The Beat

Friends of the Earth Score Energy Bill as "Step Backward"

posted by John Nichols on 06/24/2009 @ 08:53am

The League of Conservation Voters has thrown down the gauntlet in its campaign to win support for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) when it could see a U.S. House vote as soon as Friday.

The politically-potent organization, that has made its endorsement something akin to the Good Housekeeping seal of approval for candidates seeking to position themselves as environmentally sensitive, announced Tuesday that it would not support the reelection of any House member who opposes the measure that it says "has the potential to transform America by creating clean energy jobs, improving our national security, and protecting our planet from global warming pollution."

In a letter to House members, LCV President Gene Karpinski wrote, "The stakes could not be higher; a safer, healthier planet and a new energy economy hang in the balance, and it's imperative that members of Congress be on the right side of history."

That makes it sound as if, for environmentalists, the choice to back this bill is a no-brainer.

It's not.

There is a significant divide within the environmental community over the measure that is being backed by the Obama administration and House Democratic leaders.

As the LCV was threatening to pull its endorsement from dissenting members, Friends of the Earth launched a campaign to block the bill. "Corporate polluters including Shell and Duke Energy helped write this bill, and the result is that we're left with legislation that fails to come anywhere close to solving the climate crisis. Worse, the bill eliminates preexisting EPA authority to address global warming--that means it's actually a step backward," says FOE president Brent Blackwelder, a veteran campaigner –- who has often been ahead of the curve when issues of economics and the environment are in play.

Blackwelder argues that, "Last November, the American people voted for change. Unfortunately, while the party in power may have changed, the process through which this bill was negotiated makes it clear that the overwhelming influence of corporate special interests has not. This exercise in politics as usual is a wholly unacceptable response to one of the greatest challenges of our time, and it endangers the welfare of current and future generations. Speaker Pelosi and congressional Democrats simply must do better. We are calling on them to vote against this bill unless it is substantially strengthened. If the ‘political reality' at present cannot accommodate stronger legislation, their first task must be to expand what is politically possible --- not to pass a counterproductive bill."

Does Blackwelder stand alone?

Not hardly. Even groups that back the bill, such as the Sierra Club, admit it has serious weaknesses.

And a number of top environmental groups have been bluntly critical of ACES.

After the House Energy and Commerce Committee completed work on the measure, Greenpeace USA Executive Director Phil Radford said, "Despite the best efforts of (Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry) Waxman, this bill has been seriously undermined by the lobbying of industries more concerned with profits than the plight of our planet. While science clearly tells us that only dramatic action can prevent global warming and its catastrophic impacts, this bill has fallen prey to political infighting and industry pressure. We cannot support this bill in its current state."

Around the same time, a coalition of more than a dozen national, regional and state environmental groups – including FOE and Greenpeace USA -- announced that:

Regrettably, we cannot support this legislation unless and until it is substantially strengthened. The lives and livelihoods of 7 billion people worldwide will be affected by America's response to the climate crisis. The response embodied in today's bill is not only inadequate it is counterproductive.

As passed through the Energy & Commerce Committee, the American Clean Energy and Security Act sets targets for reducing pollution that are far weaker than science says is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change. The targets are far less ambitious than what is achievable with already existing technology. They are further undermined by massive loopholes that could allow the most polluting industries to avoid real emission reductions until 2027. Rather than provide relief and support to consumers, the bill showers polluting industries with hundreds of billions of dollars in free allowances and direct subsidies that will slow renewable energy development and lock in a new generation of dirty coal-fired power plants. At the same time, the bill would remove the President's authority to address global warming pollution using laws already on the books.

The Center for Biological Diversity is especially dubious.

The conservation group has been alerting members to flaws in the bill:

This Friday, June 26, Congress is expected to vote on a global warming control bill called the American Clean Energy and Security Act. If implemented, the bill would give all of us less than a 50/50 chance of avoiding catastrophic runaway global warming. And it repeals the power of other laws to act as a global warming backstop, effectively putting all our eggs in one precarious basket.

Leading scientists warn that the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere must be reduced to no more than 350 parts per million to combat the climate crisis. But the American Clean Energy and Security Act sets a goal of allowing atmospheric carbon to increase to more than 450 parts per million. At that level, scientists say global warming could cause catastrophic impacts to humans and other species.

The bill also cripples the Clean Air Act, one of our nation's best tools for curbing air pollution. Under the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the Clean Air Act's ability to regulate critical polluters would be repealed, and numerous coal-fired power plants could be built without any additional emissions-reduction requirements for more than a decade into the future.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act is currently not strong enough to fight the climate crisis.

The debate about this legislation is playing out on several levels. Of course, there are many dead-ender Republicans, who are opposing this ACES legislation because their campaign-contribution paymasters in the corporate sector are against it. Some rural Democrats have been critical of the measure because they think its approach will hit farms and rural communities too hard.

But there are also progressives who say that this bill is an insufficient response to an epic challenge -– and that in some areas it could do more harm than good.

The LCV's our-way-or-the-highway approach fails to take into account the sincere opposition to the America Clean Energy and Security Act. That is a mistake, as the criticisms advanced by the Friends of the Earth and other groups are legitimate expressions of concern about a measure that Progressive Democrats of America in a letter to key House members on Wednesday described as "seriously flawed" and "a step backward, offering inadequate responses to our urgent needs."

"We urge the Congressional [Progressive and Black] Caucus to mobilize to strengthen this bill so that it merits your support," read the letter. "Alternatively, if the bill cannot be substantially improved, we urge you vote "no" on the floor."

Comments (131)

  1. "Even groups that back the bill, such as the Sierra Club, admit it has serious weaknesses. "

    But regardless, Mr Nichols, Sierra IS still backing the bill....right?

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 09:21am

  2. From Down Under come some positively UP trend:

    June 24, 2009

    Could Australia Blow Apart the Great Global Warming Scare?

    By Robert Tracinski and Tom Minchin

    As the US Congress considers the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, the Australian Senate is on the verge of rejecting its own version of cap-and-trade. The story of this legislation's collapse offers advance notice for what might happen to similar legislation in the US--and to the whole global warming hysteria.

    Since the Australian government first introduced its Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) legislation--the Australian version of cap-and-trade energy rationing--there has been a sharp shift in public opinion and political momentum against the global warming crusade. This is a story that offers hope to defenders of industrial civilization--and a warning to American environmentalists that the climate change they should be afraid of just might be a shift in the intellectual climate.

    An April 29 article in The Australian described the general trend--and its leading cause.

    There is rising recognition that introduction of a carbon tax under the guise of "cap and trade" will be personally costly, economically disruptive to society and tend to shift classes of jobs offshore. Moreover, despite rising carbon dioxide concentrations, global warming seems to have taken a holiday….

    With public perceptions changing so dramatically and quickly it is little wonder Ian Plimer's latest book, Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science, has been received with such enthusiasm and is into its third print run in as many weeks. [It's now up to the fifth printing.]

    Posted by Happy at 06/24/2009 @ 09:32am

  3. The public is receptive to an exposé of the many mythologies and false claims associated with anthropogenic global warming and are welcoming an authoritative description of planet Earth and its ever-changing climate in readable language.

    One of the most remarkable changes occurred on April 13, when leading global warming hysteric Paul Sheehan--who writes for the main Sydney newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, which has done as much to hype the threat of global warming as any Australian newspaper--reviewed Plimer's book and admitted he was taken aback. He describes Plimer, correctly, as "one of Australia's foremost Earth scientists," and praised the book as "brilliantly argued" and "the product of 40 years' research and breadth of scholarship."

    What does Plimer's book say? Here is Sheehan's summary:

    Much of what we have read about climate change, [Plimer] argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modeling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive."…

    The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

    To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable--human-induced CO2--is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly.

    In response, this is Sheehan's conclusion: "Heaven and Earth is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to....

    Posted by Happy at 06/24/2009 @ 09:36am

  4. Posted by Happy at 06/24/2009 @ 09:32am

    HAPP, wanna take my bet? $1000 at stake.

    That the 2012 Republican nominee for President says neither that GW isn't man-made nor a "hoax"?

    If they do...a grand in your PayPal account.

    (BTW, your answer should be something along the lines of "Who cares? Not important what some politician says!" and thus admit that you and the Deniers are "on the outside looking in"....when it comes to actual POLICY-making...and thus are irrelevant!.....just a helpful hint from previous attempts to get a wager going)

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 09:38am

  5. .....reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." This cannot be interpreted as anything but a capitulation. It cedes to the global warming rejectionists the high ground of being "evidence-based," and it accepts the characterization of the global warming promoters as dogmatic conformists.

    The political impact has been manifested in a series of climb-downs....

    ====================================

    All of us who are AGW skeptics, deserve a pat on the back and must keep up the fight, for the sake of sanity and science!

    Posted by Happy at 06/24/2009 @ 09:39am

  6. Posted by Happy at 06/24/2009 @ 09:39am

    $1000 your candidate for President in 2012 (and beyond)...isn't one of them?

    Bet?

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 10:07am

  7. Bet?

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 10:07am

    Hahahahaha......hehehehehe.....

    You just gave me the snarkiest revelation....you've turned into a chihuahua.....your `bark' has been down-sized by quite a bit! LMAO!

    Time is on my side....any chihuahuan bets you have in that little (and still shrinking) mind.

    Posted by Happy at 06/24/2009 @ 10:23am

  8. "Moreover, despite rising carbon dioxide concentrations, global warming seems to have taken a holiday…."

    only a fantasist could say such things, when.....

    we just enjoyed our 4th warmest May on record.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/24/2009 @ 10:45am

  9. happy, i highly recommend you read the work of climate scientists, instead of reporters "reporting" on climate science.

    it would help you to avoid saying completely brainless, fly-in-the-face-of-reality statements such as:

    "it appears global warming has taken a holiday"

    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html

    try reading the work of an actual climate scientist, Phd, and all-around concerned citizen.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/24/2009 @ 10:49am

  10. If friends of earth view this as a step backwards, they should prepare themselves for a backwards marathon. The "scientific consensus" is unravalling a lightning speed.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/24/ could_australia_blow_apart_the_great_global_warming_scare_97148.html

    Read the whole article but here are the two best parts:

    ****************

    Much of what we have read about climate change, [Plimer] argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modeling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive."…

    The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

    To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable--human-induced CO2--is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly.

    **************

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/24/2009 @ 11:04am

  11. Continued

    *************

    [Austrailian] Senator Fielding said he was impressed by some of the data presented at the [US Heartland Institute's] climate change skeptics' conference: namely that, although carbon emissions had increased in the last 10 years, global temperature had not.

    He said scientists at the conference had advanced other explanations, such as the relationship between solar activity and solar energy hitting the Earth to explain climate change.

    Fielding has issued a challenge to the Obama White House to rebut the data. It will be a novel experience for them, as Fielding is an engineer and has an Australian's disregard for self-important government officials. Here is how The Age described his challenge:

    Senator Fielding emailed graphs that claim the globe had not warmed for a decade to Joseph Aldy, US President Barack Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, after a meeting on Thursday…. Senator Fielding said he found that Dr. Aldy and other Obama administration officials were not interested in discussing the legitimacy of climate science.

    Telling an Australian you're not interested in the legitimacy of your position is a red rag to a bull.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/24/2009 @ 11:04am

  12. happy and others like him:

    "since i'm having a cool summer here in my hometown in my home state, then global warming must not be happening, and everything is fine."

    Posted by darladoon at 06/24/2009 @ 11:04am

  13. "Time is on my side...."----Posted by Happy at 06/24/2009 @ 10:23am

    Then why won't you take my bet? Or do you figure you'll need until 2016 to get a Republican nominee to deny GW is real and/or man-made?

    If so....HAPPY to wait until then. Bet?

