"BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) - Residents of the upper Midwest bundled up or just stayed inside Tuesday as a wave of bitterly cold air barreled south out of the Arctic, following on the heels of a fast-moving blizzard.
Some schools closed because of the cold and temperatures hit the single digits as far south as Kansas and Missouri.

The coldest air spilled across the Canadian prairie into the Dakotas and Minnesota. Grand Forks, N.D., dropped to a record low of 37 degrees below zero Tuesday morning, lopping six degrees off the old record set in 1979, the National Weather Service said.

In northern Minnesota, it was 35 below zero in Roseau and 36 below in Hallock, with wind chills down to 45 below in Hibbing. Just to the north, Winnipeg, Saskatchewan, also hit minus 36, according to Environment Canada.

In North Dakota, the Minot area got 6 inches of snow, on top of about a foot that fell late last week, and Bismarck collected 4. Bismarck, Fargo and Grand Forks all broke snow records for December, each with more than 30 inches."
Sharp cold wave shocks upper Midwest, temps to -36 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95MBRTG0&show_article=1)

Um, yeah. I read this morning something about expecting the coldest winter in years. Oh, and didn't he invent the internet? Does he know how much the internet contributes to global warming (http://www.ovum.com/news/euronews.asp?id=7600)? I also understand he's made a fortune off of Google (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNq8y9GYqwj8&refer=home), which some say is also not very eco-friendly (http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/01/12/2009-01-12_study_google_searches_bad_for_environmen.html).

While my mind is not yet made up on what all factors are contributing to climate change, local weather anomalies mean nothing by themselves, and are a fractional indicator of what is happening on a global scale.

While my mind is not yet made up on what all factors are contributing to climate change, local weather anomalies mean nothing by themselves, and are a fractional indicator of what is happening on a global scale.

Upon what factors have you determined that "climate change" is other than an 'anomly'? Couldn't it be a convenient lie?

The biggest hoax since Y2K

Even the Huffpos are becoming skeptics
Harold Ambler: Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html)

Upon what factors have you determined that "climate change" is other than an 'anomly'? Couldn't it be a convenient lie?

Climate change, as I see it, refers to any change in the global climate, whether by man or natural forces. So when I refer to it, I refer to the last 6 billion years of meteorological changes the Earth has undergone. Whether we are at fault for or contribute to any change in the actual climate of the Earth is precisely what I hold in question. I will never underfund research into issues that might affect us. Lots of bogus theories and "hoaxes" have turned out to be true, and many we thought were true turned out to be false. I am confident that the answers will come in time, while there is still time to do something about it (or not do anything, depending on what the situations calls for). But only if our best minds work on the issue.

Very cold in North America this winter doesn't mean someone isn't sweating their nuts off somewhere else to a greater degree.

When the ice caps start melting, there is cause for concern. Call it what you will, Global Warming or Earth Cycles, it certainly warrants continued investigation.

I grew up in Toronto back in the 60's and I remember snow being on the ground for months, because it wouldn't melt; the temps stayed under freezing for a long period. Also there were outdoor skating rinks where the ice would stay frozen for a couple of months. However, over the years the snow melted within weeks, then days and the outdoor ice rinks are a thing of the past as the ice melts to often.

I have see and felt this climate change in the Toronto area; I knew about warmer winters over time from my personal experience long before I ever heard of climate change.

Yet now it's happening on a massive scale, the northwest passage for the first time may or is passable in the winter without ice breakers. Greenland is losing it's ice a record rates.

I don't see why the 'right' wants to politicize this other than the fact that they think it will force us to loose our competitive edge against countries that couldn't give a flying nut about climate change in the pursuit of profit.

We owe it to our kids to look at this seriously and do whatever it takes before our stupidity hurts our planet in ways we can't imagine.

For the first time in four decades – from Atlantic to Pacific, from Windsor just south of Detroit to Ellesmere Island, just south of the polar icecap – all of Canada experienced a white Christmas this year..

For the first time in four decades – from Atlantic to Pacific, from Windsor just south of Detroit to Ellesmere Island, just south of the polar icecap – all of Canada experienced a white Christmas this year ..

I certainly hope it continues, because I really miss Canada being white and cold at Christmas.

I really hope you are right and the trend is now reversing itself and Al Gore and all like him were wrong.

However, I will reserve judgement for 5 more years and see if the nice cold Canadian winters return.

Ah now, Pravda says we're headed for a new ice age (http://www.startribune.com/world/37498924.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD 3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ), global ice coverage had a tremendous rebound (http://voices.kansascity.com/node/3197), and the definitive experts on the weather - the Old Farmers Almanac - suggests we're headed for global cooling (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2008-09-09-farmers-almanac_N.htm).

I guess we can thank our lucky stars Paulson and Bernanke weren't advising Bush on Kyoto and warming.

Ah now, Pravda says we're headed for a new ice age (http://www.startribune.com/world/37498924.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD 3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ), global ice coverage had a tremendous rebound (http://voices.kansascity.com/node/3197), and the definitive experts on the weather - the Old Farmers Almanac - suggests we're headed for global cooling (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2008-09-09-farmers-almanac_N.htm).


Oh goodie... can you say, "burn baby burn". I think I'll take an extra trip in my SUV today and 'floor it' after every stop to celebrate! Hmmm... nevermind, I now live in Texas and there more than enough heat to go around... hmmm... can you say export? Cause y'all can have some of that heat we have in the summer, we don't need it all, I promise you.

Oh goodie....can you say, "burn baby burn". I think I'll take an extra trip in my SUV today and 'floor it' after every stop to celebrate! Hmmm....nevermind, I now live in Texas and there more than enough heat to go around...hmmm...can you say export? Cause y'all can have some of that heat we have in the summer, we don't need it all, I promise you.

Um, Tex, I'm in Texas, too. It was 18 degrees last night, looking for a whopping 19 degrees tonight. You can send some of your heat up to the Panhandle.

Um, Tex, I'm in Texas, too. It was 18 degrees last night, looking for a whopping 19 degrees tonight. You can send some of your heat up to the Panhandle.

Maybe we could get some windfarms installed down here in southeast Texas and blow some your way... :D

The coldest air spilled across the Canadian prairie into the Dakotas and Minnesota. Grand Forks, N.D., dropped to a record low of 37 degrees below zero Tuesday morning, lopping six degrees off the old record set in 1979, the National Weather Service said. Hello George:

You think you're presenting evidence that refutes Al Gore. But you're not. What you present IS evidence of global warming...
I know, I know, you think global warming means it's going to get warm... Nope.

If you would just check out some of this stuff first... But, that's probably too much to ask of ideologues who get their information from talk radio.

excon

Hello George:

You think you're presenting evidence that refutes Al Gore. But you're not. What you present IS evidence of global warming....
I know, I know, you think global warming means it's gonna get warm.... Nope.

excon

"You think you're presenting evidence that refutes Al Gore. But you're not. What you present IS evidence of global warming....
I know, I know, you think global warming means it's gonna get warm.... Nope."
Thanks, excon, we do need liberals to explain what 'cold as hell' really means.
But I'm a quick read: the sun is setting, but we should call it sun-up.

Maybe we could get some windfarms installed down here in southeast Texas and blow some your way...:D

Call T. Boone ;)

George... the believers can take any weather event and provide proof that it is the result of man made climate manipulation . This cold spell was already covered in "The Day after tomorrow ".. Melting ice caps (which are now at pre-1971 levels of thickness by the way ) pump fresh water into the Atlantic .Then the gulf stream shifts causing huge northern hemisphere hurricanes (50 ft waves taking out the Statue of Liberty etc. ) . At the eye of these hurricanes extreme cold air gets down drafted causing the next ice age. Didn't you see that on the Weather Channel over the weekend ?

Hello Righty's,

Do you know that there are STILL people who think the Earth is flat?? You don't really want to be one of THEM, do you?? Hmm. Maybe you DO.

So, tell me, Mr. Righty smarty pants... I suppose you think our atmosphere can take all the junk we can throw at it WITHOUT responding... I don't know WHY you would think such drivel... except, maybe your guru's on right wing radio tell you to think that...

I actually, CAN'T imagine ANYONE thinking we can just put TONS and TONS of garbage into the air WITHOUT ANY consequenses... I can't imagine that... But, I couldn't imagine any American would support torture either, and I was wrong...

excon

More from the Flat Earth Society:
Let's put a few numbers out here, the empirical discussion and see what we can make of it. First is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has very good records on temperatures, average temperatures in the United States, dating back to 1880. And here's what these numbers look like. You've all seen those. But help us all -- the audience and most of all me to get through this, they show the warmest years on record, 1998, 2006, and 1934. 2008 was cooler, in fact the coolest since 1997. It's intriguing to see that graph there. The graph we're looking at showing some question that the warming trend may be just a snapshot in time. The global temperatures by NOAA are seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001. The ten warmest years have all occurred since 1995.

So let me start, if I may, Joseph, your reaction to those numbers. Do you quibble with what they represent?

D'ALEO: Yes, I do. In fact, if you look at the satellite data, which is the most reliable data, the best coverage of the globe, 2008 was the 14th coldest in 30 years. That doesn't jive with the tenth warmest in 159 years in the Hadley data set or 113 or 114 years in the NOAA data set. Those global data sets are contaminated by the fact that two-thirds of the globe's stations dropped out in 1990. Most of them rural and they performed no urban adjustment. And, Lou, you know, and the people in your studio know that if they live in the suburbs of New York City, it's a lot colder in rural areas than in the city. Now we have more urban effect in those numbers reflecting -- that show up in that enhanced or exaggerated warming in the global data set.

DOBBS: Your thoughts on these numbers. Because they are intriguing. They are a brief snapshot admittedly, in comparison to total extended time. I guess we could go back 4.6 billion years. Let's keep it in the range of something like 500,000 years. What's your reaction to those numbers and your interpretation?

JAY LEHR, HEARTLAND INSTITUTE: Well, Lou --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm sorry.

DOBBS: Go ahead, Jay.

LEHR: Lou, I'm in the camp with Joe and Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, and I think more importantly, it is to look at the sun's output, and in recent years, we've seen very, very low sunspot activity, and we are definitely, in my mind, not only in a cooling period, we're going to be staying in it for a couple decades, and I see it as a major advantage, although I think we will be able to adapt to it. I'm hopeful that this change in the sun's output will put some common sense into the legislature, not to pass any dramatic cap in trade or carbon tax legislation that will set us in a far deeper economic hole. I believe Mr. Obama and his economic team are well placed to dig us out of this recession in the next 18 months to 2 years, but I think if we pass any dramatic legislation to reduce greenhouse gases, the recession will last quite a few more years and we'll come out of it with a lower standard of living on very tenuous scientific grounds.
CNN.com - Transcripts (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0901/13/ldt.01.html) 01/13/2009

If your talking about things like acid rain then yes there is a definite linkage proven by science. The idea that human emissions affects climate is science fiction . If you are arguing for the reduction of known pollutants than I'll sign on... it is good policy .

