion".

     That's quite a radical shift, wouldn't you say?

     (Actual facts and rational thought can sometimes have that effect on the delusional mind...sometimes!

     Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 9:59pm

173. ...I just provided a list with links to peer reviewed papers...

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 4:45pm | ignore this person

     Actually, I finally had a bit of time (stayed late at work just to do this) and checked every link you've posted Leave Liberty and guess what....you are either comletely delusional (like full-on psychotic break from reality) or you are a bald-faced LIAR. You posted no such links.

     The vast majority of the links you've provided are biographies of the individuals you are touting.

     A few links are to articles posted on wingnut websites which could never be construed as "peer-reviewed papers" except by someone who had absolutely no understanding of the term.

     Two, and only two, linked to lists of papers published by Denning and Lindzen...on subjects OTHER THAN the global warming.

     Just one of the lists, for Lindzen, contained something...this one...227. Lindzen, R.S. (2006) There is no ‘consensus' on global warming, Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006...that cites the subject in question...and there is NO link to the actual paper or science behind it.

     So your "...I just provided a list with links to peer reviewed papers..." is absolute horse hockey!

     Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 10:29pm

174. Interestingly enough, the list of Lindzen papers did contain many citings, on other subjects, that included links to the actual paper and scientific research on which they were based. One caught my eye...184. R.S. Lindzen and C. Giannitsis (1998) On the climatic implications of volcanic cooling. J. Geophys. Res., 103, 5929-5941. [pdf]...which details the link between volcanic eruptions and a measured dip in the global mean temperature...and the resultant CO2 forcing afterwards that results in the temperature being...warmer!!!

     Posted by Lillian at 02/07/2007 @ 10:30pm

175. Lillian, ND and all

     Just got the latest issue of Discover mag. Has some stuff about NASA's GRACE mission. Sent up in 2002 its a pair of co-orbiting gravity measuring devices (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) taht shows definitively the loss of ice Greenland and the Antarctic is measured in tens of cubic miles/year. It can sense mass differences in parts of ocean water (deep cold verus surface) currents. Amazing stuff.

     Another nail too in the decaying coffin of the "It ain't happening" crowd, (although I see the song now is ...it's happening, but its natural.) Hopefully I put that to rest upthread.

     http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/07/2007 @ 10:32pm

176. Freaking fascinating link, LoC. Thanks.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 10:48pm

177. I can't believe the Greens want to impeach Bush! If memory serves, they nominated Nader and he ran as a spoiler, handing the presidency to Shrub. I suggest they look at themselves and maybe try a little humility the next time they feel an urge to go the protest route.

     Posted by roblevi at 02/07/2007 @ 11:32pm

178. I adore you, Lillian. ;)

     Posted by NEW DAWN 02/07/2007 @ 4:32pm | ignore this person

     ...blush...

     :-)

     Posted by Lillian at 02/08/2007 @ 12:13am

179. LL....curious is your MAIN objection to the idea of manmade global warming-

     1. That you just have a general belief that the science is flawed.

     2. That it is politically motivated (particularly by those who wish to cripple the US economy)

     3. That it indicates that Mankind can have an effect on the Earth's overall environment.

     #3 particularly because if we ARE able to effect the Earth, then it would seem to indicate the ability to effect the world AT LARGE, which might in turn indicate that Man can achieve something that onl "God" was supposed to be able to do.

     After all, if we can "heat up the planet"...kinda reduces the overall "prestige" of "flooding the planet", doesn't it?

     If it's #2 then I'd take my view on it and push for economic growth that is compatible with reducing CO2. Big money in bio-diesel (as I noted) for guys like A-D-M and it could revitalize the American auto guys (Ford just lost a billion or two) if they were making halfway decent hybrids.

     Of course I'd throw the same question out the liberals in this way....would you support us utilizing a truly effective method that the FRENCH are using, to reduce their greenhouse gases....

     namely, by making over 1/5 of their electricity....nuclear?

     Posted by Mask at 02/08/2007 @ 12:28pm

180. Funny, I have addressed nearly everything LL and the other anti-anthropogenic GW-crowd has thrown and yet not a peep out of them. So here's a bit more.

     re:LLs "carbon sinks"

     http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9r.html

     note that the main reservoirs of carbon are the ocean and the geosphere (fossil fuels and carbonate rock)Note that plants account for 1/60th of oceanic sinks. I must thdisagree with the idea that significant sequestration is attributable to new forests. A quote from the Earth Policy Institute:

     "Over the last five years, the world suffered a net loss of some 37 million hectares (91 million acres) of forest, according to data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. This number reflects the felling of 64.4 million hectares of trees and the planting or natural regeneration of 27.8 million hectares of new forest. Each year the world loses some 7.3 million hectares of forest, an area the size of Panama. Due to extensive reforestation, this net forest shrinkage has slowed slightly from the 8.9 million hectares lost annually in the 1990s. While this is encouraging, it obscures the sobering fact that gross deforestation has not declined significantly since 2000."