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 11:08am

  14. "To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable--human-induced CO2--is not science"

    if scientists were doing that, then it would be true. but scientists are not doing that.

    "although carbon emissions had increased in the last 10 years, global temperature had not"

    false.

    next statement?

    Posted by darladoon at 06/24/2009 @ 11:14am

  15. Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 11:08am

    Better hope its not Palin or you would lose your bet.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 11:28am

  16. "Moreover, despite rising carbon dioxide concentrations, global warming seems to have taken a holiday…."

    only a fantasist could say such things, when.....

    we just enjoyed our 4th warmest May on record.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/24/2009 @ 10:45am

    Poor Darla,

    Once again she has relied upon some leftist site which failed to accurately post the correct data.

    You're missing a digit Darla from the data... Try 24th warmest.

    <U.S. National Overview May 2009

    National Climatic Data Center Asheville, North Carolina Updated 08 June 2009

    For the contiguous United States, the average temperature for May was 62.5°F (16.9°C), which was 1.4°F (0.8°C) above the 20th century mean and ranked as the 24th warmest May on record, based on preliminary data.>

    http://tinyurl.com/nlqfrm

    <Brrrrr. Too cold for ice cream! Parts of U.S. forecast to have a 'year without a summer'

    Long winter marches into June as unseasonable cold and snow continues>

    http://tinyurl.com/ndcg5y

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 11:41am

  17. I don't know where anti gets his data, but I personally like NASA. They seem relatively unbiased and scientific.

    When looking at global temperature the only thing that means anything is global means, using information from around the world. NASA is particularly adept at collecting this infor with sattelites that can actually montitor the globe.

    Anyone who doubts global warming is either a dupe or employed by a CO2 producer

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 12:14pm

  18. "Better hope its not Palin or you would lose your bet."-----Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 11:28am

    Well, 1. if it was Palin, I'd take the $1000 loss, just to see Obama debate her 3X and as he's explaining policy matters...she's WINKING.

    2. Even Palin will "slowly back off" her previous GW stance. It was fine as red meat, thrown out by a Veep candidate. She tries denying it as a Top Slot candidate....she'll come in behind Ron Paul. The RNC will never allow her to take the nomination...

    unless they plan on losing anyway and want to get rid of her once and for all....another possibility.

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 12:24pm

  19. I love it, now the True Deniers rely on politicians for their science.

    Oh, I guess it is not new, I remember one Senator doing a health exam over a video link, i.e: a Washington politician making health care decisions for a citizen. Now the cons are opposed to that.

    It is no longer enough that they rely on celebrity entertainers for their science and political cues, now they rely on politicians to educate them on scientific research.

    I guess NASA and the US Geological Survey's SOLE purpose is to drive US capitalism the way of the Norfolk Starling, Dwarf Emu, New Zealand Pigeon, Pig-footed Bandicoot, Lesser Bilby, Short-tailed Hopping-mouse, Tasmanian Tiger........

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/24/2009 @ 12:31pm

  20. Don't hold your breath MASK. Happy does not put his money where his mouth, or fingers, are. It used to be that in Texas that was the sign of a wuss, REAL MEN back their words up. I guess that changed along with the rest of the flip flops on core values when a certain pilot/AWOL TANG Texan became Commander in Chief.

    -----

    And look at this, the Firearms Coalition wants terrorist to have guns.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0623/p02s04-usju.html

    "Nearly 900 people on the FBI's terror watch list applied for and received a certificate to buy a gun in the United States between 2004 and 2009, according to a Government Accountability Office report released today. "

    funny again, how "if you have nothing to hide" does not apply to prospective gun owners, but it does apply to Quakers and library users.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/24/2009 @ 12:36pm

  21. Why is it every once in a blue moon when the Democrats actually have control of the entire government they insist on capitulating to Republicans and corporate interests or become corporate right wingers themselves? This needs to end. Even Obama is becoming far too weak in the knees when it comes to corporate interests over public need. This isn't change that we all voted for. This is simply more of the same.

    Posted by lltrix at 06/24/2009 @ 12:43pm

  22. Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 12:14pm

    If you actually looked at it, it was from the US govt National Climatic Data Center.

    <The National Climatic Data Center contains the instrumental and paleoclimatic records that can precisely define the nature of climatic fluctuations at time scales of a century and longer

    NCDC is the world's largest active archive of weather data. NCDC produces numerous climate publications and responds to data requests from all over the world. NCDC operates the World Data Center for Meteorology which is co-located at NCDC in Asheville, North Carolina, and the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology which is located in Boulder, Colorado.

    NCDC supports a three tier national climate services support program - the partners include: NCDC, Regional Climate Centers, and State Climatologists.>

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 12:53pm

  23. That the 2012 Republican nominee for President says neither that GW isn't man-made nor a "hoax"?

    If they do...a grand in your PayPal account.

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 09:38am

    Here's a deal for you, Mask: I'll bet with you, but let's make it two $500 bets. The first will be related to the Republican Presidential candidate's views on whether Global warming is man-made (no one would be dumb enough to use a loaded word like "hoax" on the campaign trail.) The second bet will be on the US public's opinion on anthropogenic warming.

    If you accept, we'll define how to determine the candidate's views on man-made global warming (I'd say based on campaign website) and then we'll find polls to agree what the current polls says about public opinion.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/24/2009 @ 12:53pm

  24. Or lets consider this report from the National Ice Center, another govt agency

    <The first half of March was colder than normal almost everywhere and the ice continued to grow over all regions. Thick first-year ice concentrations increased in all places except for the James Bay region where medium first-year ice continued to prevail. With this intrusion of cold air, the Davis Strait ice edge continued to expand eastward although only grey and grey-white ice was found near the edge. Near the end of March, thick first-year ice prevailed in all regions saves the bottom half of James Bay.

    Throughout May, the mean temperatures remained below normal over the entire region except for the Goose Bay area, which reported near normal temperatures.

    Outlook for Hudson Bay and Approaches

    The summer temperature outlook for June, July and August suggests colder than normal temperatures south of 62°N and near normal temperatures further north as well as along the mid-Labrador coast.

    Outlook for the Eastern Arctic

    The summer temperature outlook for June through August is forecast to be near normal over the western regions while gradually cooling to below normal temperatures along the east shore of Baffin and Ellesmere Islands.

    Outlook for the Western Arctic

    Through the months of June, July and August, the mean temperatures are forecasted to be warmer than normal along the coastal sections of Alaska, Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Further east in the central Arctic region, the temperature regime is expected to be near normal.

    http://tinyurl.com/mcl59y

    The National Ice Center (NIC) is a multi-agency operational center operated by the United States Navy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the US Coast Guard

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 12:55pm

  25. The greenhouse deniers have their work cut out for them.

    Here are two groups of people they have yet to convince:

    (1) the membership of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), "an honorific society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare," and

    (2) the membership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the "World's Largest General Scientific Society."

    I challenge the greenhouse deniers to do all they can to change the opinions of the NAS and the AAAS, both of which endorse these three views:

    (1) that the global average temperature is increasing,

    (2) that greenhouse gases (not only CO2, but also methane and CFCs) account for this increase, and

    (3) that the global surplus of these gases is caused by human activity.

    But don't take my word for it; look up the websites of the NAS and the AAAS yourself.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/24/2009 @ 12:58pm

  26. If you actually looked at it, it was from the US govt National Climatic Data Center.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 12:53pm

    Sorry I did not last time I followed one of your tiny links it took me to an unsupported global warming is a fraud site. That was really just trying to sell a book.

    Nevertheless, seasonal weather for parts of the US is irrelevant when talking about the global climate. The only thing that is worth a fart is looking at annual to decadal changes in mean and median temperatures and comparing that to long term averages. The site I reference is an excellent source, I suggest you take a look. Then tell me how you refute the data shown?

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    Even though 2008 was the coolest in 10 years, since 1880 the 10 warmest years have all been between 1997 and 2008. And even though 2008 was a bit cooler, it was still warmer than any year before 1990.

    Look at the data. Don't let your personal beliefs blind you.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 1:17pm

  27. jakobfabian has it right again......

    "<Brrrrr. Too cold for ice cream! Parts of U.S. forecast to have a 'year without a summer'

    Long winter marches into June as unseasonable cold and snow continues"

    NO scientist has EVER argued that climate change means that each succeeding summer will be warmer then the previous.

    Posted by darladoon at 06/24/2009 @ 1:24pm

  28. There is plenty of evidence for global climate change in Australia, too, and it's not good news.

    "The principal exception to Australia's [...] pattern of unpredictable rain is the wheat belt of its southwest, where (at least until recently) the winter rains came reliably from year to year, and where a farmer could count on a successful wheat crop almost every year. That reliability propelled wheat within recent decades to overtake both wool and meat as Australia's most valuable agricultural export. [...] But global climate change in recent years has been undermining even that [...] advantage of predictable winter rains: they have declined dramatically in the wheat belt since 1973, while increasingly frequent summer rains there fall on harvested bare ground and cause increased salinization."

    Note: Wheat requires a Mediterranean climate to bring healthy yields. Global warming threatens this climate zone in Australia by expanding its turbulent tropical zone southward.

    Source: Jared Diamond, COLLAPSE: HOW SOCIETIES CHOOSE TO FAIL OR SUCCEED (New York: 2005), page 385.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/24/2009 @ 1:25pm

  29. The resistance on the part of many Australians to accept the reality of global climate change seems to be due in part to their long, exasperating experience with unpredictable weather. Like the Midwestern United States and Central Asia (places like Kazakhstan and Mongolia), Australia has a very changeable climate. Its weather patterns are not predictable from year to year, let alone from season to season. "Average" temperatures and rainfall levels are actually very unusual in these places. Extremes are commonplace.

    In other parts of the world, such as Western Europe and the West Coast of the United States, the climate is much more mild, steady, and predictable. In these places, you can almost predict the weather using the calendar -- or could until recently. That is why people who live in here are so keenly aware that the climate has in fact been warming over the last 50 years. They can feel it.

    When you hardly ever get average temperatures, you have a hard time noticing that this average is slowly rising. In areas with chaotic and changeable weather, there are still many days that are unusually cold, even a few record-breaking cold snaps -- as there always have been. Hardly anyone notices that the cold days are becoming fewer and the hot ones more numerous. This is part of the reason why quite a few Midwesterners in the United States and quite a few Australians (and, I would venture to guess, quite a few Kazakhs and Mongols too) have a hard time accepting the reality of global climate change.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/24/2009 @ 1:48pm

  30. I have asked the following questions on numerous occasions and have yet to see an intelligent response (if any response at all).

    Given the climatic cycles of the earth's history:

    What should be the "normal" global climate temperature?

    Are the expansions of the polar ice caps into lower latitudes, the norm or are they part of a cycle?

    How could mankind affect a global climate change beginning about 12000 years ago that led to the extinction of the Wooly Mammoth in the Northern Hemisphere?

    How does mankind think it can prevent another Little Ice Age cycle like the Maunder Minimum that led 350 years ago to a much colder Europe and N America?

    those are a good starting point.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 2:01pm

  31. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/24/2009 @ 12:53pm

    Well, Darin, "public opinion" measurements are relatively un-important. Besides I'm sure RASMUSSEN would be able to come up with some way of phrasing it to "prove that 67% of Americans don't believe global warming is a big threat" (after comparing it to "losing their job").

    But let's stick with your other $500 bet.

    So if the Republican nominee in 2012 says (something similar) to "Climate change/global warming isn't man-made...it might be happening, but it's just a natural process and WE have nothing to do with it, nor do we need to enact any major policies addressing it".....you win five Franklins?

    However, if they "hedge their bets" and start talking about "market solutions"....and tacitedly admitting that it IS real...and IS man-made.....you lose?

    Bet?