But the "hypothesis " that human emission of carbon dioxide can have any affect on the climate had better be proven beyond a doubt before you ask humans to fundamentally change their ways. I see more proof that climate change is greater affected by sun spot activity.

Let's also throw out for debate the proposition that the last time the earth experienced a significant global warming cycle ,the earth was lush with vegatation and animal life thrived. It took an extra-terrestrial killer asteroid to plunge the planet into the ice age that we are still retreating from .So what is the natural state of the planet ? Cold and ice caused because a killer asteroid plunged into it killing off multitudes of plant and animal life ? Or warm and full of life of all kinds .

Hello again, George & tom:

So, you DO think it's fine to use our air as a garbage dump. I thought as much.

excon

Obviously you did not read my response.

Ex,

It's that kind of extreme that makes me shake my head. Apparently we righty's can't be reasonable. Since we question the propaganda we must obviously think that “we can just put TONS and TONS of garbage into the air WITHOUT ANY consequences,” as if we love our smog, nasty rivers and Wal-Mart bags flying from our trees.

We can't take a step back and question the science or buck the consensus. We can't think it a little odd for environmentalism to take on a religious fervor and we're obviously out of touch with reality to object to ceding our rights and sovereignty in the face of such overwhelming evidence. Funny, but questioning the prevailing opinion sounds just like something you would do in so many other areas.

Sorry, but when I read things like the stadium in San Francisco is going to be submerged due to melting sea ice I have to laugh. Go take a glass of ice water, mark the level, see what the level is after it melts – and then tell me I'm crazy for not believing everything I read about global warming.

Dear Ex and others who belong to the religion of Man Made Global Warming; all sane people including those of the Right, believe that we should make greater effort to preserve the environment and wean ourselves from fossil fuels. What I find offensive is that ALGOR says "the debate is over", and that anyone who has not become a deciple of MMGW is branded as a stooge of the oil industry, a fool, or an evil person, who should be sent off to a "re-education camp."

Three points that I have not seen the MMGW camp address are: 1) Since CO2 is but 0.5% of the atmosphere, and man's contribution to that might be 20%= 1/1000 of the atmosphere, one could conclude that other more important factors would be in play. 2) Increases in temperature seem to Precede increased CO2 levels by about 800 years, which should negate the causality of CO2. 3) Changes in solar activity are ignored by the MMGW camp, as a possible cause.

Inquiring minds want to know.:)

Hello again,

Look, I'm not a scientist... I'm just a guy who knows there are consequences for being disrespectful to our environment...

I don't know if it's going to get warm, cold or start raining fish. I don't care. I'm sure it's going to DO something. The Goricle has studied the issue. He makes as much sense as anybody does... I certainy don't think he's looney!

The naysayers, however, make no sense at all. They just deny, deny, deny...

If you're NOT doing that, then tell me what price, if any, YOU think we'll pay for dumping our garbage out there... Inquiring minds want to know.

excon

PS> Tom, it's true. I just threw your name in there at the last minute... But, you're not off the hook.

This questioner (not nay-sayer), just asks, asks, and asks, only to have his questions ignored in every discussion. Yes, ALGOR has studied the issue, and probably has about as much scientific education as Madonna or Michael Moore. ALGOR has made millions from his book and movie. His proximity to the glitterati earned him the Nobel Peace Prize, which should have gone to the fine lady who rescued thousands of children from the Nazis in WWII.:)

That's just it, ex, I don't know who is running around out there dedicated to the proposition that there are no consequences for being disrespectful to our environment, there are. There are also consequences to jumping in with both feet to this religion of environmentalism.

Hello again, Dr:

I'm not ignoring your questions. I just don't know.

You ARE ignoring MY question, though. Calling yourself an inquirer doesn't get you off the hook.

Ok, I'll make it EASY for you. I got that you think global warming is hogwash... So, I'm not going to ask you about THAT.

What I want to know is, do you think there are ANY consequences to throwing our trash into our atmosphere, even if you don't know what they are?

excon

George, one thing about your line of thinking is if your wrong, there may not be anyone around to rub your face in it.

parttime

The problem as I see it is that although the Goracle has declared the debate ended ;in fact there is not a consensus among scientists about cause and effect. There was a time when such differences were welcomed in the scientific community . Instead those who dare "nay say " are treated as heratics.(speechlesstx main point)

Public policy should not be conducted this way ,committing tremendous resources and fundamental sociatal changes to a problem that may or may not exist.

Hello again,

I have GOOD news for you righty's. Global warming MIGHT be a hoax. We're not going to find out, though, so you'll still be able to carp about it...

So, whether throwing our trash into the air DOES or DOESN'T cause global warming, is going to be a MOOT point.. What we DO know, is that we're running out of oil, and notwithstanding Dr D's unwillingness to say there's a consequence, THINKING people around the word KNOW there's a consequense...

But, the running out of oil thing is the really BIG point. Because we're going to have to find a way to run things when we DON'T have any oil. THAT should be our priority. Clean air will simply be a BYPRODUCT of that. End of argument.

So, who cares whether it's global warming or an ice age?? We're never going to know, because, in SPITE of you guys, Obama is going to take us in a NEW direction, and we'll never find out... Poor Goricle.

excon

Then again . We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Oh yeah Obama will take care of that too.

Hello again, tom:

I don't know. For righty's, you don't seem to think much of our entrepreneurial spirit. Instead, you sound like Exxon stockholders.

So, you DON'T think there's a way out of being addicted to oil/coal? Really?

excon

Ex - I do not believe that Global Warming is hogwash, but that the jury is still out as to the cause. If we are in for a period of warming, I believe that the main cause will be found to be solar in origin; that the increased temperature of the oceans, causes a massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere - hence the 800 year lag from warming to more CO2 -makes sense to me. If the warming turns out to be beyond our control, the vast expenditures proposed by ALGOR to reduce man's 1/000th contribution to CO2 levels, and the disruption of the economies of poor nations that the Left claims to care about, would be better spent in preparing the world for the inevitable.

Of course I don't believe that we can throw garbage into the air, water and soil without consequence, and that efforts should be made to reduce pollution of any kind. Since we live in the real world, with finite resources, I believe that any asset should be put to its highest and best use.

Ex
I think that coal can be burned clean ;Obama doesn't and he will not invest in it . I think nuclear power provide safe power. Obama doesn't .

It's not an oil/coal addicition... I think there is no way for us to lose our energy addiction and still remain a vibrant country .

Yeah I know... invest in windmills .

Of course I don't believe that we can throw garbage into the air, water and soil without consequence, and that efforts should be made to reduce pollution of any kind. Since

That makes 3 of us that have stated controlling pollutants is a laudable goal. It is an argument that deserves to be made on it's own merit... not clouded in the deception of junk pseudo science .

It's not an oil/coal addicition .... I think there is no way for us to lose our energy addiction and still remain a vibrant country.. Yeah I know ....invest in windmills .Hello again, tom:

No, I don't have the answer. If I did, I'd be a jillionere. But, I DO believe in our ability to create an alternate energy economy, and not only remain vibrant (which we AIN'T), but that economy would MAKE it vibrant.

I guess I believe in the entrapranure... I really don't understand why you don't. Maybe you ARE an Exxon stockholder...

You know, we're very close to breakthroughs in battery technology, in hydrogen cell technology, in fusion technology, in geothermal technology, in robo/gps/autocar technology, and many, many others. A breakthrough in ANY of one of them will put us on top and keep us there for the next century... I have no doubt that we can do it...

I don't know why you don't.

excon

Now have you ever heard me oppose research in any of those ? Of course you haven't just like you never heard me say that carbon burning should be the sole emphasis of our energy policy . But now this has drifted away from the subject of the posting .
The problem as I see it is that none of the solutions you cited are near term ;but climate change chicken-littles are advocating draconian responses when there is no long term solution at hand .
Don't want dirty coal emissions ? How about applying that techno-knowhow to scrubbers for smoke stacks ? There is more of a chance of that having an immediate impact on the environment than the resources devoted to robocars ;and more of a chance that we could export that technology immediately world wide.

During this spirited discourse, I have noticed that members of the Left Team (wearing the blue jersy) either choose to ignore of fail to read statements of the Right Team (wearing red of course), and continue to attribute positions to the Red Team which are not theirs, and then proceed to knock them down. This device is known as the "Straw Man".

The Left Team appears to be in favor of the "Precautionary Principle" in order to promote their agenda or idiology. Below is a short explanation:
For
.. to avoid irreparable harm to the environment and to human health, precautionary action should be taken: Wherever it is acknowledged that a practice (or substance) could cause harm, even without conclusive scientific proof that it has caused harm or does cause harm, the practice (or emissions of the substance) should be prevented and eliminated.

Against
We should not let the distraction of purely hypothetical threats cause us to lose sight of the known or highly probable ones.
When we apply the precautionary principle and focus on hypothetical risks and ponder what actions we might take "just in case", we leave the world of science and enter the realm of ideology. We allow ourselves to come under the spell of those who are motivated, for whatever reason, by a desire to return to what they perceive as a pre-industrial Garden of Eden

Go AZ Cardinals - "The worst team to ever be in the playoffs." This Cinderella team, led by Kurt Warner, the patron saint of old, over the hill guys, could take it all. - A Zonie:)

...
Go AZ Cardinals - "The worst team to ever be in the playoffs." This Cinderella team, led by Kurt Warner, the patron saint of old, over the hill guys, could take it all. - A Zonie:)

Actually led by Ken Whisenhunt, who should be coach of the year, with respect to the Falcons.

I suspect that if AZ makes it to the Bowl ,by the time Warner finishes 60 minutes against either of the AFC defenses;they will be playing Taps in his honor .

Since my team obviously has an aversion to playing past November I'm pulling for the team from their home away from home (which might change if they keep winning). Go Cards!

Q. What do you call 47 millionaires sitting around with their feet up, snacking and drinking beer while watching the Super Bowl on TV?

A. The Dallas Cowboys

Q. What do the Dallas Cowboys and Billy Graham have in common?

A. They both can make 70,000 people stand up and yell, "Jesus Christ."

Q. How do you keep a Dallas Cowboy out of your yard?

A. Put up a goal post.

Q. What do you call a Dallas Cowboy with a Super Bowl ring?

A. A thief.

Q. What's the difference between the Dallas Cowboys and a dollar bill?

A. You can still get four quarters out of a dollar bill.

Q. How many Dallas Cowboys does it take to win a Super Bowl?

A. Nobody remembers and we will very likely never find out!

Q. What do the Cowboys and a possums have in common?

A. Both play dead at home and get killed on the road!

Here we go, Worldwatch says we must not only halt ALL carbon emissions by 2050, we must "go negative" after that.


To avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N13404353.htm), world carbon emissions will have to drop to near zero by 2050 and "go negative" after that, the Worldwatch Institute reported on Tuesday.