     As to the ice caps...scroll up to the GRACE mission post. Can't argue with gravity.

     I addressed the aerosol effect at: Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/07/2007 @ 6:41pm I would note however a minor correction. While most natural sulfur is SO2, a significant portion of anthropogenic sulfur is sulfur hexafluroide...a potent greenhouse gas. (LL also fails to address residence times)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/08/2007 @ 12:36pm

181. Funny, I have addressed nearly everything LL and the other anti-anthropogenic GW-crowd has thrown and yet not a peep out of them. So here's a bit more.

     re:LLs "carbon sinks"

     http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9r.html

     note that the main reservoirs of carbon are the ocean and the geosphere (fossil fuels and carbonate rock)Note that plants account for 1/60th of oceanic sinks. I must thdisagree with the idea that significant sequestration is attributable to new forests. A quote from the Earth Policy Institute:

     "Over the last five years, the world suffered a net loss of some 37 million hectares (91 million acres) of forest, according to data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. This number reflects the felling of 64.4 million hectares of trees and the planting or natural regeneration of 27.8 million hectares of new forest. Each year the world loses some 7.3 million hectares of forest, an area the size of Panama. Due to extensive reforestation, this net forest shrinkage has slowed slightly from the 8.9 million hectares lost annually in the 1990s. While this is encouraging, it obscures the sobering fact that gross deforestation has not declined significantly since 2000."

     As to the ice caps...scroll up to the GRACE mission post. Can't argue with gravity.

     I addressed the aerosol effect at: Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/07/2007 @ 6:41pm I would note however a minor correction. While most natural sulfur is SO2, a significant portion of anthropogenic sulfur is sulfur hexafluroide...a potent greenhouse gas. (LL also fails to address residence times)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/08/2007 @ 12:36pm

182. Stupid laptop.....wasn't done and instead I get a double post (sorry all)

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/08/2007 @ 12:37pm

183. Posted by MASK 02/08/2007 @ 12:28am

     nice pick-up

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/08/2007 @ 12:38pm

184. Since Lillian and New Dawn seem unwilling or incapable of doing the necessary research or reading the links, here again are peer reviewed scientists and their papers...

     LOL.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/08/2007 @ 12:50pm

185. The attacks on Prof Lindzen are absurd to put it politely. He is one of our greatest members of the Scientific community and his papers and contributions to the scientific community are unquestionable.

     Prof Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/08/2007 @ 11:41am | ignore this person

     Liberty1,

     Since you and your pals like to hail Professor Lindzen as the most distinguished of your pebble throwing brigade, it is fair enough to address Lindzen's arguments... and they have been thoroughly attended to by other scientists. And since his claims (unproven) of negative water vapour feedback are receiving accolades from the business press (excluding notables like the conservative Economist), particularly the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board--Jeffrey Sachs, of Columbia has written a nice article analyzing the disconnect between the WSJ editors vs. their actual reporters producing outstandingly objective work--I will provide some scientific responses to Lindzen's theories. This is just an excerpt of a larger response to Lindzen.

     Also, you have the option of visiting this site, realclimate.org, and writing in to their postings; you, Liberty, can set these treacherous liberal liars (with their secret agendas) straight. They will respond to your input; if they dare!

     Water Vapour

     "In the question session (Q143), Lindzen goes into more detail on the reason why he feels that climate sensitivity is so low - specifically, he believes that water vapour feedbacks are not only less positive than models suggest, but actually negative. That is he feels that the amount of longwave aborbtion by water vapour will go down as the planet warms due to increasing GHGs. This implies that actual water vapour amounts will decrease with increasing temperature. On the face of it this is a rather odd claim to make in general - the amount of water vapour that can exist in the atmosphere depends on the Clausius-Clapyeron equation that goes up with temperature. However, it is conceivable that convective processes might cause more extensive drying due to increased areas of subsidence (the basis of the so-called Iris effect), but this applies mainly to the upper troposphere and in the tropics only. As a general effect, reductions in water vapour as temperature increases in general seem rather unlikely.

     But we can do better than simply speculating on the issue - we can look at the data and compare that to the models. The best examples to test this idea come from large and relatively rapid changes in the climate such as El Nino events, the eruption of Mt Pinatubo and the trends over the last few decades. In each case (Soden 1997; Soden et al 2002; Soden et al 2005), water vapour increases with warming, and decreases with cooling. There is some uncertainty about exactly how much it increases in the very uppermost troposphere (Misnchwaner and Dessler, 2004), but even those results show a positive feedback. So in summary, the data and the models both agree that not only is the water vapour feedback positive, it is quite close to the value suggested by the models - Lindzen's insistence on the converse (while it has generated increased attention on the subject) seems increasingly perverse.