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 2:24pm

  32. Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 2:01pm

    Similarly, how could mankind POSSIBLY destroy TWO entire cities in pillars of fire...

    if it happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, and it was God, not us?!??!??

    Huh? Huh?

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 2:26pm

  33. Similarly, how could mankind POSSIBLY destroy TWO entire cities in pillars of fire...

    if it happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, and it was God, not us?!??!??

    Huh? Huh?

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 2:26pm

    Not surprised that rather than attempt to answer, you pose a red herring

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 2:37pm

  34. Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 2:01pm

    Let me try... Given the climatic cycles of the earth's history:

    What should be the "normal" global climate temperature?

    -There is no normal temperature, this is why scientists compare to sliding 10 year or 50 year means.

    Are the expansions of the polar ice caps into lower latitudes, the norm or are they part of a cycle?

    - there is no evidence the ice caps are actually expanding. Some portions are getting thicker (over land) while portions over the sea is shrinking (WAIS)

    How could mankind affect a global climate change beginning about 12000 years ago that led to the extinction of the Wooly Mammoth in the Northern Hemisphere?

    - no one denies there are large scale trends in global climate or claims that all global climate over the history of the earth is man caused. So this is a red herring.

    How does mankind think it can prevent another Little Ice Age cycle like the Maunder Minimum that led 350 years ago to a much colder Europe and N America?

    those are a good starting point.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 2:49pm

  35. Sanford off the table now?

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/24/2009 @ 2:50pm

  36. Well, Darin, "public opinion" measurements are relatively un-important. Besides I'm sure RASMUSSEN would be able to come up with some way of...

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 2:24pm

    I would say the opinions of policians are even less important that public opinion, but when I mentioned this, you said I was just afraid to bet. (Besides, Rasumssen was ranked #1 (tied with Pew) as most accurate in the 2008 Presidential election.)

    Nonetheless, if it's only going to be one bet, we'll go for the original $1000.

    However, if we condition the bet on "Republican nominee in 2012 says (something similar) to", I think that puts me at a tremendous disadvantage because politicians say so many things during a campaing that they are often likely to say completely contradictory statements depending on the audience they are talking to. The bet would no longer be about anthropogenic climate change and would instead be about willingness to pander.

    That's why I think the criteria should be the candidate's website. Undoubtedly, there will be a section on the environment touting the benefits of green jobs and conservation (in addition to motherhood and apple pie). If this section claims that government needs program X to reduce CO2 emmissions because human CO2 emmission are responsible for global wamring, then I pay you $1000. If not, you pay me.

    Bet?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/24/2009 @ 2:52pm

  37. Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 2:01pm

    Let me try... Given the climatic cycles of the earth's history:

    What should be the "normal" global climate temperature?

    -There is no normal temperature, this is why scientists compare to sliding 10 year or 50 year means.

    Are the expansions of the polar ice caps into lower latitudes, the norm or are they part of a cycle?

    - there is no evidence the ice caps are actually expanding. Some portions are getting thicker (over land) while portions over the sea is shrinking (WAIS)

    How could mankind affect a global climate change beginning about 12000 years ago that led to the extinction of the Wooly Mammoth in the Northern Hemisphere?

    - no one denies there are large scale trends in global climate or claims that all global climate over the history of the earth is man caused. So this is a red herring.

    those are a good starting point.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 2:49pm

    Sorry non answer.

    1. since there is no normal temperature, how can the warming cycle of the past 190 years be considered abnormal given the constant cycling between warming and cooling of the earth?

    2. I probably should have stated it better. The expansion during the previous major ice age of the northern polar cap and the advent of the southern polar cap; was that the norm or just a cycle and thus the current partial retreat in some spots of the northern cap is just part of a normal cycle?

    3. the wooly mammoth and long term trends are not a red herring. they are directly to the issue. Those of us who dismiss anthropogenic causes in the current cycle would argue that we are simply seeing the cycles of the earth and not manmade causation.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 3:38pm

  38. <Temperatures on Earth have stabilized in the past decade, and the planet should brace itself for a new Ice Age rather than global warming, a Russian scientist said in an interview with RIA Novosti Tuesday.

    "Russian and foreign research data confirm that global temperatures in 2007 were practically similar to those in 2006, and, in general, identical to 1998-2006 temperatures, which, basically, means that the Earth passed the peak of global warming in 1998-2005," said Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of a space research lab at the Pulkovo observatory in St. Petersburg.

    By 2041, solar activity will reach its minimum according to a 200-year cycle, and a deep cooling period will hit the Earth approximately in 2055-2060. It will last for about 45-65 years, the scientist added.

    "By the mid-21st century the planet will face another Little Ice Age, similar to the Maunder Minimum, because the amount of solar radiation hitting the Earth has been constantly decreasing since the 1990s and will reach its minimum approximately in 2041," he said.>

    http://tinyurl.com/naaab6

    <The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.>

    http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-2/

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 3:40pm

  39. Some additional data to ponder

    <Changes in Earth's Tilt Control Glacial Cycles

    Posted on: Wednesday, 30 March 2005, 15:15 CST Tilt is a 100,000-year planetary pacemaker

    Woods Hole -- Scientists have long debated what causes glacial/interglacial cycles, which have occurred most recently at intervals of about 100,000 years. A new study reported in the March 24 issue of Nature finds that these glacial cycles are paced by variations in the tilt of Earth's axis, and that glaciations end when Earth's tilt is large.>

    http://tinyurl.com/nqneb5

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 3:41pm

  40. Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 2:37pm

    Why is it a "red herring", Larry?

    Your basic contention is that mankind is INCAPABLE of exerting any cataclysmic effect on the environment via massive CO2 production....asking "How did such-n-such happen in the past, if Mankind wasn't able to cause it?"

    So...I merely ask "How could Mankind POSSIBLY destroy two cities in a pillar of fire...given HISTORICALLY, the only person capable of such was Jehovah to Sodom and Gomorrah"???

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 3:41pm

  41. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/24/2009 @ 2:52pm

    Well, 1. Whether you like it or not, "politicians"...are the ones who enact the policies. So what they say, is sometimes kind of important.

    But if you want to make the case that a Republican saying GW is real and man-made is merely "pandering" and therefore...

    a LIAR, and that you're cool with that, okayyyyy.

    2. If they can't say it the way you Deniers say it...then aren't they going to be a BIT of a disadvantage, when pressure comes to bear on doing something or NOT doing something?

    3. Rasmussen on MONDAY, wrote an article on Obama's approval ratings. Scott said they were "down 8 points since a month ago."

    (continued on next post)

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 3:45pm

  42. I checked Rasmussen's "Daily Presidential Approval"....where he had Obama at 54% on Monday....one month earlier he had him at...

    57%....a THREE point difference, not eight.

    "Still bad", you say. Fine. But given Scott had CLAIMED that Obama had "fallen 8 points in a month" and was proven WRONG by....HIS OWN POLLING....it broaches an interesting question on his bias and wanting to throw out some talking points to his friends Rush, Sean, etc. So they can say "HA! Poll shows Obama down 8 points in ONE month!"

    when that was patently false, even by the pollster's own poll!??!??!

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 3:47pm

  43. Your basic contention is that mankind is INCAPABLE of exerting any cataclysmic effect on the environment via massive CO2 production....asking "How did such-n-such happen in the past, if Mankind wasn't able to cause it?"

    So...I merely ask "How could Mankind POSSIBLY destroy two cities in a pillar of fire...given HISTORICALLY, the only person capable of such was Jehovah to Sodom and Gomorrah"???

    Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 3:41pm

    News flash to Mask;

    G-d is not a man.

    So I still fail to see any relevance of the phony claim of anthropogenic GW to an act of G-d in destroying two sinful cities.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 4:00pm

  44. Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 3:47pm

    Rasmussen is irrelevent. Actually, I was very surprised to see them ranked #1 in 2008 Presidential election because I've noticed they tilt Republican. I will note that Fox was #10, and NBC and ABC were lower than that and CBS was last.

    But again, the polls were related to the alternative bet and are irrelevent.

    I say the $1000 bet should be determined by the candidate's website, not on an analysis that potentially includes every comment uttered during 2012 because there could be multiple, contridictory comments.

    If the candidate's website says (somthing similar to) "We need to curb CO2 because CO2 released from humans burning fossil fuels has caused global warming" then I pay you $1000.

    If the candidate's website says (something similar to) "The candidate does not support cap and trade because the science behind anthropogenic climate change is inconclusive" then you pay me $1000.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/24/2009 @ 4:27pm

  45. Here's a thought.

    Everybody has an opinion as to what caused the financial meltdown: Greedy bankers, greed politicians, etc., etc.

    Of course the real answer is traders believed overly simplistic computer models for loan defaults. These models were used to value the securities created by packaging loans from diverse geographic regions. The correlation of defaults between disparate geographic regions were controlled by a function described as "Gausian Copulas".

    It turns out a formula as complicated as "Gausian Copulas" was too simplistic to capture the true correlation between default rates in places like LA, Orlando, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.

    Will the next financial crisis be caused by overly simplistic computer models. We have the Earth's weather. And a computer model says that 100% of the change in temperature over the last 100 years can be explained by human caused CO2. Thus, the only "solution" is to create a tax that restrains economic growth because politicians believe the computer models.

    First time as tragedy, second time as farce.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/24/2009 @ 4:55pm

  46. Sorry non answer.

    1. since there is no normal temperature, how can the warming cycle of the past 190 years be considered abnormal given the constant cycling between warming and cooling of the earth?

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 3:38pm

    Non answer? Whatever...

    1) Not abnormal temperature, abnormal rate of change. The laws of thermodynamics don't allow something to warm up and cool down without a causal factor. The most probable factor for our current warming trend IS CO2. Which is why the vast majority of the scientific community agrees it is man made.

    The other comments you make just reference historical climatic variations, as I stated above no one claims past climatic variance is man made. In our current situation there is a strong correlation with increased CO2 production and warming temperatures. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it does trap heat, therefore given the evidence it is logical to conclude that there is strong evidence suggesting our current warming trend is due to man made production of C02. The earth has been in a warming trend, what other factors would be at play? The sun? tilt of the earth? space dust? These altenate explanations have been examined and the preponderance of evidence, excludes them and points to C02.

    How about you answer a question for us?

    If not increased CO2, what is the reason for rapid warming trend the earth has seen over the past 100+ years, with a peculiar start at the shortly after the advent of the industrial revolution?

    And natural cycle is not an answer the laws of thermodynamics demands a causal factor/mechanism. What is the mechanism?

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 5:25pm

  47. If not increased CO2, what is the reason for rapid warming trend the earth has seen over the past 100+ years, with a peculiar start at the shortly after the advent of the industrial revolution?

    And natural cycle is not an answer the laws of thermodynamics demands a causal factor/mechanism. What is the mechanism?

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 5:25pm

    your question presupposes a fact that is not in evidence.

    We have not had a "rapid warming trend" over the past 100 years.

    <Between 1900 and 2000, atmospheric CO2 increased from 295 to 365 ppm, while temperatures increased about 0.57 degrees C (using the value cited by Al Gore and others).