This is a deeper cut than called for by most climate experts and policymakers, including President-elect Barack Obama, who favors an 80 percent drop in U.S. carbon emissions by mid-century.

Limiting carbon emissions aims to keep global mean temperature from rising more than 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) over what it was before the Industrial Revolution -- but one Worldwatch author said even this is too dangerous.

"Global warming needs to be reduced from peak levels to 1 degree (Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) as fast as possible," co-author William Hare said at a briefing on the "State of the World 2009" report. "At this level you can see some of the risks fade into the background."

Global mean temperature has already risen 1.4 degrees F (0.8 C) since 1850, so drastic cuts in emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide are needed, according to Hare, now working at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

Has anyone yet proven with even some meaningful precision that global temperatures have risen 1.4 degrees since 1850?

Since my team obviously has an aversion to playing past November I'm pulling for the team from their home away from home (which might change if they keep winning). Go Cards!

Q. What do you call 47 millionaires sitting around with their feet up, snacking and drinking beer while watching the Super Bowl on TV?

A. The Dallas Cowboys

Q. What do the Dallas Cowboys and Billy Graham have in common?

A. They both can make 70,000 people stand up and yell, "Jesus Christ."

Q. How do you keep a Dallas Cowboy out of your yard?

A. Put up a goal post.

Q. What do you call a Dallas Cowboy with a Super Bowl ring?

A. A thief.

Q. What's the difference between the Dallas Cowboys and a dollar bill?

A. You can still get four quarters out of a dollar bill.

Q. How many Dallas Cowboys does it take to win a Super Bowl?

A. Nobody remembers and we will very likely never find out!

Q. What do the Cowboys and a possums have in common?

A. Both play dead at home and get killed on the road!

Funny... thanks for that.

Here we go, Worldwatch says we must not only halt ALL carbon emissions by 2050, we must "go negative" after that.



Has anyone yet proven with even some meaningful precision that global temperatures have risen 1.4 degrees since 1850?

I'm not sure, but I saw a program on National Geographic last night that had some pictures of glaciers from 1956 which have receded drastically or disappeared entirely since that time, due to warmer temps.

Here is the bottom line. Obama has tabbed Carol Browner, a socialist flat -earth eviro-wacko ,to be his global warming czarina .Until last week,Browner was listed as one of the leaders of the Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance." She demands that developed countries ,especially the U.S. accept draconian standards to reduce consumption and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

But beyond her radical ideology is there a hidden agenda to her advocacy ? Of Course! Just like the Goracle ;she profits handsomly by taking extreme positions on carbon trading . She is on the board of directors of APX
Carol Browner Joins APX's Board of Directors (http://www.apx.com/news/pr-Carol-Browner-Joins-APX-Board.asp)

APX is the leading infrastructure provider for environmental markets in greenhouse gases including carbon commodities. These commodities include emissions allowances and carbon offsets, sometimes called Verified Emission Reductions (VERs), Emission Reduction Units (ERUs), Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), Verified Carbon Units (VCUs), or Carbon Reduction Tons (CRTs).

Carbon Greenhouse Gas Market Infrastructure (http://www.apx.com/environmental/carbon-market-infrastructure.asp)

So not only is there an ideological attempt at crippling the economy to pave the way for socialism, while granting unprecedented power to bureaucrats like Browner at play here . There's also money to be made .

Look, I'm not a scientist... The Goricle has studied the issue. He makes as much sense as anybody does.... I certainy don't think he's looney!

The naysayers, however, make no sense at all. They just deny, deny, deny...

excon


Bw he he (I hate this for Chicagoans, but... ) "A new record was set Wednesday when Chicago had its ninth consecutive day of measurable snowfall, according to the National Weather Service.
The previous record was eight consecutive days set from Dec. 13 to 20, 1973.
Snowfall records in Chicago date back to 1884.
A wind chill warning has been issued as temperatures as tsmperartures will not reach single digits until Friday.
The forecast for Thursday is: Sunny and cold, with a high near -3. Wind chill values as low as -33. West northwest wind between 10 and 15 mph." Record snowfall, plunging temperatures hit the area - Indian Head Park, IL - Indian Head Park Suburban Life (http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/indianheadpark/homepage/x1017440124/Record-snowfall-plunging-temperatures-hit-the-area)

You may not be a scientist; neither am I. Common sense is not against the law, but Obama and the libs may yet 'change' that, too.

Common sense says that one cold snap and record snowfalls in one year don't erase or reverse the trend for the last 15, 20 or 50 years.

Bw he he (I hate this for Chicagoans, but...) "A new record was set Wednesday when Chicago had its ninth consecutive day of measurable snowfall, according to the National Weather Service.
The previous record was eight consecutive days set from Dec. 13 to 20, 1973.
Snowfall records in Chicago date back to 1884.
A wind chill warning has been issued as temperatures as tsmperartures will not reach single digits until Friday.
The forecast for Thursday is: Sunny and cold, with a high near -3. Wind chill values as low as -33. West northwest wind between 10 and 15 mph." Record snowfall, plunging temperatures hit the area - Indian Head Park, IL - Indian Head Park Suburban Life (http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/indianheadpark/homepage/x1017440124/Record-snowfall-plunging-temperatures-hit-the-area)

You may not be a scientist; neither am I. Common sense is not against the law, but Obama and the libs may yet 'change' that, too.

I'm not a climate change alarmist, but I don't want people to disbelieve climate change for the wrong reasons. Local trends don't give you useful information about the entire planet.

Ex - I must take exception to your statement: The naysayers, however, make no sense at all. They just deny, deny, deny...
I believe that several of us Rightys have offered valid proposals, facts, and reasoned arguments in support of our position. I would like you to point out errors of fact or logic that I and others have made. Merely stating that we all endorse pollution, are Exxon stockholders, have no entrepreneural spirit, offer no alternatives, and merely deny, just does not cut it. Please provide but one concrete rebuttal to a point made by me or another.

However, both of us agree that Sheriff Joe of AZ is a loon.:)

Maybe none of this even matters because we just may be living in a giant hologoram (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news). :rolleyes:

IFL: Inauguration Will Produce 575 MILLION Pounds of CO2! (http://thechillingeffect.org/2009/01/14/ifl-inauguration-will-produce-575-million-pounds-of-co2/)


Everyone knows the new administration will be the greenest in modern times. But you might not know how un-green the Inauguration is going to be. The Institute For Liberty scratched together some rough figures for illustrative purposes, and our new analysis Carbon Bigfoot finds:

Celebrities, politicians, and bigwigs using 600 private jets will produce 25,320,000 POUNDS of CO2

Personal vehicles could account for 262,483,200 POUNDS of CO2

In the parade, horses alone will produce more than 400 POUNDS of CO2

The total carbon footprint for the Inauguration will likely exceed 575 million POUNDS of CO2

It would take the average U.S. household 57,598 years to produce a carbon footprint equal to that of the new president's housewarming party

IFL: Inauguration Will Produce 575 MILLION Pounds of CO2! (http://thechillingeffect.org/2009/01/14/ifl-inauguration-will-produce-575-million-pounds-of-co2/)

If those private jets weren't going to Washington, they would likely have been flying to the Caribbean or some other exotic resort to escape the recent Global Cooling :D. I find it funny that they produce numbers like that but don't explain that almost all of what they quote would be producing a carbon footprint if they were at the Inauguration or not.

I mean, how are the horses going to produce anymore carbon footprint in the parade than they would back in the stable? :rolleyes:

Maybe none of this even matters because we just may be living in a giant hologoram (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news). :rolleyes:

I've been trying to change my holographic program for years :D

If those private jets weren't going to Washington, they would likely have been flying to the Caribbean or some other exotic resort to escape the recent Global Cooling :D. I find it funny that they produce numbers like that but don't explain that almost all of what they quote would be producing a carbon footprint if they were at the Inauguration or not.

I mean, how are the horses going to produce anymore carbon footprint in the parade than they would back in the stable? :rolleyes:

Maybe, but what about putting your money where your global warming mouth is? All that talk is that much harder for us sekptics to buy when they don't walk the walk. ;)

Maybe, but what about putting your money where your global warming mouth is? All that talk is that much harder for us sekptics to buy when they don't walk the walk. ;)

Now if everyone rode their bike to the event, I would be impressed :)

Maybe they could at least offer us a good fake attempt…


Early this morning, Congressman-Elect Eric Massa departed his hometown of Corning, New York to be sworn into the 111th Congress on Tuesday. Massa will arrive for his formal swearing-in on Tuesday morning, but the 282 mile journey in a GM Electric Fuel Cell Equinox went off without a hitch (http://www.thealbanyproject.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=776ECB9761F763D119309EF011 2D8FFC?diaryId=5451).

Without a hitch except for one minor detail…


A hydrogen fuel cell car driven by U.S. Rep. Eric Massa to Washington, D.C on Monday didn't actually get him all the way there (http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20090108/NEWS01/90108037).

Massa had to be in the nation's capital Tuesday for his swearing in as the 29th Congressional District's new representative. He drove the General Motors Equinox prototype car to draw attention to the technology, some of which is being developed in the district.

The problem is the car can go about 150 to 200 miles without a refill, and the trip from Corning to Washington, D.C. is 282 miles. And there are no hydrogen refilling stations along the way.

As a result, Massa had to switch to another GM hydrogen fuel cell vehicle that was standing by in Harrisburg.

After the trip, both cars were towed back to their original locations by two Chevrolet Tahoe hybrid SUVs.

It would have cost me about $14.00 to drive my Corolla the 282 miles. I wonder what it took to drive 2 fuel cell vehicles there and tow them back behind two hybrid SUV's?

Maybe they could at least offer us a good fake attempt…

Without a hitch except for one minor detail…

It would have cost me about $14.00 to drive my Corolla the 282 miles. I wonder what it took to drive 2 fuel cell vehicles there and tow them back behind two hybrid SUV’s?
Judge libs by their intentions, not their results.

Hello again, righty's:

I'm just not sure you guys are using the right standards to measure people or to call them hypocrites...

You can drive your SUV because you don't believe in global warming, so you can't be called a hypocrite... But, if any of those people who BELIEVE in global warming DON'T ride their bike to work, THEY'RE hypocrites... And, if they're RICH, you STILL expect 'em to walk.

I don't know. As soon as the infrastructure becomes available for people to readily use, people who fly their own planes aren't hypocrites.

excon

Hello again, righty's:

I'm just not sure you guys are using the right standards to measure people or to call them hypocrits...

You can drive your SUV because you don't believe in global warming, so you can't be called a hypocrite.... But, if any of those people who BELIVE in global warming DON'T ride their bike to work, THEY'RE.anybody else, even RICH

How about this standard: freedom. But libs have no comprehension of the word as they would prefer we all exist in their straightjackets.

How about this standard: freedom. But libs have no comprehension of the word as they would prefer we all exist in their straightjackets.You need to let go of your hatred for half of your fellow americans.

You need to let go of your hatred for half of your fellow americans.

I hate no one.