     In general, I think it is incumbent on scientists when speaking to non-specialists to clearly deliniate what one's personal opinion is, and what is generally accepted. That is not to say one should not state one's opinion, but when a panelist specifically asks 'how far your view of the role of water vapour is shared by other scientists?' (Q144), one cannot honestly answer 'That is shared universally' when no other scientist in the field has made a case for a negative water vapour feedback. This is probably the most egregious mis-statement in the whole testimony and is deeply misleading."

     http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-h ol-testimony/

     Posted by Oustbush at 02/08/2007 @ 12:59pm

186. Posted by MASK 02/08/2007 @ 12:28am | ignore this person

     Mask,

     Liberty really adores this MIT professor, Lindzen, (although I would guess that he doesn't share the love for the most famous MIT professor-you know, from the Linguistics Dept), but anyway, this Lindzen character has declared that the so-called "Alarmists" are perpetuating this lie to cultivate a feeding trough of Climate research funding. It doesn't jive with logic, since these scientists are actually calling for anything but more research: they want ACTION that would actually affect these trends.

     Also, Liberty, if I recall correctly, stated something akin to man being part of the earth, so his actions are as natural as the change of seasons. He also revealed his belief that the earth belonged to man...so, whatever. Not the sort of ideas that reassure one that all will be ok in the future; with these kinds of people intellectually chained to a kind of modern day, semi-sophisticated Voodoo.

     Posted by Oustbush at 02/08/2007 @ 1:19pm

187. Also, you have the option of visiting this site, realclimate.org, and writing in to their postings; you, Liberty, can set these treacherous liberal liars (with their secret agendas) straight. They will respond to your input; if they dare!

     ...

     http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-h ol-testimony/

     Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/08/2007 @ 12:59am

     Never happen, Oust - the man has head in the sand and plans to keep it there.

     The folks at RealClimate would eat him alive.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/08/2007 @ 1:51pm

188. LL

     You never cease to amaze. If you'd actually read the report you cite you'd see that it references the UN Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005. So it would appear your own citation refutes your claim and is no doubt poisoned by liberal bias. LOL

     This is validated in Fig 5 which shows more losses than gains in biomass. In the discussion it states that "Deforestation does continue in about half of the 50 nations with most forest. However, 36% of the 50 increased forest area and 44% increased biomass."

     The model does not try to account for any missing link, but provides a new way to look at forest growth and details several shortcomings.

     Did you bother to look at the carbon budget link in my post which shows what a small percentage you are quibbling over?

     Let me know when you actually want to talk science....becuase I am seeing precious little from your corner.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/08/2007 @ 4:54pm

189. Oh my God...this is absolutely TOOOOOOOOOO funny!!!

     Leave Liberty started out talking about how "Overwhelmingly, climatologists and Physicists have debunked the manmade global warming scare"...claimed it was all naturally caused...

     ...and in the end, when all of his links to 'peer-reviewed', sceintific papers that 'prove' his assertion have been shown to be almost exclusively biographies for corporate shills or rant pieces on wingnut websites, he's now trying to claim we either haven't donen the research ourselves, or don't understand what we've read...

     ...and linking to an Op/Ed piece from the weather man!!!

     (Oh, and trying to argue that recent man made reforrestation is creating a big enough CO2 sink to offset the man made CO2 that we've been dumping into the atmosphere for the past 200 years or so. Which boils down to the case that man made CO2 could contribute to global warming but man made reforrestation can potentially (or is going to) save the day...

     ...which is pretty much just what the good eco warriors at leftist organizations like Greenpeace have been saying for years!)

     Man...I find that funny!

     HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

     Posted by Lillian at 02/08/2007 @ 7:34pm

190. You cite a far left group, the Earth Policy Institute...

     From Wikipedia re: the founder of Earth Policy Institute...

     Lester Russell Brown (born 1934) is an environmental analyst who has written several books on global environmental issues. He is the founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute which is a nonprofit research organization in Washington, D.C.

     Though he has written over twenty books, he is best known for Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble. With books in more than 40 languages, he is one of the world's most widely published authors. The recipient of 40 honorary degrees and a MacArthur Fellowship, among numerous other awards, Brown has been described by the Washington Post as "one of the world's most influential thinkers."

     Posted by Lillian at 02/08/2007 @ 7:53pm

191. But Lillian....we all KNOW that the Washington Post is a puppet of those damned liberals!

     bwah-ha-ha

     I see this group of ideas will be continuing on the Exxon/warming thread. See ya'll there!

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/09/2007 @ 07:09am

192. from a link off the Rothberg thread...but just as apres here: http://www.exxposeexxon.com/movie/

     Posted by leftofcenter at 02/09/2007 @ 07:14am