    According to the US Department of Energy, only about 14.8% of this increase, or 11.88 ppm, is man-made. The remaining 68.5 ppm is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes and forest fires [26]. From this, researchers have estimated that, when water vapor is taken into account, anthropogenic CO2 contributions cause about 0.117% of the Earth's total greenhouse effect

    CO2 levels have only increased by 23.7% since 1900.>

    http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

    And this latest from Dr Roy Spencer of NASA

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 6:00pm

  48. One of the saddest aspects of the global warming debate is that it has turned into a rather illogical dichotomy between left and right. When I first entered climate change research 35 years ago the only people pushing the green house effect were the nuclear power industry and a few conservative think tanks. Then after 3 mile island demonizing CO2 became big business. The public was afraid of nuclear power so the industry had to find a bigger boogey man. So the modern global warming "movement" was born. Personally, I believe that human activity is causing climate change on an unprecedented scale and that we are looking at catostophic crop failures and mass extinctions. But surface change (clear cutting, slash and burn, paving) are far more likely culprits than CO2; and this is what the data was pointing to in the 70's. If you want to look at an objective, nonpolitical, in nobodies pocket site on climate change; got to Roger Pielke's site: climatesci.org and try to open your minds. Didn't you ever wonder why our new Secretary of Energy thinks that global warming is so bad that we have to start building nuclear reactors right away, but not so bad that we should stop building coal fired plants. You want to read an honest supporter of global warming. Read Newt Gingrich's Contract with the Earth. He's a staunch believer in global warming and has a ready solution. It's nuclear energy.

    A leftist who doesn't believe in GW.

    Posted by lnh at 06/24/2009 @ 6:05pm

  49. A leftist who doesn't believe in GW.

    Posted by lnh at 06/24/2009 @ 6:05pm

    Thank you for an honest posting.

    I agree with you on Pielke. He is an excellent resource.

    France gets approx 80% from nuclear energy. It's crazy not to pursue an active nuclear energy program.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 6:18pm

  50. your question presupposes a fact that is not in evidence.

    We have not had a "rapid warming trend" over the past 100 years.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 6:00pm

    Really? Your post does not refute the aspect that the globe is warming in fact your own sources affirm it.

    Yes, there are other sources of CO2, but your own sources admit that C02 has increased 45% since the industrial revolution. Now why would that be?

    In addition "Global surface temperature has increased ≈0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within ≈1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than ≈1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute "dangerous" climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species."

    http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.abstract

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 6:35pm

  51. If we are going to return to nuclear power, we should do it with our eyes wide open. I attended a lecture by Ernest Teller in 1973. His logic was simple. Nuclear energy was the solution. Well it had to be a solution to something. It was expensive. The only advantage that it had was that it didn't produce CO2. So that was it. CO2 had to be a big problem. So they resurrected a theory that was laughed at in climatology circles (I was studying the heat island problem at the time, which is the best documented human effect on climate. Everbody I worked with did laugh at the Greenhouse effect. We called it a relief act for unemployed nuclear engineers.) France subsidizes it's nuclear plants and their electricity is still expensive. It ain't the reactors that scare me so much as the rest of the nuclear cycle.If you aren't afraid of a nuclearized economy, google this "Apollo Pennsylvania cancer" and then explain that to me what really happened there.

    A real leftist

    Posted by lnh at 06/24/2009 @ 6:43pm

  52. Personally, I believe that human activity is causing climate change on an unprecedented scale and that we are looking at catostophic crop failures and mass extinctions.

    A leftist who doesn't believe in GW.

    Posted by lnh at 06/24/2009 @ 6:05pm

    Seems a little contradictory to me? While you may be skeptical of the cause, you seem to acknowledge the result.

    I am ever skeptic. I seriously question the climate change predictions as far as how the weather will change and where. I agree that there is evidence to suggest that CO2 is not the sole factor in the warming trend the earth has experienced. However, the overwhelming evidience suggests that it is a major component.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 6:49pm

  53. Yes, there are other sources of CO2, but your own sources admit that C02 has increased 45% since the industrial revolution. Now why would that be?

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 6:35pm

    As noted in the data I posted, the amount of CO2 from anthropogenic sources is CALCULATED to be 14.8% of the increase.

    anthropogenic skeptics like myself have concluded that certainly there is a small amount of anthropogenic influence, but it is insignificant.

    And to piggyback on Dr Spencer's article:

    <So, greenhouse is all about carbon dioxide, right? Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

    In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, "Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models," Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

    http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

    continued

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 6:53pm

  54. Ocean temperatures on the average are not increasing. There was an excellent article by Pielke on this in Physics Today, I think it was last November. There is even a weak cooling trend. As far as land surface temperature, the most obvious mechanism is changing the heat capacity of the surface by clear cutting, paving, and poor agricultural practices. There is no additional heat, but the temperature will go up.. This was and is the best documented human effect on climate. (Hell, I measured it in the 70's.)It has been shown to be the explanation behing most desertification. There are several well known cycles in global warming and cooling. An 11 year cycle and several other cycles can be be traced to a variation of the solar constant which is probably due to a coupling between the sun's rotation on it's axis and it's revolving around the solar systm barycenter (See Fairbridge or Shirley. Another 9.5 year cycle can be traced to a variation in the volcanic dust index (See Stothers). The cycles added up in the 90's and any climatologist worth his salt should have been aware of this. That's why it looks like such a deliberate hoax to us old leftist climatologists.

    A real leftist and a real environmentalist.

    Posted by lnh at 06/24/2009 @ 6:59pm

  55. Ocean temperatures on the average are not increasing. There was an excellent article by Pielke on this in Physics Today, I think it was last November. There is even a weak cooling trend.

    Posted by lnh at 06/24/2009 @ 6:59pm

    I don't know what data Pielke is using but this NASA data suggests otherwise.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 7:11pm

  56. More on Greenhouse Gases

    <Humans can only claim responsibility, if that's the word, for abut 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural (you can see the IPCC representation of the natural carbon cycle and human perturbation here or a simple schematic from Woods Hole here).

    Half our estimated emissions fail to accumulate in the atmosphere, "disappearing" into sinks as yet undetermined. Humans' total accumulated carbon contribution could account for perhaps a quarter of the total non-water greenhouse gases (that is, accounting for all the increase since the Industrial Revolution regardless of source and irrespective of whether warming from any cause might result in an increase in natural emission to atmosphere -- we're simply claiming the lot as anthropogenic or human-caused here).

    If we consider the warming effect of the pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide (about 280 parts per million by volume or ppmv) as 1, then the first half of that heating was delivered by about 20ppmv (0.002% of atmosphere) while the second half required an additional 260ppmv (0.026%).

    To double the pre-Industrial Revolution warming from CO2 alone would require about 90,000ppmv (9%) but we'd never see it - CO2 becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv (0.6%, although humans have absolutely no prospect of achieving such concentrations).

    The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 °C.>

    http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 7:12pm

  57. On the $1000 bet: the winner would be the one who has the wiggle room. The candidate's AGGREGATE position will doubtlessly be less than distinctly extreme.

    They'll say a variety of things from week to week, from audience to audience... leaving them close but avoiding clear denial. Look out for hedge-city.

    DENIER ---X--------- BELIEVER (in global warming)

    Look out for hedge-city.

    "The liberal media and my opponent want you to be afraid, want you to feel badly, will continue to claim that humans alone are responsible for global warming! Well, I say to you my friends do not be afraid of their lies!"

    "Their claims of human caused climate changes are greatly exaggerated, are efforts to scare you, to make you believe you need big government."

    ------ NEVER: "I believe humans have not contributed to global warming." Or, "The claim that humans have caused global warming is a complete falsehood".

    Posted by winyahn at 06/24/2009 @ 9:40pm

  58. I am trying to figure out how federal subsidization of nuclear power plants (no doubt built through the Dept of Energy) fits into Larrys world view. The private sector won't touch them with a 100 ft rod of processed uranium.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/24/2009 @ 10:11pm

  59. antisocialist,

    spends his free time trolling the internet, searching for any sort of "scientific" information which conforms to his pre-existing views of the universe.

    the author of antisocialist's reference website:

    "Steve Milloy is: the founder and publisher of JunkScience.com; a co-founder and portfolio manager of the Free Enterprise Action Fund (the first conservative/libertarian mutual fund); and a long-time columnist for FoxNews.com"

    milloy is less concerned about science, and more concerned about industry (being a representative for industry).

    Posted by darladoon at 06/24/2009 @ 10:13pm

  60. Why are NASA, UGS, NAS and AAAS involved in a global "deliberate hoax"?

    What do they gain?

    VS

    what do carbon based energy companies, the forestry industry and agribusiness gain by denying GW?

    Anybody associated with the Swift Boat crew should be taken with crates of salt.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/24/2009 @ 10:27pm

  61. Extraneous, Your site doesn't contradict a thing that Pielke said. It shows trends in SURFACE temperature. Pielke has studied causes of change in surface temperature for 40 years. That is why he looked at ocean temperatures at depth to see if global warming actually existed.. There is a well known systematic error made when you try to measure temperature change with surface temperature only.. If you change the heat capacity of the surface the temperature will go up even if there is no new heat. Many of the stations used for your study were placed at airports which used to be in the country. The cities grew out to them. This effect has been well measured and studied. It can explain most of the "hockey stick." Hansen is well aware of this. He is deliberately ignoring it. That is why I have no respect left for any of his research.. He is just a political hack.

    by the real environmentalist.

    Posted by lnh at 06/24/2009 @ 10:38pm

  62. Crabwalk, Most of the research pushing GW was not originally funded by the agencies you mentioned. The push came from the Atomic Energy Commission at least as early as 1973 when I was doing research under one of their grants. They didn't care what the data said,they wanted to see a greenhouse effect. Most of the data contradicting it was funded by UNESCO, back when UNESCO did real research. I don't think that you can over estimate the role the nuclear power industry has had in shaping this debate. I know people at NASA Godard, they're embarrassed by Hansen. There was a small click at NASA who wanted there research in planetary atmospheres to be useful, and a marriage of convenience took place.

    If you think about it, you will understand that agribusiness has a lot to gain from GW.

    I know to many GW skeptics, that aren't political conservatives, they are simply people who actually studied the data for decades. Mankind is changing the climate and we are arguing over a second order term.

    a real leftist

    Posted by lnh at 06/24/2009 @ 10:51pm

  63. If you really want to understand the real political history of GW, look at what climatologists were saying about human impacts on climate before GW was forced down their throats (1970's). UNESCO spent a lot of its budget studying this. The main concern was surface change, especially logging and introducing agribusiness into the tropics. There was a lot of good solid data showing that the regional climate changed when trees were clearcut, when fields were plowed and when pavement was laid. The solution would be to support small scale agriculture, perinnial agriculture or in other words stop agribusiness. We would have to stop urbanization. The solution was very anti corporate capitalism. But if you would wake up, you'ld realize that GW has a fast and simple solution. Just deregulate the nuclear industry and then heavily subsidize them. Clearcut everything and let agribusiness grow heavily subsidized ethanol producing crops. Drive up the price of food, starve the world, so we can drive ethanol guzzlers. That is what's actually happening and you can't get any more pro capitalist than that.

    Posted by lnh at 06/24/2009 @ 11:09pm

  64. There is plenty of evidence for global climate change in Australia, too, and it's not good news.

    "The principal exception to Australia's [...] pattern of unpredictable rain is the wheat belt of its southwest, where (at least until recently) the winter rains came reliably from year to year, and where a farmer could count on a successful wheat crop almost every year. That reliability propelled wheat within recent decades to overtake both wool and meat as Australia's most valuable agricultural export. [...] But global climate change in recent years has been undermining even that [...] advantage of predictable winter rains: they have declined dramatically in the wheat belt since 1973, while increasingly frequent summer rains there fall on harvested bare ground and cause increased salinization."

    Source: Jared Diamond, COLLAPSE: HOW SOCIETIES CHOOSE TO FAIL OR SUCCEED (New York: 2005), page 385.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/24/2009 @ 1:25pm

    I listened to that video and it is very short on an understanding of the "driest continent on earth".