Ex, that's a bunch of hooey. The only standard by which I judge someone to be a hypocrite is according to the definition of the word.

1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

If I drive a fuel hogging SUV while preaching against it (or pose as a climate change guru and live in a fuel hogging mansion with a huge carbon footprint) I'm a hypocrite. As it is, I drive small, fuel efficient vehicles, use programmable thermostats, energy efficient lighting, try to plant low maintenance landscape plants and almost never water my yard. If I can do it I darn sure expect those who preach it to do so. When they don't it makes them hypocrites, plain and simple. You know I'm right.

How about this standard: freedom. But libs have no comprehension of the word as they would prefer we all exist in their straightjackets.Hello again, George:

I don't know... I suppose you think of me as UN American, because I support the Constitution... ALL of it...

But, if you want to talk about libs view of freedom, then I'm going to talk a bit about conservatives view of freedom... Let me rephrase that a bit, because I don't believe YOUR view of freedom is conservative at all.

Frankly, I'll take the Barry Goldwater view of freedom/conservatism over yours, any day. But, I digress..

I've been listening to the dufus in chief speaking recently... He talks a LOT about spreading freedom.. Sounds really, really good too... But, as I watched, I saw that HIS view of freedom, and MINE, ain't the same... It's not even close... As a matter of fact, my jaw keeps dropping open when I hear him (and YOU) say stuff.

Personally, I think being free from unwarranted government wire taps is being free. You don't.

I think being able to challenge my detention (should I be arrested), via habeas corpus is being free. You don't.

I think having the cops obey the Constitution is being free. You don't.

I think having a justice department FREE of political corruption is part of being free. You don't.

I have more - MUCH more. I'm a Barry Goldwater conservative, by the way.

excon

I suspect that if AZ makes it to the Bowl ,by the time Warner finishes 60 minutes against either of the AFC defenses;they will be playing Taps in his honor .

Go Cards!! ;)

I'm not so sure about any global warming. This last summer it was rather cool here with only a few uncomforably hot days. This winter has been cold and wet. For 5 days in a row here in Ohio the overnight temperature was well below minus zero, minus 15, etc, sometimes with windchills in the minus 35 degree range and this was during the daytime hours as well. This is quite unusual for January weather here. This type of temperatures usually happen in February - not January.

And NO we did not have any snow on the ground here at Xmas as it all melted the day before. I was quite perterbed that it didn't snow here that day. Rats.

I think we are headed for an ice age as the chemtrails are effectively blocking out the sun's rays to the earth. The chemtrails are having the opposite effect than what they imagined them to be. If they would just stop with the chemtrail stuff being sprayed and let nature do it's thing, the earth would be much better off. I have been waking up for the past week with red, itchy eyes - obviously they are spraying something new for me to react like that.

Chemtrails... you mean contrails?. or are you buying into the conspiracy theory that some unnamed group is drugging us ?

Never fear, there is an art to Mental Chembusting (http://educate-yourself.org/lte/mentalchembusting19jun07.shtml) "in the silence and privacy of your mind," so ramp up your vibratory rate and engage in collective thought chemtrail busting and all will be well.

It must work .

I've blocked out chemtrails ,UFOs ,sasquatch ,the Jersey Devil and chupacabra.
http://www.paranormal-phenomenon.net/chupacabrabw.jpg

More 'hate', anyone?

"If you're wondering why North America is starting to resemble nuclear winter, then you missed the news.

"At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"

"I asked myself, why would such obviously smart guy say such a ridiculous thing? But it turns out he's right.


"The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels."

It's time to pray for global warming, says Flint Journal columnist John Tomlinson - Flint, Michigan Columns, Letters & Opinion - The Flint Journal – MLive.com (http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html)

Is that what happened to Nessie, it wasn't a victim of global warming (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/02/13/veteran-loch-ness-monster-hunter-gives-up-86908-20317853/)?

It's so cold that people in Belgium are burning The Goracle's book to keep warm...

http://newsbusters.org/static/2009/01/Gore%20Belgium.jpg

http://f528.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f585157%5fAPgwvs4AANCNSXTXtwhqGApm QYQ&pid=2.9&fid=Inbox&inline=1

http://f528.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f585157%5fAPgwvs4AANCNSXTXtwhqGApm QYQ&pid=2.3&fid=Inbox&inline=1

Study: Antarctica joins rest of globe in warming (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hFV9GIGdjTz4U0s0KVEPreiOUm6gD95ROFV81)

By SETH BORENSTEIN – 17 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Antarctica, the only place that had oddly seemed immune from climate change, is warming after all, according to a new study. For years, Antarctica was an enigma to scientists who track the effects of global warming. Temperatures on much of the continent at the bottom of the world were staying the same or slightly cooling, previous research indicated.

The new study went back further than earlier work and filled in a massive gap in data with satellite information to find that Antarctica too is getting warmer, like the Earth's other six continents.

The findings were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

"Contrarians have sometime grabbed on to this idea that the entire continent of Antarctica is cooling, so how could we be talking about global warming," said study co-author Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. "Now we can say: no, it's not true ... It is not bucking the trend."

OK, whatever... here's the real gem of the article:


The study does not point to man-made climate change as the cause of the Antarctic warming — doing so is a highly intricate scientific process — but a different and smaller study out late last year did make that connection.

And that was where the article ended in my paper. This was for you TexasParent. This is what the mainstream media in America thinks of us, we're buffoons to be dismissed, we can't understand such scientific intricacies so why bother trying to explain? Man-made global warming is just plain fact and has now come to Antarctica so you MUST believe... even though "It is hard to make data where none exist."

I think we are headed for an ice age as the chemtrails are effectively blocking out the sun's rays to the earth. The chemtrails are having the opposite effect than what they imagined them to be. If they would just stop with the chemtrail stuff being sprayed and let nature do it's thing, the earth would be much better off. I have been waking up for the past week with red, itchy eyes - obviously they are spraying something new for me to react like that.

Omg and those rainbows are so close to the groudn these days!

YouTube - Rainbows close to ground (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sq-VmBMHkw)

WHAT ARE THEY PUTTING IN OUR WATER?!

It's good to see those 2 million Obama supporters were busy caring for the capital’s environment during his inauguration. So far, some 90 tons of debris tossed about by the eco-conscious revelers has been picked up.

PMrJE7J3fWU

It's good to see those 2 million Obama supporters were busy caring for the capital’s environment during his inauguration. So far, some 90 tons of debris tossed about by the eco-conscious revelers has been picked up.

PMrJE7J3fWU

There you go showing your right leaning tendencies by forgetting about the individuals who are able to put food on the table for another night for their families because of all the jobs the clean up has created ;)

The NY Slimes reported that hundreds of American flags were left discarded on the mall .

That would be the left reclaiming patriotism.

Oh now Tex, just asking the left again to put their religion into practice. :D

Come on, down, Al. Tell me more: DRUDGE FLASH 2009®: GORE HEARING ON WARMING MAY BE PUT ON ICE (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashghi.htm)

None of it matters now George, the damage we've done to the planet is done.


Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years
(http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ghGvjbYscejTKon1TkD_K4E3t_lw)
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Climate change is "largely irreversible" for the next 1,000 years even if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be abruptly halted, according to a new study led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The study's authors said there was "no going back" after the report showed that changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level are "largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after CO2 emissions are completely stopped."

NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon said the study, published in this week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, showed that current human choices on carbon dioxide emissions are set to "irreversibly change the planet."

Researchers examined the consequences of CO2 building up beyond present-day concentrations of 385 parts per million, and then completely stopping emissions after the peak. Before the industrial age CO2 in Earth's atmosphere amounted to only 280 parts per million.

The study found that CO2 levels are irreversibly impacting climate change, which will contribute to global sea level rise and rainfall changes in certain regions.

The authors emphasized that increases in CO2 that occur from 2000 to 2100 are set to "lock in" a sea level rise over the next 1,000 years.

Rising sea levels would cause "irreversible commitments to future changes in the geography of the Earth, since many coastal and island features would ultimately become submerged," the study said.

Decreases in rainfall that last for centuries can be expected to have a range of impacts, said the authors. Regional impacts include -- but are not limited to -- decreased human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts.

Suddenly, since Obama is the Prez the global warming gasbags are getting even more hysterical.

US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)Hello Steve:

Gasbags?? Dude!

I know science is out of favor with you guys. But you're going to have to get used to the NEW paradigm. That's one that bases things on reality. It's going to be that way from here on out.

excon

Science must be out of favor with the hundreds of climatologists who attended the U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland this December .650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis.

... But you're gonna have to get used to the NEW paradigm. That's one that bases things on reality. It's gonna be that way from here on out.

excon
Really? "...the Nevada Democrat is already worried about his own re-election fight in 2010. Sen. Reid, perhaps the most-vulnerable Democrat who will face re-election in a midterm race that is likely to favor his party once again, began interviewing campaign managers last week. The Senate majority leader also recently stepped up fund-raising." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123033501646236333.html

George ;ever notice that whenever the Goracle schedules these high profile events to promote his carbon trading business that inevidibly a cold spell or blizzard occures. Momma Gaia must be telling him something.

You mean we're finally going to hear the truth about the junk science and political agenda over climate change in the media? Is that the new paradigm?

Perhaps you missed my post on the previous page about warming finally reaching Antarctica where the scientist said "It is hard to make data where none exist." Is that the kind of science that should be in favor?

Really? "...the Nevada Democrat is already worried about his own re-election fight in 2010. Hello again, George:

Dude! We're missing each other in the night, even more than usual... I'm talking about policy being based on science from here on out.

That has nothing to do with the "Nevada Democrat" running again... Nothing! I have NO idea where you got that.

excon

Seems the new Prez is one of those "so as I say and not as I do" guys also... and the NY Slimes doesn't even get it. It's all about the new "more informal culture" in the White House to them. While a 92-year-old WWII vet freezes to death (http://tristatehomepage.com/content/fulltext/?cid=52521) in his home, Mr. Obama "had cranked up the thermostat" in the White House because “He’s from Hawaii, OK?" “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29whitehouse.html?_r=2&ref=politics?xid=rss-page).”

Maybe someone needs to point out his EPA's website for tips on saving energy and fighting global warming (http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=thermostats.pr_thermostats)? Or perhaps he should follow Carter's advice (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122894725018995935.html) and leadership on this issue?

Update, Ed Morrisey of Hotair gleaned this Obama gem (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/29/the-age-of-obama-heat-for-me-but-not-for-thee/) from the campaign trail:


“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.

“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added.

Like Ed says, "Well, apparently some of us can, and those lucky few do call themselves “leaders”. The rest of us call them hypocrites as we fetch another sweater."

Hello wrong wingers:

Memo to RickJ:

The following should be a "sticky note" on the current events page:

If a Democrat wants to be warm, flies first class, doesn't carpool, or uses very heavy, non fuel efficient Cadillac limos to drive around in, they're HYPOCRITES.

Ok?? I got it.

excon

Hello wrong wingers:

Memo to RickJ:

The following should be a "sticky note" on the current events page:

If a Democrat wants to be warm, flies first class, doesn't carpool, or uses very heavy, non fuel efficient Cadillac limos to drive around in, they're HYPOCRITES.

Ok??? I got it.

I think we've been here before on this post. Yep, we've definitely been there, done that (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/calling-al-gore-where-you-303015-7.html#post1489359). I don't recall even implying that a Democrat that "wants to be warm, flies first class, doesn't carpool, or uses very heavy, non fuel efficient Cadillac limos to drive around in" is a hypocrite... just those (of whatever affiliation) that do so while preaching the religion of global warming.

I'm sure you'd call Bush a hypocrite for saying "we don't torture," why can't I call Obama a hypocrite for telling us to turn our thermostats down while he's cranking up the White House thermostat? I'd be more than willing to bet you that my turning my thermostat up to 72 in the winter - which doesn't generally happen since I use programmable thermostats to warm up the house to 70 as I get home from work - would be a lot less damaging to the environment than cranking up the heat in the White House. So which of us is the hypocrite on the environment?

Check this: "But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels", from "The Amazing Story Behind Tho Global Warming Scam". The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner (http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html)

Yep they say that (I think it is 6,000) scientists are saying global warming is a lie.

Once again this winter I am begging for people to send me their global warming!
On Monday I asked for a shipment of sand-----I got a ton of snow!

The sole purpose of global warming is so they can tax us for breathing by convincing people about the necessity of carbon footprints.

Yep they say that (I think it is 6,000) scientists are saying global warming is a lie.

Once again this winter I am begging for people to send me their global warming!
On Monday I asked for a shipment of sand-----I got a ton of snow!

The sole purpose of global warming is so they can tax us for breathing by convincing people about the necessity of carbon footprints.

I suspect those scientist's were bought by big oil :D

Lol scientists all over the world are looking to cash in on the Big Oil stimulus .

Maybe the Torquemada of the climate cult will hold Stalinist show trials for all the heretics
Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist | Environment | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange)

The credibility of science may never recover


Sea levels are rising, but they have been rising at least since the early 1800s. In the era of satellite measurements, the rise has not accelerated (actually we've seen a sea-level fall over the past two years). The UN expects about a 30-centimetre sea-level rise over this century — about what we saw over the past 150 years.

In that period, many coastlines increased, most obviously in Holland, because rich countries can easily protect and even expand their territory. But even for oft-cited Bangladesh, scientists just this year showed that the country grows by 20 square kilometres each year, because river sedimentation win out over rising sea levels.

Obama's claim about record droughts similarly fails even on a cursory level — the US has, in all academic estimates, been getting wetter over the century (with the 1930s 'dust bowl' setting the drought high point). This is even true globally over the past half-century, as one of the most recent scientific studies of actual soil moisture shows: “there is an overall small wetting trend in global soil moisture.”

Furthermore, famine has rapidly declined over the past half century. The main deviation has been the past two years of record-high food prices, caused not by climate change but by the policies designed to combat it: the dash for ethanol, which put food into cars and thus upward pressure on food prices. The World Bank estimates this policy has driven at least 30 million more people into hunger. To cite policy-driven famine as an argument for more of the same policy seems unreasonable.

Obama and global warming- Comments & Analysis-Opinion-The Economic Times (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/rssarticleshow/msid-3843374,prtpage-1.cms)

You mean credibility is important in science?

I had to ponder which post to add this update to, so in honor of the Goracle here it goes.

Stimulus Plan: Non-Existent Unemployed Climate Modelers Get $140 Million (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/26/stimulus-plan-non-existent-unemployed-climate-modelers-get-140-million/)


President Barack Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus plan, has morphed into an appropriations bill devoid of debate. The process forgoes any pretense of targeting unemployed people and resources.

For instance, the bill reads “Provided further, That not less than $140,000,000 shall be available for climate data modeling.” This raises the question of how many unemployed climate modelers are out there pounding the pavement.

When presented with that question, last Friday, Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists stated “I don’t know one unemployed modeler.”

Whether another $140,000,000 for climate data modeling is a good idea, it is hard to see an immediate, economy-stimulating impact from this item.

What’s the rush? Maybe they need to get all their modeling done before another cool year highlights how bad the models are.

I suspect those scientist's were bought by big oil :D

NO I would say they are good scientists with common sense!
Gore has N0 real scientific proof of his scam!

NO I would say they are good scientists with common sense!
Gore has N0 real scientific proof of his scam!

Um... well there needs to be a scientific Superbowl between those who don't have any proof of Global warming and those that don't have any proof of the counter argument (what is that anyway).

It's easy to say that the scientists don't have any proof, but since it is science you better bring your science to say it isn't true by proving your theory.

you better bring your science to say it isn't true by proving your theory.Hello Tex:

They'll bring the email from Limbaugh.

excon

Hello Tex:

They'll bring the email from Limbaugh.

Memories are sure short here. I know tom has mentioned several times the fact that the dissent among scientists is growing. Over 650 contested the consensus last year (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6), up from 400 the year before and "more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers."

We'll let them bring the science without Rush's help. The question is, willl the consenus scientists open their minds or will they continue to mock and silence the dissent? Or as some want, prosecute deniers "for high crimes against humanity and nature (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370521,00.html)?"

Shezam! Heaviest snow in 20 years brings large parts of Britain to a halt Heaviest snow in 20 years brings large parts of Britain to a halt - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article5639189.ece)

Hello again, George:

The more you keep insisting that the present cold weather is PROOF that global warming does not exist, the more clueless you sound.

But hey, knock yourself out.

excon

PS> The thing is, I don't know if global warming is real either. But, in my simple little brain, I can figure out that throwing tons and tons of trash into our atmosphere every single day for the last 100 years, is going to DO something...

You seem to be denying it. I have NO idea why you would. Course, I have NO idea where you come up with MOST of your stuff.

What a simpleton mentality to insist that because its cold in Britain and the US at the moment that global warming doesn't exist. Im not saying I think it does. I have my reservations but I laugh every time you guys throw out a news report of a bit of snow. Try this on for size.

Melbourne heatwave breaks record > Environment > LIVENEWS.com.au (http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2009/01/30/Melbourne_heatwave_set_to_break_record)

Record Heat Wave Hits Australia - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1876299,00.html)

Talking about a 'simpleton mentality' or a dangerous instrumentality: Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Glenn Beck - Gore to 12 year olds: 'you know things older people don't know' (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/21049/)

"Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn't believe that humans are causing global warming.
"I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
"Schmitt contends that scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels...
"Schmitt resigned after the group blamed global warming on human activity. In his resignation letter, the 74-year-old geologist argued that the "global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making." Former astronaut speaks out on global warming - BostonHerald.com (http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/2009_02_15_Former_astronaut_speaks_out_on_global_w arming/srvc=home&position=recent)

Good news, Bill Clinton is afraid the climate is going to crater and that will be the end of civilization (http://finkelblog.com/index.php/2009/02/16/bill-clinton-worried-climate-will-crater-and-we-wont-be-able-to-preserve-civilization/).

More good news, we've found the human directly responsible for global warming. Kim Jong-Il and his supernatural powers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/4605824/Kim-Jong-Ils-birthday-improves-North-Korean-weather.html) are to blame. All we have to do is take him out or find and use his Kryptonite on him and all should be well again.

See that's better George. Something and somebody with a tiny bit of substance. You look a lot better than when you simply link us to a post about some snow around town. Its like me linking you to the memorial site for the 200 odd dead down under here caused by fires due to that heat wave I showed you above and telling you its proof of global warming. Silly really!!

Its like me linking you to the memorial site for the 200 odd dead down under here caused by fires due to that heat wave i showed you above and telling you its proof of global warming.

Thanks, Skell; I undertand the cause of those fires is arson.

Thanks, Skell; I undertand the cause of those fires is arson.

No! One or two out of about 30 - 40 fires was deliberately lit. The rest were natural. But again I'm not necessarily blaming global warming. Although many are ill reserve my judgment. Continual dry and hot weather couple with some neglect to carry out controlled burning played a huge part in this.

What's a half million square kilometer error?


"The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has been at the forefront of predicting doom in the arctic as ice melts due to global warming. In May, 2008 they went so far as to predict that the North Pole would be ice-free during the 2008 'melt season,' leading to a lively Slashdot discussion. Today, however, they say that they have been the victims of 'sensor drift' that led to an underestimation of Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square kilometers. The problem was discovered after they received emails from puzzled readers, asking why obviously sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as ice-free, open ocean. It turns out that the NSIDC relies on an older, less-reliable method of tracking sea ice extent called SSM/I that does not agree with a newer method called AMSR-E. So why doesn't NSIDC use the newer AMSR-E data? 'We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data.' Turns out that the AMSR-E data only goes back to 2002, which is probably not long enough for the NSIDC to make sweeping conclusions about melting. The AMSR-E data is updated daily and is available to the public. Thus far, sea ice extent in 2009 is tracking ahead of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, so the predictions of an ice-free north pole might be premature."

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090217_Figure1_thumb.png
Figure 1. Daily Arctic sea ice extent map for
February 15, 2009, showed areas of open water
which should have appeared as sea ice.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

What's a half million square kilometer error?

Roughly the size of California.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center?? Now there's an agency worthy of elimination .

So based on drifting censors we have to fundamentally change our life style ?Did anyone give this info to no clue Chu ?

By the way, here's the link (http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/19/0420255) I forgot.

Yes tom, things such as drifting sensors, computer models and homogeneity-adjusted data (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998IJCli..18.1493P) from weather stations are all behind this forced lifestyle change.

"Staying married is better for the planet because divorce leads the newly single to live more wasteful lifestyles, an Australian lawmaker said Tuesday.

"Senator Steve Fielding told a Senate hearing in the Australian capital Canberra that divorce only made climate change worse.

"When couples separated, they needed more rooms, more electricity and more water. This increased their carbon footprint, Australian Associated Press (AAP) quoted Fielding as telling the hearing on environmental issues."
Stay married and save the planet - Aussie lawmaker (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090224/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_climate_divorce)

I love it...

A collapsing carbon market makes mega-pollution cheap (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/23/glover-carbon-market-pollution)


'Roll up for the great pollution fire sale, the ultimate chance to wreck the climate on the cheap. You sir, over there, from the power company - look at this lovely tonne of freshly made, sulphur-rich carbon dioxide. Last summer it cost an eyewatering €31 to throw up your smokestack, but in our give-away global recession sale, that's been slashed to a crazy €8.20. Dump plans for the wind turbine! Compare our offer with costly solar energy! At this low, low price you can't afford not to burn coal!"

Set up to price pollution out of existence, carbon trading is pricing it back in. Europe's carbon markets are in collapse.