    Climate change, since white settlement in 1778 has been occurring, so that marginal agricultural land has been going in and out of production periodically over that time. The South West of Victoria is fine wool, beef cattle and dairy country. Far too wet for wheat and thus would simply not be suitable for wheat production. Wheat doesn't require much rain and in the temperate zones a few inches in late winter and spring gives a great harvest. Most wheat farmers plant when the rain forecast in winter is good and two or three inches of rain is all that is required. The wheat lands are in the drier hotter parts of our state. The rainfall pattern has not changed in seasonal terms but is just a bit less than average in the four seasons.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2009 @ 05:43am

  65. AAP General News (Australia)

    10-26-2005

    Fed: AWB ups its wheat production forecast

    CANBERRA, Oct 26 AAP - Australia's wheat marketer has increased its forecast for this Year's crop production after a wet winter and spring.

    AWB has revised its forecast for domestic wheat production for 2005-06 to between 23 and 25 million tonnes - up two million tonnes on earlier predictions.

    "Continuing good rainfall across NSW, Victoria and South Australia during early spring has led to favourable development of late sown crops and cool temperatures has aided crop development in those regions," AWB managing director Andrew Lindberg said.

    And here is the projection for 2009:

    Grain production could hit a four year high: ABARE

    By Aireview 17 June 2009 @ 06:32 am AEST

    Australia's wheat production this year could hit a four year high, according to ABARE, the government's commodity forecaster.

    It said yesterday that output may be about 22 million tonnes in 2009-2010, about steady with the March forecast of 22.1 million tonnes and last year's crop of 21.4 million tonnes.

    ABARE (the Australian Bureau of Agricultural And Resource Economics) said recent rainfall across growing regions had boost planting intentions by growers.

    So JF just because an ecco propagandist wears a white beard and can mention 2nd and 3rd derivatives of a mathematical equation doesn't automatically mean he knows what he is talking about.

    The rest of his speech may also have been hoodwinking nonsense but the bit on Australia's climate change being anything out of the cyclical ordinary, as if it were a rare event, can entrap only the unwary and the ignorant.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2009 @ 06:04am

  66. Methinks lnh doest proclaim his leftism a bit strong.

    "I do believe that scientists are correct when they claim that the risks of climate change are worthy of significant action, but at the same time I don't think that action on climate change means giving up on democracy. I applaud Hansen's decision to protest at a coal fired power plant recently in Washington, DC -- "-Roger Pielke jr.

    He calls for "A carbon tax at the highest level politically possible."

    Larry, are you in favor of federally subsidized nuclear power and a the highest carbon tax possible?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/25/2009 @ 07:13am

  67. Consider these two statements from John Nichols:

    "Of course, there are many dead-ender Republicans, who are opposing this ACES legislation because their campaign-contribution paymasters in the corporate sector are against it."

    "The LCV's our-way-or-the-highway approach fails to take into account the sincere opposition to the America Clean Energy and Security Act. That is a mistake, as the criticisms advanced by the Friends of the Earth and other groups are legitimate expressions of concern about a measure that..."

    **********************************************************

    So, Republicans are craven and evil, while Progressives are sincere and legitimate.

    Look, I've never said it was a "hoax". I know that the people who believe it are sincere, but I'm sincere too in my disbelief. Human nature makes us susceptible to apocalytic fears. When I was fresh out of college (translation: convinced I was smarter than everyone, but in reality didn't know shit) I scared my self shitless worrying about Erhlic's population bomb. I was sincerely convinced that it would be the end of the world if government didn't do something pronto. Well, what do you know? The "sky is falling" claims turned out to be a false alarm.

    I've looked at the hockey stick data, and I've read about how a programming error in that program turned a series of random numbers into a hockey stick. I've read the apocalytic warnings and I have red warning of the impending ice age due to sun cycles.

    At the end of the day, science works by building models. Models that focus on CO2 when water vapor is an order of magnitude stronger as a green house gas don't make any sense to me. More likely, this is man over estimating his own importance, again.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/25/2009 @ 07:20am

  68. It also sounds like Mask isn't interested in my bet.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/25/2009 @ 07:21am

  69. "Human nature makes us susceptible to apocalytic fears. "-Darin

    "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."-Condi.

    "Insurance companies, acutely aware of the dramatic increase in losses caused by natural disasters in recent decades, have been convinced that global warming is partly to blame. Now their data seem to be persuading scientists, too. At a recent meeting of climate and insurance experts, delegates reached a cautious consensus: climate change is helping to drive the upward trend in catastrophes.

    "Climate change may not be the dominant factor, but it has become clear that a relevant portion of damages can be attributed to global warming.-says Peter Höppe, head of Munich Re's Geo Risks department,""--Nature 2006

    I would assume they have actuaries that look at this stuff.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/25/2009 @ 07:34am

  70. Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/25/2009 @ 07:28am

    Better get those street signs in your neighborhood taken down .... ASAP!!

    The UN tanks will roll on Castros birthday.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/25/2009 @ 07:37am

  71. It also sounds like Mask isn't interested in my bet.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/25/2009 @ 07:21am

    You like analogies...

    I want to bet that the horse "Catbird's Special Moment" will win the Kentucky Derby.

    But, I want some caveats:

    If it is too muddy, that does not count

    If it is too hot,

    If Catbird has red colors, does not count

    If Catbird comes in 2nd to 5th, I still get to count that as a win

    You takin' the bet?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/25/2009 @ 07:42am

  72. It never ceases to amaze me how many people imagine that chaos is on their side.

    The unpredictability of Australian weather from year to year is a fact that I freely concede, but it is insufficient grounds to deny that long-term trends are at work, particularly when so much data can be found virtually everywhere -- even in Australia -- to support this claim.

    I believe increasing salinization is to Australia what diminishing lake ice is to Minnesota -- a stable indicator of long-term global climate change even in the midst of unstable local meteorology.

    Besides, it's not me and Jared Diamond whom you need most to convince, "lrjones4." It's the NAS and the AAAs.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/25/2009 @ 07:45am

  73. So I still fail to see any relevance of the phony claim of anthropogenic GW to an act of G-d in destroying two sinful cities.-----Posted by antisocialist at 06/24/2009 @ 4:00pm

    Simple....God can destroy two cities....Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Man can destroy two cities....Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    So by your own mythology...er..."history"...Man DOES have the power to destroy in a similar manner to God.

    Now, didn't God "flood the Earth"? A major "climatological change"?

    Soooooooooooo????

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 07:54am

  74. "Legislating on the Basis of a Scientific Theory"

    Posted by jennifer, June 23rd, 2009 - under News, Opinion.

    Is it ever a good idea to base legislation on a scientific theory?

    The Australian Parliament's upper-house Senate has begun debating the Rudd Labor government's proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009, also known as the emissions trading scheme. The legislation is based on the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

    The vote of Family First Senator, Steve Fielding, is considered crucial. The Senator claims Australia's Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, has not answered key questions from him concerning the science in particular: Is it the case that carbon dioxide increased by 5 percent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period?

    The Minister's advisors have apparently argued with Senator Fielding about how to measure global temperatures, insisting that ocean as opposed to surface temperature, is a better measure.

    Indeed heat is not the same as temperature. Two litres of boiling water contain twice as much heat as one litre of boiling water even though the water in both vessels is the same temperature. A larger container has more thermal mass which means it takes longer to heat and cool. So yes, measuring ocean temperature is a more accurate measure of heat accumulation.

    NASA started deploying free floating Argo buoys in the world's oceans in 2000 with the full complement of 3,000 in place by 2003, and data from these buoys indicate that even the oceans have started to cool.

    http://tinyurl.com/mfnmjy

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2009 @ 07:59am

  75. This is very significant. While surface temperatures may vary from year to year, as long as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide increase there will be a gradual accumulation of heat in the climate system eventually resulting in a climate crisis.

    But so much for the legislation if the oceans are cooling; then the very hypothesis is falsified. Indeed given the nature of science, the fact that today's theories are often disproven tomorrow, it is perhaps never a good idea to develop legislation on a scientific theory, however, popular.

    Notes and Links

    The above graph is republished from ‘Have Changes In Ocean Heat Falsified The Global Warming Hypothesis?' by William DiPuccio

    http://tinyurl.com/mfnmjy

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2009 @ 07:59am

  76. "If the candidate's website says (something similar to) "The candidate does not support cap and trade because the science behind anthropogenic climate change is inconclusive" then you pay me $1000."--------Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/24/2009 @ 4:27pm

    Those exact words or VERY similar...you got a bet. Basically anything along the lines of "inconclusive" and "man-made global warming/anthropogenic climate change"?....sounds fine.

    BTW, let me tell you why I'm confident that I'll win.

    Any Republican nominee going into the General Election of 2012 will be facing some big hurdles winning over "the Middle"...even if somehow the economy is tepid. Republican identification is at an all-time low, so trying to reach the Center will be vital.

    Plus, they really don't need to worry too much about you in the base...the "terrifying prospect" of a 2 term Obama will keep you in line.

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 08:00am

  77. http://tinyurl.com/mfnmjy-----Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2009 @ 07:59am

    JONES' link takes you to www.jennifermarohasy.com.

    Jennifer Marohasy is part of the Australian "Institute of Public Affairs"....a conservative think tank.

    The Institute of Public Affairs...

    "is funded by its membership which include businesses. Among these businesses are Murray Irrigation Limited, Visyboard, Telstra, Western Mining, BHP Billiton, Phillip Morris, Gunns Limited and Monsanto."----wikipedia.org

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 08:04am

  78. Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 08:04am

    Ha Ha Mask you are a funny fellow. That's the best you can do? No good at science either? Have a go at it and see if you can find the flaws in DiPuccio's science and coclusion. I mean this is serious business for true believers. He may just have provided the way in which the AGW hypothesis is falsified. Kaput finished. The "neo-cons" win again. I'm sure you wouldn't inadvertently want to end up in the flat earth camp. Shooting the messenger is about the best way to get there.

    You'll find it on Roger Pielke Snr's web page. Marohasy was merely giving a summary of the scientific argument.

    http://tinyurl.com/c7r368

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2009 @ 09:12am

  79. There is something clearly arrogant and deceptive about the,"make believe I have your best interest at heart", energy bill .Calling it the, "American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES)," is like calling a pig a cow, just to get Jewish people to eat it. Taxing the poor just so the rich can have fuel oil for their jets is not only stupid it is cruel. Let those that have benefited from going to china for cheap labor pay for research and development of "so called" green energy. I believe T. Boone Pickens, who I don't like very much, has the right idea. He is going to put his money where his mouth is and developing clean coal technology, and buying up the wind. Asking people to freeze to death while people run around experimenting with cute esoteric ideas paid for by the poor is really blatantly stupid. Cap and trade anyone? And I have this land in the louisiana bayou for sale cheap.

    Posted by julien38 at 06/25/2009 @ 09:34am

  80. And by the way we are exporting as much coal as we can mine and china is opening one coal fired plant a week. Let's sent Bill Nuy the science guy to china huh.

    Posted by julien38 at 06/25/2009 @ 09:40am

  81. antisocialist, spends his free time trolling the internet, searching for any sort of "scientific" information which conforms to his pre-existing views of the universe.

    the author of antisocialist's reference website:

    "Steve Milloy is: the founder and publisher of JunkScience.com; a co-founder and portfolio manager of the Free Enterprise Action Fund (the first conservative/libertarian mutual fund); and a long-time columnist for FoxNews.com"

    milloy is less concerned about science, and more concerned about industry (being a representative for industry).

    Posted by darladoon at 06/24/2009 @ 10:13pm

    That's right Darla, rather than debate the substance, you attack the messenger. I will assume it's because you are unable to attack the substance. Perhaps your criticism stems from a lack of understanding of the process of scientific examination. Critical thinking and examination of opposing theory is central to the scientific process. This is something that liberals seem reluctant to do, preferring to accept without question when any new junkscience fad surfaces that offers the chance to further propel the ideology of bigger govt.

    BTW, I have been reading the Junkscience website for several years now. I learned of it from the excellent black libertarian commentator, Larry Elder.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 09:46am

  82. Larry, are you in favor of federally subsidized nuclear power and a the highest carbon tax possible?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/25/2009 @ 07:13am

    No. What I want is for the Fed to get out of the way, and approve Nuclear energy projects.

    <One of those new sources of energy is the building of more nuclear power plants. For three decades, nuclear power plants have generally been unpopular and the target of environmental groups, but 55% of voters now say more nuclear power plants should be built in the United States. Just 29% oppose new plants, with 15% undecided.

    Sixty-four percent (64%) of GOP voters favor building new nuclear plants, with 22% opposed. The numbers are nearly identical for unaffiliated voters. Among Democrats, though, just 42% support the building of new plants, and 39% are against it.

    Investors certainly like the idea of new plants, too. Sixty-three percent (63%) want to see new nuclear plans built, compared to 43% of non-investors.>

    http://tinyurl.com/7zgd8a

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 10:06am

  83. Any Republican nominee going into the General Election of 2012 will be facing some big hurdles winning over "the Middle"...even if somehow the economy is tepid. Republican identification is at an all-time low, so trying to reach the Center will be vital.

    Plus, they really don't need to worry too much about you in the base...the "terrifying prospect" of a 2 term Obama will keep you in line.

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 08:00am

    As to a 2012 GOP candidate embracing manmade GW, I never deny the possibility of a politician acting stupidly.

    However, given where the public trend is headed, your confidence seems misplaced. I showed you awhile back how the public perception is changing. What is significant for a 2012 GOP candidate is that the independents have moved more inline with GOP voters on this subject. That would suggest that this issue is not one that will be a problem for a GOP candidate that doesn't surrender to the anthropogenic hoaxers mob. Just a reminder

    <PRINCETON, NJ -- Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.

    Since 1997, Republicans have grown increasingly likely to believe media coverage of global warming is exaggerated, and that trend continues in the 2009 survey; however, this year marks a relatively sharp increase among independents as well. In just the past year, Republican doubters grew from 59% to 66%, and independents from 33% to 44%, while the rate among Democrats remained close to 20%>

    http://tinyurl.com/nkdb6t

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 10:08am

  84. Posted by crabwalk at 06/25/2009 @ 07:42amHey, that's bullshit. If we are going to bet on a candidate's views, let's bet on view. Let's not bet on an entire year's worth of utterences.

    The way Maks proposed the bet, (if the candidate says something like...) he could weasle out of it by saying, "Well, we don't know what he said in private during the year."

    The candidate's views are most clearly laid out on the campaign websites. If Mask is so sure that "everybody" is convinced of the scientific evidence to conclude global warming is a result of human action that the 2012 Rep will even belive it like McCain, then that veiw will be on the candidate's website.

    That's an honest bet.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/25/2009 @ 10:18am

  85. Man can destroy two cities....Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 07:54am

    On my son's ipod, he's got a trivia app. One tidbit said that in 10 minutes a hurricane releases more destructive energy than all of the nuclear bombs on earth combined.

    Think about that. The US and Russia each have more than 1500 nuclear warheads a piece. And they are less powerful than 10 minutes of a storm that typically lasts a week. And we typically see about a dozen such storms every year.

    It's a gentle reminder of how insignificant man is.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/25/2009 @ 10:24am

  86. Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 08:00am

    We have a bet. I'm not terribly certain I'll win, but what the hell.

    If I have an edge I think it is related to the 1984 election. Reagan was a wildly popular incumbent. Since the Dems knew they were going to lose, all the serious candidates got out of the way and only the fire-breathers campaigned in the primaries. The party picked Walter Mondale who campaigned exclusively to the base and told them everything they wanted to hear. And he lost 49 states.

    With that kind of a model, we could see a Mike Huckabee defending people who question the scientific rationale for claiming the earth is more than 6000 years old. It's not hard to imagine him believing the rational for blaming GW on humans is inconclusive.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/25/2009 @ 10:33am

  87. Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2009 @ 09:12am

    "the best I can do"?

    You mean like somebody trying to prove that "cigarettes don't cause cancer....look, here's an article from a blog...

    and the blog was written by a right-wing woman who...

    belongs to a think tank that gets TONS of money from Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds" (historical example)

    Yeah, JONES....that's "the best I can do"...LOL

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 11:26am

  88. "As to a 2012 GOP candidate embracing manmade GW, I never deny the possibility of a politician acting stupidly.

    However, given where the public trend is headed, your confidence seems misplaced."---- Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 10:08am

    Again, as with Darin, the "public trend" isn't the key thing, Larry....the politicians "acting stupidly" (as you think) does.

    Will either of the two political parties embrace Global Warming/Climate Change Denial in the foreseeable future...2012 or even 2016 and beyond?

    If not, the the POLICY MAKING will be with us, not you. Ergo...what do you matter?

    And I'm talking the President and the majority of Congress....Jim Inhofe can say whatever the hell he wants and vote "no" to everything....but he'll still be in the MINORITY.

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 11:33am

  89. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/25/2009 @ 10:33am

    I consider it a "win-win" then, Darin.

    If the GOP nominee is somebody like The Incredible Huck...or Ice Prom Queen Granny....Obama's a shoo-in.

    And it would also mean that The Big Money/Power Boys at the RNC (not Michael Steele of course)....have thrown in the towel and decided to "wait for 2016" and pray Obama finishes his 2nd term on a down-note and Biden becomes the nominee....which would mean a public mind-set of "2 successful Democratic Presidency, book-ending 1 failed conservative Republican Presidency"...

    which means the 2016 nominee would be Old Mitt Romney (the one who got health care in Massachusetts and was "soft" on abortion....and thus both events spell the comatose status of "Reaganism" in the Republican Party.

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 11:39am

  90. So far this year alone two of the republican heavy weights have been caught with their schlongs in the wrong place. Both men were "family values" conservatives.

    Now, Americans have VERY short memories so only time will tell. But, don't ya'll think that eventually the general public is going to grow way tired of adulterers telling them how to live their lives?

    How is the Defense of Marriage Act working? I don't think you hypocritical cons need to worry about the "homosexual agenda", you need to worry about the hetero-sexual republican agenda, which seems to be to cast the republican party in the worst possible light as often as possible.

    As MASK points out, the only heavy hitter that has any respect among middle of the road independents is Romney. And we know what the republican Qaida thinks of him and his wild religion.

    And LR, when did the "neo-cons win"? They lost the last 2 elections here, by wide margins, and their two wars are still killing people.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/25/2009 @ 12:23pm

  91. Too funny to have Larry complaining about "guilt by association"

    Jeez this guy is the biggest hypocrite I have ever dealt with. Almost any link posted here by "leftists" will be traced back by Larry to communist ties, even if he has to go back to the 1930's to do it. But, any questions about scientists getting paid by polluters to question NASA, USG, NAS and AAAS is "attacking the messenger".

    Oh, well, what should we expect from someone that thinks pink shirted grannies have more links to communism than the FMLN?

    About 40 nuclear power plants are under construction worldwide, China, Korea, France account for the majority. ALL are financed by the governments. As far as I know not one nuke plant in the US was built without subsidies supplied by the US govt. Not one plant has been built in what, 3 decades...? But, somehow, through prophetic symbolism maybe, the private sector is all of a sudden going to step up and commit billions to an industry that has never built to budget?

    Sure, when horses fly.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/25/2009 @ 12:32pm

  92. Will either of the two political parties embrace Global Warming/Climate Change Denial in the foreseeable future...2012 or even 2016 and beyond?

    If not, the the POLICY MAKING will be with us, not you. Ergo...what do you matter?

    And I'm talking the President and the majority of Congress....Jim Inhofe can say whatever the hell he wants and vote "no" to everything....but he'll still be in the MINORITY.

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 11:33am

    I think you have it backwards. Politicians in both parties when campaigning rely heavily upon the trends. Now each side has some issues with which they promote simply upon the view of their base, that is a given.

    But if this trend continues, I don't believe you will hear any GOP candidates during the primaries, or the eventual candidate promote the leftist view on GW.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 12:49pm

  93. (1) that the global average temperature is increasing,

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/24/2009 @ 12:58pm

    Okay Jako, According to these "scientific" groups, what exactly is the average global temperature (number please, in F or C) and what should the average temperature be? This question should be simple enough for those of you who have bought into AGW.

    Posted by fram at 06/25/2009 @ 12:50pm

  94. Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 12:49pm

    Cue Washington Post/ABC News poll....from TODAY-

    By Steven Mufson and Jennifer Agiesta Washington Post Staff Writers

    Thursday, June 25, 2009

    "Three-quarters of Americans think the federal government should regulate the release into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases from power plants, cars and factories to reduce global warming, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, with substantial majority support from Democrats, Republicans and independents.

    ((SOME good news for you, Larry...but not really))

    But fewer Americans -- 52 percent -- support a cap-and-trade approach to limiting greenhouse gas emissions similar to the one the House may vote on as early as tomorrow. That is slightly less support than cap and trade enjoyed in a late July 2008 poll. Forty-two percent of those surveyed this month oppose such a program. "

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 12:53pm

  95. Thursday, June 25, 2009

    "Three-quarters of Americans think the federal government should regulate the release into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases from power plants, cars and factories to reduce global warming, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, with substantial majority support from Democrats, Republicans and independents.

    ((SOME good news for you, Larry...but not really))

    But fewer Americans -- 52 percent -- support a cap-and-trade approach to limiting greenhouse gas emissions similar to the one the House may vote on as early as tomorrow. That is slightly less support than cap and trade enjoyed in a late July 2008 poll. Forty-two percent of those surveyed this month oppose such a program. "

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 12:53pm

    Just once I wish they would pose questions like this with the following:

    "Would you approve this approach even if it meant the loss of jobs and a downturn in the economy?"

    I wonder what the numbers would be then?

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 1:07pm

  96. Simple....God can destroy two cities....Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Man can destroy two cities....Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    So by your own mythology...er..."history"...Man DOES have the power to destroy in a similar manner to God.

    Now, didn't God "flood the Earth"? A major "climatological change"?

    Soooooooooooo????

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 07:54am

    Hey Mask, Sodom and Gomorrah aren't on the map anymore and neither is Pompeii. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still on the map, alive and functioning. Do you still believe man destroyed them?

    Posted by fram at 06/25/2009 @ 1:12pm

  97. The only thing that's changed is the leadership(?). Nothing has changed with lobbyists getting in the way of any progress on just about anything. Where's the change we voted for in November? Poof

    Posted by mtrav at 06/25/2009 @ 1:23pm

  98. Look at the roots of the global environmental movement. Go ahead, look up Maurice Strong. Fools.

    In my opinion, which I share with millions worldwide, the entire global warming debate is a ruse. Its not about the environment, it is about power and control.

    Obviously government should play a key role in policing the environmental impact of the private sector to ensure clean air and water. But that's not what is being proposed. This public sector role is being abused via special interests. The proposed taxes are punitive and the results will be exactly what the collectivist movement, posing as 'environmentalists' wants. An all powerful state.

    Americans will wake up. That will be a real breath of fresh air.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 06/25/2009 @ 1:34pm

  99. Posted by fram at 06/25/2009 @ 1:12pm

    Not much place else for folks to go in Japan or Campania, fram...

    there was plenty of room in Whatever BC-era Mesopotamia.

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 2:08pm

  100. We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse. --Maurice Strong

    Yeah, right, this is about "saving the world"? Bullshit.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 06/25/2009 @ 2:38pm

  101. Here's an idea. Why should Big Energy have a seat at the table EPA regulations? They have their lobbyists for pushing programs to finance their endeavors, but allowing them a seat at the table over EPA would be like having someone being tried for murder being a jurist or judge over their own trial.