Yet the hiss of escaping gas is almost inaudible. There's no big news headline, nothing sensational for TV viewers to watch; no queues outside banks or missing Texan showmen. You can't see or hear a market for a pollutant tumble. But at stake is what was supposed to be a central lever in the world's effort to turn back climate change. Intended to price fossil fuels out of the market, the system is instead turning them into the rational economic choice.

That there exists something called carbon trading is about all that most people know. A few know, too, that Europe has created carbon exchanges, and traders who buy and sell. Few but the professionals, however, know that this market is now failing in its purpose: to edge up the cost of emitting CO2.

The theory sounded fine in the boom years, back when Nicholas Stern described climate change as "the biggest market failure in history" - a market failure to which carbon trading was meant to be a market solution. Instead, it's bolstering the business case for fossil fuels.

Understanding why is easy. A year ago European governments allocated a limited number of carbon emission permits to their big polluters. Businesses that reduce pollution are allowed to sell spare permits to ones that need more. As demand outstrips this capped supply, and the price of permits rises, an incentive grows to invest in green energy. Why buy costly permits to keep a coal plant running when you can put the cash into clean power instead?

All this only works as the carbon price lifts. As with 1924 Château Lafite or Damian Hirst's diamond skulls, scarcity and speculation create the value. If permits are cheap, and everyone has lots, the green incentive crashes into reverse. As recession slashes output, companies pile up permits they don't need and sell them on. The price falls, and anyone who wants to pollute can afford to do so. The result is a system that does nothing at all for climate change but a lot for the bottom lines of mega-polluters such as the steelmaker

This guy's solutions are as much a joke as the cap and trade system itself. How do you rescue a system that's a sham to begin with? Everything about it is artificial... except The Goracle's profits from it of course.

Speaking of pollution . How about the carbon foot print of the NASA climate satellite that just crashed ?

Good question tom. More good news though, Obama plans to have emissions revenue by 2012 (http://planetark.org/wen/51764).

Yet another cause of climate change - the Charmin effect (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/science/earth/26charmin.html).


The national obsession with soft paper has driven the growth of brands like Cottonelle Ultra, Quilted Northern Ultra and Charmin Ultra — which in 2008 alone increased its sales by 40 percent in some markets, according to Information Resources, Inc. a marketing research firm.

But fluffiness comes at a price: millions of trees harvested in North America and in Latin American countries, including some percentage of trees from rare old-growth forests in Canada. Although toilet tissue can be made at similar cost from recycled material, it is the fiber taken from standing trees that help give it that plush feel, and most large manufacturers rely on them.

Customers “demand soft and comfortable,” said James Malone, a spokesman for Georgia Pacific, the maker of Quilted Northern. “Recycled fiber cannot do it.”

The country’s soft-tissue habit — call it the Charmin effect — has not escaped the notice of environmentalists, who are increasingly making toilet tissue manufacturers the targets of campaigns. Greenpeace on Monday for the first time issued a national guide for American consumers that rates toilet tissue brands on their environmental soundness. With the recession pushing the price for recycled paper down and Americans showing more willingness to repurpose everything from clothing to tires, environmental groups want more people to switch to recycled toilet tissue...

Environmentalists are focusing on tissue products for reasons besides the loss of trees. Turning a tree to paper requires more water than turning paper back into fiber, and many brands that use tree pulp use polluting chlorine-based bleach for greater whiteness. In addition, tissue made from recycled paper produces less waste tonnage — almost equaling its weight — that would otherwise go to a landfill.

Still, trees and tree quality remain a contentious issue. Although brands differ, 25 percent to 50 percent of the pulp used to make toilet paper in this country comes from tree farms in South America and the United States. The rest, environmental groups say, comes mostly from old, second-growth forests that serve as important absorbers of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas linked to global warming.

OK, but can we call it something besides "recycled toilet tissue?" That just sounds nasty. I know Americans are to blame, we just can't seem to deem "a rough sheet of paper" as sufficient. Perhaps the new administration will require us to make better use of our corn cobs in the near future?

we just can't seem to deem "a rough sheet of paper" as sufficient.

And let's not forget it's the quantity as well as the quality that we need to mea culpa about .
YouTube - Sheryl Crow On Global Warming: WIPE MY A _ _ !!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pe7cpXbpnI&feature=related)

But fluffiness comes at a priceHello again, Steve:

Yup, there's a price to pay. And, since it's our collective a$$, we make light of it. But it really IS our collective a$$, and the price is much bigger than that.

I don't know. I'm not Al Gore. I'm not a scientist. I'm not smart.

But, our atmosphere has more CO2 in it than it has for the last 20 thousand years. At the same time, we're chopping down our rain forest as fast as we can. It's the rain forest that cleans the air.

That doesn't bode well for us - even you righty's.

excon

I don't know, ex. Trying to find reliable data on forest coverage (like anything else regarding climate change) is like finding that needle in the haystack. And what gets me is scientists seem to be surprised when they discover things like all that "extra" CO2 seems to help trees grow and in turn absorb more CO2 (http://www.carbonica.org/NewsItem.aspx?NewsId=225).


Fifth of World Carbon Emissions Soaked up by Extra Forest Growth, Scientists Find
20/02/2009 by THE GUARDIAN

Trees across the tropics are getting bigger and offering unexpected help in the fight against climate change, scientists have discovered.

A laborious study of the girth of 70,000 trees across Africa has shown that tropical forests are soaking up more carbon dioxide pollution that anybody realised. Almost one-fifth of our fossil fuel emissions are absorbed by forests across Africa, Amazonia and Asia, the research suggests.

Simon Lewis, a climate expert at the University of Leeds, who led the study, said: "We are receiving a free subsidy from nature. Tropical forest trees are absorbing about 18% of the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels, substantially buffering the rate of change."

The study measured trees in 79 areas of intact forest across 10 African countries from Liberia to Tanzania, and compared records going back 40 years. "On average the trees are getting bigger," Lewis said.

Compared to the 1960s, each hectare of intact African forest has trapped an extra 0.6 tonnes of carbon a year. Over the world's tropical forests, this extra "carbon sink" effect adds up to 4.8bn tonnes of CO2 removed each year - close to the total carbon dioxide emissions from the US.

Although individual trees are known to soak up carbon as they photosynthesise and grow, large patches of mature forest were once thought to be carbon neutral, with the carbon absorbed by new trees balanced by that released as old trees die.

A similar project in South America challenged that assumption when it recorded surprise levels of tree growth a decade ago, Lewis said. His study, published tomorrow in Nature, was to check whether the effect was global.

The discovery suggests that increased CO2 in the atmosphere could fertilise extra growth in the mature forests.

Well duh! I learned that in elementary school.

Back before the asteroid struck , the world was lush and green and had a great deal of C02 floating around.Elevated carbon dioxide levels result in higher productivity, and faster animal and plant growth rates.Both animals and plants were bigger... much bigger.
Dinosaurs' World Heated By Greenhouse Effect: Study (http://www.unisci.com/stories/20014/1004015.htm)

Gore Pulls Slide of Disaster Trends - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/gore-pulls-slide-of-disaster-trends/)




Two days after the talk, Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr. a political scientist focused on disaster trends and climate policy at the University of Colorado. Mr. Pielke noted that the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters stressed in reports that a host of factors unrelated to climate caused the enormous rise in reported disasters (details below).
















G&P

“Natural living” advocates unveil their latest planet-saving invention - the reusable toilet wipe.
Bottom reached | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/bottom_reached#49803)

Just in time for “a mass non-violent civil disobedience” in D.C. called Make Climate Justice History (http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/12/18/make-climate-justice-history-mass-civil-disobedience-march-2nd-2009-in-dc/) scheduled for today as announced by It's Getting Hot in Here, “between three and 12 inches of snow (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/03/02/ST2009030200477.html)” blanketed the capitol.

LOL, I do believe God has a sense of humor. Now That's climate change justice.

In part 2 of today's climate news, Obama's EPA intends to regulate farm dust (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090227/ap_on_bi_ge/farm_scene_dust_rules_2). OK all you farmers out there, please confine your dust to your property.

In today's episode of "It's getting hot in here," recent study shows global warming is on hold... even though many have been saying this for some time.


Global Warming: On Hold? (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/02/global-warming-pause.html)
Michael Reilly, Discovery News

March 2, 2009 -- For those who have endured this winter's frigid temperatures and today's heavy snowstorm in the Northeast, the concept of global warming may seem, well, almost wishful.

But climate is known to be variable -- a cold winter, or a few strung together doesn't mean the planet is cooling. Still, according to a new study, global warming may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades.

"This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950," Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. "Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn't have one."

Instead, Swanson and colleague Anastasios Tsonis think a series of climate processes have aligned, conspiring to chill the climate. In 1997 and 1998, the tropical Pacific Ocean warmed rapidly in what Swanson called a "super El Nino event." It sent a shock wave through the oceans and atmosphere, jarring their circulation patterns into unison.

How does this square with temperature records from 2005-2007, by some measurements among the warmest years on record? When added up with the other four years since 2001, Swanson said the overall trend is flat, even though temperatures should have gone up by 0.2 degrees Centigrade (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) during that time.

Yes, nature is "conspiring" to ruin the climate change agenda.

Hello again, Steve:

I still can't figure out what you have against the idea of global warming... Do you own energy stocks? Do you work for an energy company? Are you looking for an excuse to keep doing business as usual? Do you LIKE spending $4 for gas? Do you deny that oil is running out? Do you deny that we're going to need an alternate energy source?

Really. I can't figure out, other than it's a Republican talking point, WHY you say what you do?

And, even if global warming is wrong, should we continue throwing our trash into the air? That's really the question I have for you.

If you think so, why don't you just say so, and argue with me that it's OK to do that?

If you don't, then who cares what some crackpot says? If his solution is right, even though his premise is wrong, the result will still be good, no?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I still can't figure out what you have against the idea of global warming...

I don’t like being scammed by religious zealots. Do you?


Do you own energy stocks?

Probably somewhere in my IRA.


Do you work for an energy company?

Um, no. We do fire and security systems.


Are you looking for an excuse to keep doing business as usual?

Look it up ex, I’ve always stated conservation and a clean environment are good things.


Do you LIKE spending $4 for gas?

No.


Do you deny that oil is running out?

Actually I’m not sure we’re getting the truth.


Do you deny that we're going to need an alternate energy source?

Of course not. I’d love to install a solar system but it’s cost prohibitive.


Really. I can't figure out, other than it's a Republican talking point, WHY you say what you do?

You really can’t figure that out? Do you like being lied to? Do you think science should be honest? Is allowing a different opinion a good thing? Should conflicting evidence be considered or should the consensus disregard it out of hand? How do you measure a global ocean rise of a few centimeters? Do you trust computer models, because our weather guys can’t seem to guess what’s going to happen more than a few minutes before it does.


And, even if global warming is wrong, should we continue throwing our trash into the air? That's really the question I have for you.

For the thousandth time, clean air is a good thing. Do you think like some extremists do that "global warming deniers" (ie: scientists with different data) should be prosecuted for environmental crimes?