    Sounds kind of like a stacked deck in favor of the energy companies. With Bush and Cheney, it was closed door meeting which were top secret, and now Obama is letting them have their say at the table. OK, let them have their say, but not their way.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2009 @ 3:02pm

  102. Posted by freiheit1 at 06/25/2009 @ 2:38pm

    FREI, could there possibly be some "middle ground" between wacko neo-Ludditism on the Left...

    and "Don't you DARE try to reduce carbon emissions, it will kill the economy faster than Bill Clinton's 1993 tax hike" Limbaughism on the Right?

    BTW, didn't McCain once support cap-and-trade?

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 3:11pm

  103. Sure Mask, of course there's a middle ground. As I wrote, "Obviously government should play a key role in policing the environmental impact of the private sector to ensure clean air and water." I ride a bicycle to get around a lot - and have for decades. Believe me, auto emmission standards have made a material difference in improving overall air quality.

    But, in looking at cap and trade, it is obvious to me it is not about the environment. It is an extreme power play - and punitive at best. Can't you see that too? Where's the "middle ground" in cap-and-trade?

    Oh, and who again cares about McCain's position on anything?

    Posted by freiheit1 at 06/25/2009 @ 3:21pm

  104. (1) that the global average temperature is increasing, Posted by JakobFabian at 06/24/2009 @ 12:58pm

    'Okay Jako, According to these "scientific" groups, what exactly is the average global temperature (number please, in F or C) and what should the average temperature be? This question should be simple enough for those of you who have bought into AGW.'

    I don't want to patronize you, "fram," but surely you must be aware that your demands of me are pointless.

    In order to conclude that the global average temperature is rising, all that we have to do is compare earlier global average temperatures to more recent global average temperatures. If the latter are persistently higher, despite revisions due to an increasing body of data, then scientists are bound to conclude that the global average temperature is rising -- as indeed they have.

    The global average temperature that we all "should" have is beside the point entirely. Science is value-free, after all.

    Of course, speaking as a member of a species that appeared in the geological age that we call the Late Pleistocene, I may venture to guess that climatic conditions similar to those of the Late Pleistocene present us with the most favorable prospects for long-term survival. So for purely selfish, pragmatic reasons, I declare myself in favor of climate stability rather than climate change.

    By the way, it makes no difference whether the climate is projected to cool down or to heat up in the near future. In either event, if the change is too rapid and dramatic, it's bad news for us short-lived humans, because as climate zones are abruptly shifted either toward or away from the Equator, biological diversity is reduced in the geological short term as some species fail to adapt to the change and die out.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/25/2009 @ 3:38pm

  105. The only thing that's changed is the leadership(?). Nothing has changed with lobbyists getting in the way of any progress on just about anything. Where's the change we voted for in November? Poof

    Posted by mtrav at 06/25/2009 @ 1:23pm

    But who is going to lobby for the change? Obama irregardless of claims by the right is not "magic" or the "messiah", he can't just snap his fingers and change the way things work in DC. In order for us to see "real" change we need to change the way those with money influence the legislative process. Problem is for new legislation to arise on lobbying we need someone to lobby for it. Kinda a catch-22.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/25/2009 @ 3:41pm

  106. Once again, I don't mean to patronize you, "fram," but if you're interested in absolute numbers, "Wikipedia" is as good a place to start as any. Simply look up the term "global average temperature."

    I provided no numbers in my previous posting for two reasons.

    (1) You can find these numbers easily yourself.

    (2) You provided no beginning or end date for your inquiry. Of course, while perusing the Wikipedia entry, you can choose to examine any segment of time you choose, though I imagine you'll find the most recent period to be the most relevant.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/25/2009 @ 3:45pm

  107. Posted by freiheit1 at 06/25/2009 @ 3:21pm

    Okay, FREI...what's your alternative, that would work?

    Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 3:54pm

  108. Problem is for new legislation to arise on lobbying we need someone to lobby for it. Kinda a catch-22.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/25/2009 @ 3:41pm

    It's not so much of a catch-22 if we had publicly financed elections. Our system is broken and the biggest reason it is broken is the fact that more than half of the time, our elected officials are positioning themselves for their next run at office. They need financial support and lobbyists are right there with the cash to give it to them.

    If and when they get into their public office, it's payback time. Whatever political clout the public official has is mostly due to those contributing big $$ to his or her campaign finances. If we remove the lobby groups and corporations from the financing and each candidate gets exactly the same amount of air time (this includes radio and churches) then the issues become the dominant thing, not who's on television more often.

    A few good things would come from this. 1) The two party system might change to a multi-party system. 2) Powerful lobby groups would lose a lot of their influence (at least on the campaigning side of things) 3) More views would be heard versus the two sided debates we hear now (there isn't that much difference between the two parties representing the poeple as we can see now).

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2009 @ 3:54pm

  109. 'Look at the roots of the global environmental movement. Go ahead, look up Maurice Strong. Fools.'

    Here are a few of the people whom I regard as the founders of the global environmental movement:

    Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

    John Muir (1838-1914)

    Sir Albert Howard (1873-1947)

    Aldo Leopold (1887-1848)

    Marjory Stoneman Douglas (1890-1998)

    Rachel Carson (1907-1964)

    Wallace Stegner (1909-1993)

    Hoimar von Ditfurth (1921-1989)

    Edward Abbey (1927-1989)

    Hazel Henderson (1933-)

    Wendell Berry (1934-)

    Lester R. Brown (1934-)

    James Burke (1936-)

    Jared Diamond (1937-)

    Helen Caldicott (1938-)

    Donella Meadows (1941-2001)

    James E. Hansen (1941-)

    Barbara Kingsolver (1955-)

    Michael Pollan (1955-)

    Maurice Strong is also an interesting fellow, though the global environmental movement had been around for quite a long time before he showed up; he was born in 1929.

    What was your point, "freiheit1"?

    I do, of course, have my own bias. I believe that environmentalism AS SUCH is, properly speaking, a global movement. There is no such thing as local environmentalism, particularly if one locality is to be saved at the expense of surrounding localities and the rest of the world. We shall either save the whole thing, or we shall lose the whole thing.

    Others, of course, have a different bias. They believe that only their tiny little part of the environment matters, and they would gladly enclose themselves in an airtight bubble and let the rest of the world perish -- if only this were feasible. I regard these people not as environmentalists, but as crackpots.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/25/2009 @ 4:29pm

  110. Others, of course, have a different bias. They believe that only their tiny little part of the environment matters, and they would gladly enclose themselves in an airtight bubble and let the rest of the world perish -- if only this were feasible. Posted by JakobFabian at 06/25/2009 @ 4:29pm

    You can add to the crackpots the folks that are only concerned about what happens in their lifetime. You know.... who cares what happens after I'm dead, I won't be here anyway, so I might as well gain as much money, wealth, power etc. as I can while I'm here.

    There's a lot of businessmen with precisely that view on things. Perhaps they are concerned with the empire they've built that their offspring will inherit, but it all goes back to looking out for #1 because they wish to be seen as some great being that created something from nothing and great capitalists that conquered all.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2009 @ 4:38pm

  111. It's not so much of a catch-22 if we had publicly financed elections. Our system is broken and the biggest reason it is broken is the fact that more than half of the time, our elected officials are positioning themselves for their next run at office. They need financial support and lobbyists are right there with the cash to give it to them.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/25/2009 @ 3:54pm

    Totally agree with most of your post about the results. But in order to change the system to purely publically financed it would require legislation. Someone would have to lobby for that legislation. Thus the Catch-22. Because those who have the influence via their lobbyists and campaign funding are not going to relenquish that influence easily.

    Neverminding the catch-22, it will be a tough row to hoe in the sense that many politicians will miss their special perks. And even if we could get politicians to go for it we would have to get over the constitutional issue of freedom of speech accorded to corporations, and the use of money as a form of speech (not that I agree). So any legislation would likely end in a supreme court battle.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/25/2009 @ 5:09pm

  112. David Rockefeller once quipped. "All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.""

    http://tinyurl.com/leyszk

    Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/25/2009 @ 07:28am

    And, lest we forget, the President who made EXPLICIT reference to this coming "new world order"....none other that Bush 41. Poppy himself.

    Now that's what I call bipartisanship!

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/25/2009 @ 5:16pm

  113. http://www.scribd.com/doc/9764617/Bush-Quotes-New-World-Order

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/25/2009 @ 5:17pm

  114. I don't want to patronize you, "fram," but surely you must be aware that your demands of me are pointless.

    In order to conclude that the global average temperature is rising, all that we have to do is compare earlier global average temperatures to more recent global average temperatures. If the latter are persistently higher, despite revisions due to an increasing body of data, then scientists are bound to conclude that the global average temperature is rising -- as indeed they have.

    The global average temperature that we all "should" have is beside the point entirely. Science is value-free, after all.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/25/2009 @ 3:38pm

    you have missed Fram's point just as others have when I ask it.

    This is central to the entire debate.

    What we do know is that the earth cycles through periods of warming and cooling with some extremes for both. Therefore, any discussion of climate change is pure rhetoric, and political rhetoric at that.

    This is especially true given the data on greenhouse gases.

    We know that CO2 concentrations represent less than 5% of greenhouse gases.

    We know Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution).

    Let that sink in.

    ANY calculation of anthropogenic influence is PURELY SPECULATIVE.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 6:46pm

  115. I declare myself in favor of climate stability rather than climate change.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/25/2009 @ 3:38pm |

    Good one JF. I've declared my self in favour of not dying and it seems to be working as I'm still alive.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2009 @ 8:18pm

  116. And LR, when did the "neo-cons win"? They lost the last 2 elections here, by wide margins, and their two wars are still killing people.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/25/2009 @ 12:23pm

    Well I used "neo-con" to keep it simple for Mask. I could have used "scientifically competent" or "independent thinkers club" but we Aussies have not only got brains but we got manners too and class.

    I've been thinking a bit about your education Crabs but slowly, slowly I think will do you the most good. We don't want to risk brain overload and burn out.

    This term neo-con. What does it mean?

    It seems to me that anyone can have a war but if your interests are nationalistic and selfish, like worrying about WMD that might be headed in your direction from you know whom, then that war is based in the doctrine of political or foreign policy realism. With it?

    Nowwhen the war mongers say, look we started this war to make life better for the natives, then that war is a neo-con war.

    So the question that requires an answer in 1800 characters or less is:

    1. Was GW fighting both a FP realism and neo-con war at one and the same time?

    2.What sort of war is Obama making in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak, so to speak, FP realism or neo-con?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/25/2009 @ 9:05pm

  117. Do some real reading about CO2 and it's relationship with life on earth. Life on earth went through it's greatest period of expansion during some of the greatest CO2 concentrations in the atomosphere and it was much warmer also during that same time. Those who love the earth and the life that inhabits it would do well to reject the climate change alarmists skewed views. As for NASA being a trust worthy source, James Hanson has already shown his bias.

    Pollution is a problem that does need to be dealt with but to leave this to government is folly. We should as consumers deny profits to those corporations/business entities that do not hold the earth in the same regard as us. This is the way to clean up the earth, not by trusting government who is in bed with corporate interests.

    Posted by liberty4all at 06/26/2009 @ 2:56pm

  118. Posted by JakobFabian at 06/25/2009 @ 4:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person You must have a huge house to allow your ego in it. We cannot save the earth, we can however not pollute it as bad as we have been. When people talk about saving the planet it only proves their overvaluation of their own selves.

    Posted by liberty4all at 06/26/2009 @ 3:05pm

  119. to leave this to government is folly.

    government who is in bed with corporate interests

    Posted by liberty4all at 06/26/2009 @ 2:56pm

    I just think your version of reality, where the 'government' is something you are 100% sure is 100% bad, is a little wobbly.

    Are you sure it's not 95% or 65% bad? How can you prove it's 100% bad?