If you think so, why don't you just say so, and argue with me that it's OK to do that?

Perhaps you will finally remember all the times I’ve said clean air is a good thing instead?


If you don't, then who cares what some crackpot says? If his solution is right, even though his premise is wrong, the result will still be good, no?

Wow, after everything I’ve read from you on our rights I’m really surprised you don’t get it. It’s not just some crackpot, it’s a religion, it’s rampant, it’s misleading, dishonest and it seeks to impose some really bad things on the world, like “voluntary human extinction (http://www.vhemt.org/).”

No? Even the beloved Jacques Cousteau said "This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350000 people per day."

Do you believe ants are more valuable than people?

I just wonder when the global warming extremists will learn not to hold rallies in the middle of winter ?



Speaking before Bill Clinton's Global Initiative in New York City last Nov. 2, Gore advocated the concept of civil disobedience to fight climate change. "I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration," Gore said to loud applause.
Following Gore's lead, a group called Capitol Climate Action organized a protest that took place Monday at the 99-year-old Capitol Power Plant in southeast Washington, D.C. Its Web site invited fellow warm-mongers to "mass civil disobedience at the coal-fired" plant that heats and cools the hallowed halls of Congress.
The site features Gore's quote as well as a video by Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a leading global-warming activist, urging attendance at the event. The storm that hit the Northeast and dropped upwards of three inches of snow on the nation's capitol should not discourage those attending the global- warming protest, he says on the video.
Hansen has called such coal-fired facilities "factories of death" and considers climate-change skeptics guilty of "high crimes against humanity and nature." In the video he says what "has become clear from the science is that we cannot burn all of the fossil fuels without creating a very different planet" and that the "only practical way to solve the problem is to phase out the biggest source of carbon — and that's coal."
What is clear is that Dr. Hansen has had problems with the facts. Last Nov. 10 he announced from his scientific perch that October had been the hottest on record, and we were doomed. Except that it wasn't true.
Scores of temperature records used in the computations from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running, something your high-school science teacher wouldn't allow.
Despite Dr. Hansen's hysterical animus toward carbon, the fact is that CO2 is still a mere 0.038% of the gaseous layer that surrounds the Earth, and only 3% of that thin slice is released by man. According to Dr. William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton University, current atmospheric CO2 levels are inadequate in historical terms and even higher levels "will be good for mankind."
Happer, who was fired by Gore at the Department of Energy in 1993 for disagreeing with the vice president on the effects of ozone to humans and plant life, disagrees with both Gore and Hansen on the issue of the impact of man-made carbon emissions. He testified before the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) on Feb. 25 that CO2 levels are in fact at a historical low.
"Many people don't realize that over geological time, we're really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 . . . been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) — 280 (parts per million) — that's unheard of," said Happer. He notes the earth and humanity did just fine when CO2 levels were much higher.
"You know, we evolved as a species in those times, when CO2 levels were three to four times what they are now," Happer said. "And, the oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it's baffling to me that . . . we're so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started."
"Jim Hansen has gone off the deep end here," one of Hansen's former supervisors, Dr. John Theon, said. Theon, a former senior NASA atmospheric scientist, rebuked Hansen last month in a letter to EPW. "Why he has not been fired, I do not understand," Theon said. Neither do we.
Critics contend that Hansen's involvement in the protests is a violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from engaging in partisan political activity. If he wants to agitate for policy changes, let him do it on his own time and on his own dime. The science can speak for itself.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- James Hansen's Political Science (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=320893446242107)

I just wonder when the global warming extremists will learn not to hold rallies in the middle of winter ?

You'd think they would learn... but the irony is delicious.

Talk about irony NOW this is worse than irony and hypocrisy.
I heard that Sorros and some others that back Gores global warming have stock in the EVIL coal industry, Now WHY would that be??

An failed Obama prophecy... "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow." -Obama June 3, 2008

Northeast US to suffer most from future sea rise
(http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i-tTxBQi3X-2v2e5QBRAGIzCFf-wD96UK6I01)


The northeastern U.S. coast is likely to see the world's biggest sea level rise from man-made global warming, a new study predicts.

However much the oceans rise by the end of the century, add an extra 8 inches or so for New York, Boston and other spots along the coast from the mid-Atlantic to New England. That's because of predicted changes in ocean currents, according to a study based on computer models published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience.

An extra 8 inches — on top of a possible 2 or 3 feet of sea rise globally by 2100 — is a big deal, especially when nor'easters and hurricanes hit, experts said.

"It's not just waterfront homes and wetlands that are at stake here," said Donald Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, who wasn't part of the study. "Those kind of rises in sea level when placed on top of the storm surges we see today, put in jeopardy lots of infrastructure, including the New York subway system."

For years, scientists have talked about rising sea levels due to global warming — both from warm water expanding and the melt of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica. Predictions for the average worldwide sea rise keep changing along with the rate of ice melt. Recently, more scientists are saying the situation has worsened so that a 3-foot rise in sea level by 2100 is becoming a common theme.

But the oceans won't rise at the same rate everywhere, said study author Jianjun Yin of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University. It will be "greater and faster" for the Northeast, with Boston one of the worst hit among major cities, he said. So, if it's 3 feet, add another 8 inches for that region.

Sorry, tom... better move inland.

Cool!! That should make my home ocean front then!

You see the real deal is that global recession has sort of put the concern and priority of "global climate change " on the back burner ;which in turn is alarming the alarmists .

So they needed more scare mongering lest their coffers diminish.They see the way that public $$$ has shifted to the bankers and they long for a slice of the pie.

Tweek the computer models slightly an voilà..! NYC gets swamped like in the Day After Tomorrow.

For an alt explanation see
Basic Geology Part 3 - Sea Level Rises During Interglacial Periods « Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/06/basic-geology-part-3-sea-level-rises-during-interglacial-periods/)

Hello Dudes:

Wow, it snowed yesterday. That Gore don't know crap.

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Good point tom, nothing like an ocean sunrise from your deck.

Yes, they seem to be ramping up the fear mongering (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5870702.ece) lately.

Yeah it snowed here in Texas twice last week. I looked for The Goracle but he was busy ducking debates (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/al_gore_ducks_warming_debate_u.html) again.

EU bans use of 'Miss' and 'Mrs' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1162384/EU-bans-use-Miss-Mrs-sportsmen-statesmen-claims-sexist.html?ITO=1490)

What does this have to do with climate change? Referring to "man-made" climate change is not gender neutral. It shall therefore be called by its more appropriate name, "artificial climate change."

Bwa ha ha!

I don't know Steve. You confuse me. Generally you post articles debunking climate change, now you post articles about the dangers of climate change simply simply so you can throw in a crack at Obama.
Im with Excon, you guys look so foolish when you post an article about a bit of snow fall in the US at an unusual time of year as proof that climate change doesn't exist.
Im not convinced either, but I know it's a little more complex than cool fronts and weather patterns in the US. I know a lot of you forget there is a whole other world out there but you guys are usually a little smarter than that.
Down under here we have had the worst bush fires in our history flamed by years of drought and extreme heat. 100's lost their lives and 1000's homeless. But me posting articles on that doesn't prove climate change exists anymore than you posting articles on a blizzards in Texas proves it's a load of BS.

Ah Skell, I don't generally post articles on a single event as "proof" of global warming, I post them for the irony - like when a major snowstorm hits on the day of a climate change rally or every time Gore shows up. Hence my comment on Gore not being around even though it snowed here last week. It was JOKE, as in It snowed in Texas last week so Al Gore must have been in town.

Sadly though, Obama wasn't joking when he claimed his selection "was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow." Any politician that makes a statement with such unbelievable hubris is going to receive a good amount of contempt in return.

Look, I know climate change happens, I've acknowledged it many times. You have my sympathies for the drought and fires you've experienced, I don't live in just my own little world with no regard for others. I'm also not going to roll over for a political agenda while there is so much evidence to the contrary being ignored.

Scientists say the West Antarctic ice sheet is likely to melt... in one to two thousand years (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102066621&ft=1&f=1001). Maybe. They don't know for sure because "there are still so many unknowns about how Antarctic ice behaves." Nevertheless, we need to set a "sea level limit" at about three feet of sea level rise" just to be cautious.

Nevertheless, we need to set a "sea level limit" at about three feet of sea level rise" just to be cautious.Hello again, Steve:

I agree. And if the ocean breaks the law, it should be waterboarded.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I agree. And if the ocean breaks the law, it should be waterboarded.

LOL, very good, ex.

Has "global warming" given way to "climate change."

I notice how they use them interchangeably.

Now the envirotyrants can claim that when when it is TOO HOT or TOO COLD it is mankind's fault, and they have solutions that entails either income redistribution through taxes or limiting liberty and choice.

Question is has climate NEVER CHANGED?
I bet you it was changing long before mankind was ever around - the dinosaurs would know :);)



G&P

Hello again,

At the risk of being a bore, I must point out that even if the Goricle is wrong, it's still not good to throw our trash into our atmosphere.

So, as long as the solution is correct, I couldn't care less if the reason for doing the correct thing might have been wrong.

That is, of course, unless you don't think we're running out of oil.

excon

Ex, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I think we all agree that trashing the air is a bad thing. But your reasoning? Sounds like something some conservative would say about the Iraq war... but, I digress.

Todays' global warming update comes courtesy of the State of California, home of Hollywood, TV, movies, all the reasons we're enticed to by that 40" plasma TV.

State considers ban on big screen TVs (http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/03/23/state-considers-ban-on-big-screen-tvs/12993/)


In their continuing quest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, state regulators have uncovered a new villain in the war on global warming : your big screen TV

Couch potatoes, beware.

The California Energy Commission is considering a proposal that would ban California retailers from selling all but the most energy-efficient televisions. Critics say the news standards could take 25 percent of televisions off the market — most of them 40 inches or larger.

“The larger the television, the more at risk it is of being banned unnecessarily in California,” said Douglas Johnson, senior director of technology police for the Consumer Electronics Association.

Association officials say the standards are not only unnecessary – because the federal government already regulates energy efficiency through the voluntary Energy Star program — but also ill-timed. The last thing our economy needs now is products taken off the market, they say.

Furthermore, they say that with a weak economy, consumers are going out less and watching TV more.

“This is really about regulating entertainment, not energy use,” Johnson said.

Poppycock, says the commission.

Affordable big screen TVs will still be available under the new standards, spokesman Adam Gottlieb said. In fact, he said the regulations will save you money.

The commission calculates that if you buy televisions meeting the proposed standards it’ll cut your annual energy use by — drum roll, please — $18 to $30.

Is it about global warming? Ha! One of the supporters of the legislation (http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/tv_faqs.html) is the LCD Manufacturers Association along with Wal*Mart, Sears, Costco, Sam's Club, and Frys, who I'm sure sell a lot of LCD TVs.

Once again California is leading the way to a cooler planet. Up next for consideration, banning certain colors of cars.