    You'd not credit "government" with anything redeeming whatsoever? Nothing related to say slavery, lynchings, keeping toaster ovens from shocking people? Do you believe 100% of kids are better off without governmental laws against child labor? Is all of government, for ex., fire/rescue, rules against smoking inside restaurants, seat belt regulations - all of it wrong or worthless in your view?

    But -- if this is your strawman upon which you place your tophat from which your magic bunny springs, don't let these reality based questions slow you down.

    Posted by winyahn at 06/26/2009 @ 8:41pm

  120. Pollution is a problem that does need to be dealt with but to leave this to government is folly. We should as consumers deny profits to those corporations/business entities that do not hold the earth in the same regard as us. This is the way to clean up the earth, not by trusting government who is in bed with corporate interests.

    Posted by liberty4all at 06/26/2009 @ 2:56pm

    The side effect of cleaning up a lot of the atmospheric pollutants, which were suspects in respiratory diseases and are also known carcinogens is that some of those pollutants were acting as cooling agents. That is a price to pay for better health outcomes.

    Governments do a pretty good job with the sort of regulatory framework that has dealt with those real pollutants.

    The problem occurs when governments promote ideologies like ACC and have departments staffed with semi-crazed promoters of ideas that even those scientists ,who concede some role for AGHG playing a part in CC, have described as alarmist.

    Co2, per se, is not a pollutant (see below) but plays an essential part in every living organism on earth. No Co2 no life on earth. It's that simple. So given we are up to about 400ppm in the atmosphere, what concentration of CO2 is dangerous to humans.

    "What levels of CO2 are considered safe?"

    (Courtesy of Minnesota Dept of Health)

    "The MNDOLI has set workplace safety standards of 10,000 ppm for an 8-hour period and 30,000 ppm for a 15 minute period. This means the average concentration over an 8-hour period should not exceed 10,000 ppm and the average concentration over a 15 minute period should not exceed 30,000 ppm."

    MDH goes on to tell us that at about 40,000ppm humans can suffer more serious effects.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/27/2009 @ 11:53am

  121. Pollution is a problem that does need to be dealt with but to leave this to government is folly. We should as consumers deny profits to those corporations/business entities that do not hold the earth in the same regard as us. This is the way to clean up the earth, not by trusting government who is in bed with corporate interests.

    Posted by liberty4all at 06/26/2009 @ 2:56pm

    The side effect of cleaning up a lot of the atmospheric pollutants, which were suspects in respiratory diseases and are also known carcinogens is that some of those pollutants were acting as cooling agents. That is a price to pay for better health outcomes.

    Governments do a pretty good job with the sort of regulatory framework that has dealt with those real pollutants.

    The problem occurs when governments promote ideologies like ACC and have departments staffed with semi-crazed promoters of ideas that even those scientists ,who concede some role for AGHG playing a part in CC, have described as alarmist.

    Co2, per se, is not a pollutant (see below) but plays an essential part in every living organism on earth. No Co2 no life on earth. It's that simple. So given we are up to about 400ppm in the atmosphere, what concentration of CO2 is dangerous to humans.

    "What levels of CO2 are considered safe?"

    (Courtesy of Minnesota Dept of Health)

    "The MNDOLI has set workplace safety standards of 10,000 ppm for an 8-hour period and 30,000 ppm for a 15 minute period. This means the average concentration over an 8-hour period should not exceed 10,000 ppm and the average concentration over a 15 minute period should not exceed 30,000 ppm."

    MDH goes on to tell us that at about 40,000ppm humans can suffer more serious effects.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/27/2009 @ 11:53am

  122. When ACC proponents use the word pollutant they can only mean that CO2 affects GW and hence CC.

    But here is the rub.

    The IPCC estimate that green house gas GW is due to 50% anthropogenic and 50% natural causes. Over the last decade the total increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is 2ppm/year.

    If we totally remove the anthropogenic component the increase will be just 1ppm/year. In 500 years that means atmospheric CO2 concentration will be 900ppm, without any help from us. Which indicates the stupidity of imagining we can save the earth by removing our 1ppm /year. If we keep emitting at the present rate that figure would be 1400ppm of CO2.

    If we take the AGW skeptics figure of 5% anthropogenic and 95% natural causes then in 500 years we will have contributed 50 ppm and natural causes alone about 950ppm or will be about 1350ppm total.

    There are other factors which may be involved to modify those figures, such as residence time in the atmosphere. However we know that we humans won't be wiped out simply by living in a 1400ppm of CO2 world, in 500 years.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/27/2009 @ 11:53am

  123. Of course to reduce one's anxiety attacks over GW & CC, which gets normally steady fingered persons double posting, one could adopt the calming logic of the ACC skeptics who say no worries mate, the earth is a bit smarter than that and probably has "symbiotic mechanisms" that will ensure that CO2 concentrations won't radically increase. I've got my fingers crossed anyway.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/27/2009 @ 8:02pm

  124. Posted by lrjones4 at 06/27/2009 @ 11:53am |

    LR, the rise in CO2 is not going to be linear...unless the population growth and use of energy will be...and I seriously hope you don't believe something that silly.

    I'm not sure why you referenced numbers related to CO2 concentrations that would make it impossible for humans to even breathe, when the issue at hand is whether the run-away greenhouse temp effects of increased CO2 will make it a moot point.

    http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/ 0/DOC062509-004.pdf

    According to the report suppressed by the US EPA linked above, the skeptics believe that 'natural' GW accounts for 68%, so your 95/5 split isn't even close.

    Try 32%, although that number isn't much better for us than 50%.

    Your 'symbiotic mechanisms' would include wiping out ignorant monkeys who pretend to know things about science.

    Posted by snowball777 at 06/27/2009 @ 10:21pm

  125. Wonder what had happened to you. The cops didn't finally catch up with you on your old identity? Got a bit on now but will get back later.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/28/2009 @ 12:21am

  126. Posted by snowball777 at 06/27/2009 @ 10:21pm

    Just seeing if anyone was awake. The natural component is likely to oscillate within a small range. And the anthropogenic part certainly is unlikely to be linear as you say. The shape of that curve depends on when fossil fuels run out and what steps are taken to reduce CO2 emissions.

    If CO2 is expelled from sinks such as the ocean by rising temperatures, whatever the cause of the temperature rise and warming of the oceans, and if such increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere do cause further temperature rises then the natural component may not remain constant as some AGW proponents claim.

    Some research is indicating that the oceans which are the best measure of the heating effect caused by a rising trend in global temperature are in fact cooling. That has implications for the verification of ACC and global warming. More research needed on this one.

    Skeptics tend to be pretty consistent in their attitude and I notice that on some of the more technical skeptic sites, there is a fair amount of vigorous criticism of the science of both sides.

    I think there is a very long way to go before we know enough about all the variables in what is essentially an open climate system to quantify, with certainty, the effect of either component on climate change. The statement that climate has and will always change (even if there were no significant anthropogenic component) seems to me a pretty good proposition to start with.

    I mentioned the safe ambient levels of CO2 to indicate that it is a pretty benign gas in the atmospheric concentrations this world is likely to be subject to even into the distant future. It can only be regarded as some sort of pollutant if it is proven to be a significant factor in climate change.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/28/2009 @ 06:42am

  127. Wonder what had happened to you. The cops didn't finally catch up with you on your old identity? Got a bit on now but will get back later. Posted by lrjones4 at 06/28/2009 @ 12:21am |

    I guess I got 'banned', but I can't be sure since there wasn't any notification of that to yours truly, nor any indication of what horrible transgressions I had committed (certainly nothing I haven't done for months), but my parents came by to see the wife before she delivers my first child and mentioned that I had gone missing.

    In truth, I'd been venting for a couple days without knowing I was banned since my posts were still visible to me; just not to anyone else (talk about an echo chamber!).

    In general, the constables and I play nicely together...speeding tickets aside.

    Posted by snowball777 at 06/28/2009 @ 07:28am

  128. Posted by lrjones4 at 06/28/2009 @ 06:42am |

    "Some research is indicating that the oceans which are the best measure of the heating effect caused by a rising trend in global temperature are in fact cooling. That has implications for the verification of ACC and global warming. More research needed on this one."

    Agreed. We'll know in the top 750m of ocean first, and the temp measurements are slightly lower, but the overall heat may not have gone down, according to the science I've seen, but this is one of the areas where the 'error bars' make a huge difference

    Steric sea level measurements, antarctic land vs sea ice masses, etc

    Too close to call either way just yet, but certainly no smoking gun in the hands of the skeptical.

    "Skeptics tend to be pretty consistent in their attitude and I notice that on some of the more technical skeptic sites, there is a fair amount of vigorous criticism of the science of both sides."

    True. I prefer www.skepticalscience.com

    "I think there is a very long way to go before we know enough about all the variables in what is essentially an open climate system to quantify, with certainty, the effect of either component on climate change."

    Indeed. As my PhD brother-in-law, who just interviewed with the NOAA, would tell you: there is huge difficulty in modeling the non-linear physics involved in climate prediction.

    For me it isn't about the certainty, or imminence, as much as the consequences of the threat. Sit in a closed car on a hot day for a sneak preview.

    "The statement that climate has and will always change (even if there were no significant anthropogenic component) seems to me a pretty good proposition to start with."

    Yes, but that's like saying that we don't need to watch what we eat because our weight naturally fluctuates.

    Posted by snowball777 at 06/28/2009 @ 08:33am

  129. Jones,

    Why are your countrymen intent on putting me out of a job?

    http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/games/ web-filters-to-censor-video-games-20090625-cxrx.html

    ...buncha yobbos.

    Posted by snowball777 at 06/28/2009 @ 08:55am

  130. Why are your countrymen intent on putting me out of a job?

    http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/games/ web-filters-to-censor-video-games-20090625-cxrx.html

    ...buncha yobbos.

    Posted by snowball777 at 06/28/2009 @ 08:55am

    No idea. This is a social democratic party. I thought at first it might be a porno thing and my first answer would have been PM Krudd, who goes to church every Sunday ( and second, we are all Christians ).

    A few months ago there was a fine TV shot of our PM helping carry some old codger , who had gone to sleep or fainted or something short of dying during the sermon, out of Rudd's Anglican church in Canberra. Think he was holding the feet.

    My guess is that the PM was also finding the sermon a bit heavy going so the yobbo volunteered to get out for a bit of fresh air. Not sure what this has got to do with video games but you are welcome to any clever insights I can provide.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/28/2009 @ 10:10pm

  131. Posted by lrjones4 at 06/28/2009 @ 10:10pm |

    Surely not the first to expire (or nearly) during a long-winded bit of liturgy...it's these kinds of things that keep folks like myself out of churches (except for the cathedrals in Paris during my honeymoon...truly spectacular gothic workmanship there).

    The 'save the children' routine is generally a put-on here in the states as well; people get riled up about violence, sharpen pitchforks, light torches, and then set out in search of a 'root cause'.

    Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 09:57am

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

House Passes Health Reform, But Without Reproductive Rights | Pelosi secures necessary votes, but only after allowing anti-choice Dems to bar access to abortion in new programs.
John Nichols
139 Comments

» Editor's Cut

Around The Nation | Obama, one year on. Plus: Jeremy Scahill takes your questions, and a new video series from The Nation.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
9 Comments

» The Notion

Injustice in Illinois | Prosecutors in Illinois should be more concerned with an innocent man behind bars than journalism students' grades.
Ari Berman
28 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

Obama Fails in Middle East | Clinton delivers the ultimate diss to Abbas.
Robert Dreyfuss
138 Comments

» Act Now!

Equality Across America | This week, young LBGT activists are staging a National Week of Initiative.
Peter Rothberg
16 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Thursday | Dying laptops, recapping the election, the Dow, and the Yankees with the World Series.
Eric Alterman