California to reduce carbon emissions by... banning black cars?! (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/25/california-to-reduce-carbon-emissions-by-banning-black-cars/)


In a move that will likely get California's consumers in a huff, impending legislation may soon restrict the paint color options for Golden State residents looking for their next new vehicle. The specific colors that are currently on the chopping block are all dark hues, with the worst offender seemingly the most innocuous color you could think of: Black. What could California possibly have against these colors, you ask? Apparently, the California Air Resources Board figures that the climate control systems of dark colored cars need to work harder than their lighter siblings – especially after sitting in the sun for a few hours. Anyone living in a hot, sunny climate will tell you that this assumption is accurate, of course. In fact, legislation already exists for buildings that has proven successful at reducing the energy consumption of skyscrapers.

So, what's the crux of the problem... can't paint suppliers just come up with new, less heat-absorbent dark paints? According to Ward's, suppliers have reportedly been testing their pigments and processes to see if it's possible to meet CARB's proposed mandate of 20% solar reflectivity by 2016 with a phase-in period starting in 2012, and things aren't looking good. Apparently, when the proper pigments and chemicals are added to black paint, the resulting color is currently being referred to as "mud-puddle brown." That doesn't sound very attractive, now does it? Windshields, backlights and sunroofs are also slated to get reflective coatings starting in 2012.

When we first heard of this issue, an internal debate immediately began as to whether this might be an elaborate early April Fool's joke, but it isn't.

Who'll be first for their "mud-puddle brown" Prius?

It's a given that emissions of pollutants are bad. It is NOT a given that C02 is a pollutant (despite the nonsensical ruling by SCOTUS)

And Obama's EPA sent issued a report to the White House claiming CO2 is a pollutant that endangers public health (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123782773702215781.html) under the Clean Air Act. That's absurd and dishonest.

Speaking of the EPA, Obama's pick for no. 2 there stepped aside (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/25/AR2009032503707.html) the day before his Senate hearing, over "scrutiny of his former affiliation with a now-defunct nonprofit that in 2007 was found by the EPA inspector general's office to have mismanaged more than $25 million in grants from the agency. "

Vote Earth! This Saturday you can join people all over the world in saving the planet by turning off your lights for an hour at 8:30 PM wherever you are...


2,848 cities, towns and municipalities in 84 countries have already committed to VOTE EARTH for Earth Hour 2009, as part of the worlds first global election between Earth and global warming (http://www.earthhour.org/home/).


On March 28 you can VOTE EARTH by switching off your lights for one hour.
Or you can vote global warming (http://www.voteearth2009.org/home/) by leaving your lights on.

The results of the election are being presented at the Global Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen 2009. We want one billion votes for Earth, to tell world leaders that we have to take action against global warming.

I vote for all the greens that “vote earth” to go live in a hut in Bangladesh…or maybe near Obama’s brother. That should leave plenty of light for the rest of us.

Disclaimer: This is not proof that global warming is a hoax... I'm just saying:

The Texas Panhandle is expecting a low of 24 tonight and 6-17 inches of snow between now and Saturday. Guess I'll have to crank the heat back up for Earth Hour (and while Obama will still let me).

Yeah, just when the "greens" think they have all the answers, nature moons them!

PS: I'm going to pass on that thing about turning my lights off at 8:30. They go off enough for me already. Night before last they were off from about 9:30 to about 1:00 AM.

If government doesn't get out of the way and allow more generating plants to be built, rolling black outs will get those lights off and help save the planet.

The Civil Heretic (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine)


FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson has quietly resided in Prince­ton, N.J. on the wooded former farmland that is home to his employer, the Institute for Advanced Study, this country’s most rarefied community of scholars. Lately, however, since coming “out of the closet as far as global warming is concerned,” as Dyson sometimes puts it, there has been noise all around him. Chat rooms, Web threads, editors’ letter boxes and Dyson’s own e-mail queue resonate with a thermal current of invective in which Dyson has discovered himself variously described as “a pompous twit,” “a blowhard,” “a cesspool of misinformation,” “an old coot riding into the sunset” and, perhaps inevitably, “a mad scientist.” Dyson had proposed that whatever inflammations the climate was experiencing might be a good thing because carbon dioxide helps plants of all kinds grow. Then he added the caveat that if CO2 levels soared too high, they could be soothed by the mass cultivation of specially bred “carbon-eating trees,” whereupon the University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner looked through the thick grove of honorary degrees Dyson has been awarded — there are 21 from universities like Georgetown, Princeton and Oxford — and suggested that “perhaps trees can also be designed so that they can give directions to lost hikers.” Dyson’s son, George, a technology historian, says his father’s views have cooled friendships, while many others have concluded that time has cost Dyson something else. There is the suspicion that, at age 85, a great scientist of the 20th century is no longer just far out, he is far gone — out of his beautiful mind.

But in the considered opinion of the neurologist Oliver Sacks, Dyson’s friend and fellow English expatriate, this is far from the case. “His mind is still so open and flexible,” Sacks says. Which makes Dyson something far more formidable than just the latest peevish right-wing climate-change denier. Dyson is a scientist whose intelligence is revered by other scientists — William Press, former deputy director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and now a professor of computer science at the University of Texas, calls him “infinitely smart.” Dyson — a mathematics prodigy who came to this country at 23 and right away contributed seminal work to physics by unifying quantum and electrodynamic theory — not only did path-breaking science of his own; he also witnessed the development of modern physics, thinking alongside most of the luminous figures of the age, including Einstein, Richard Feynman, Niels Bohr, Enrico Fermi, Hans Bethe, Edward Teller, J. Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Witten, the “high priest of string theory” whose office at the institute is just across the hall from Dyson’s. Yet instead of hewing to that fundamental field, Dyson chose to pursue broader and more unusual pursuits than most physicists — and has lived a more original life.

Among Dyson’s gifts is interpretive clarity, a penetrating ability to grasp the method and significance of what many kinds of scientists do. His thoughts about how science works appear in a series of lucid, elegant books for nonspecialists that have made him a trusted arbiter of ideas ranging far beyond physics. Dyson has written more than a dozen books, including “Origins of Life” (1999), which synthesizes recent discoveries by biologists and geologists into an evaluation of the double-origin hypothesis, the possibility that life began twice; “Disturbing the Universe” (1979) tries among other things to reconcile science and humanity. “Weapons and Hope” (1984) is his meditation on the meaning and danger of nuclear weapons that won a National Book Critics Circle Award. Dyson’s books display such masterly control of complex matters that smart young people read him and want to be scientists; older citizens finish his books and feel smart.

Except the dedicated global warming consensus, they can't even take the ideas of such a reputable scholar seriously - they'll attack anyone that doesn't walk in lockstep. But in this case, they can't ignore this guy either. :D

More evidence that global warming is "human-caused."

NASA: Clean-air regs, not CO2, are melting the ice cap (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/arctic_aerosols_goddard_institute/)


New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.

Dr Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s - particularly in the Arctic - may have resulted from changes in levels of solid "aerosol" particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level - of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.

Shindell's research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:


Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.

Meanwhile, levels of black-carbon aerosols (soot, in other words) have been rising, largely driven by greater industrialisation in Asia. Soot, rather than reflecting heat as sulphates do, traps solar energy in the atmosphere and warms things up.

The Arctic is especially subject to aerosol effects, says Shindell, because the planet's main industrialised areas are all in the northern hemisphere and because there's not much precipitation to wash the air clean.

"Right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases," says Shindell.

Or did it? They can't seem to make up their minds.


Other scientists have recently suggested that it's not just the Arctic which is subject to aerosol effects. Boffins from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have said that aerosol levels from dust storms and volcanoes alone would account for as much as 70 per cent of the temperature rise seen in the Atlantic ocean during the past 26 years, leaving carbon simply nowhere...

There might not even be any need for action on the part of the West, with China building sulphur-belching coal power stations and diesel vehicles at a furious rate in recent times. Dr Shindell doesn't say so, but it's at least possible that this has something to do with the fact that global temperatures have actually dipped slightly over the last couple of years.

This is all too confusing, we caused global warming by driving our SUV's, belching out CO2 that trees and plants thrive on and by cleaning the air. Or was it dust and such from dust storms and volcanoes? And the temperature is dropping?

Nevertheless, "shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays" is a possible solution to it all says Obama's new science adviser (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/arctic_aerosols_goddard_institute/page2.html).


"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."

What could possibly go wrong there?

What could possibly go wrong there?Hello again, Steve:

You're right. Those Obama scientists don't know squat... So, until they get their act together, we can keep throwing our trash into the air. That can't hurt anything, right??

excon

we can keep throwing our trash into the air

Sounds like Obama's solution is that very thing .

BTW ;that is a false choice because it is unrelated . You can take steps to reduce harmful emissions without the chicken-little lies about the effects of human produced carbon dioxide.

sounds like Obama's solution is that very thing .

Right, "shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere."


BTW ;that is a false choice because it is unrelated . You can take steps to reduce harmful emissions without the chicken-little lies about the effects of human produced carbon dioxide.

Right again.

Wonder what the carbon foot print is for the President to fly a pizza chef 850 miles to serve deep dish pizza to 140 guests at the White House yesterday?

Wonder how much that cost the US taxpayers ?

The Associated Press: Obama orders pizza from St. Louis, Chicago miffed (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gqW0jeBmxn9ncFJTUwcQ_6duivTAD97FQ5I80)


What does Obama have in common with Kim Jong mentally Il ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/16/north-korea-pizza

More from those scientists who "don't know squat":

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html)


ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland.

Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise.

Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. "I don't think there's any doubt it is contributing to what we've seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica," he said.

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.

And yet Obama's EPA has joined the consensus to declare the hazards of greenhouse gases including CO2 so he can push his agenda forward. And don't call me silly, it's much sillier to follow this chicken little environmental nonsense in the face of the volumes of contradictory evidence. Clean air is great, recycling is wonderful, don't throw your trash into the air or in my yard... but do it for the right reasons. I didn't drink the Koolaid.

"this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal" -Barack Obama in his nomination victory speech

Studies Predict Rapid Rise in Sea Levels Along U.S. East Coast (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/05/AR2009060501342.html)

By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 5, 2009; 11:12 AM


Sea levels could rise faster along the U.S. East Coast than in any other densely populated part of the world, new research shows, as changes in ice caps and ocean currents push water toward a shoreline inlaid with cities, resort boardwalks and gem-rare habitats.

Three studies this year, including one out last week, have made newly worrisome forecasts about life along the Atlantic over the next century. While the rest of the world might see seven to 23 inches of sea-level rise by 2100, the studies show this region might get that and more -- 17 to 25 inches more -- for a total increase that would submerge a beach chair.

Might.

Scientists say the information comes from computer models, which could be wrong. And the mid-Atlantic region's ample high ground means it will probably never be as vulnerable as Louisiana and Florida.

But some are already sketching a new vision for the East Coast, as a region under siege by the ocean. In the coming decades, they say, it will probably be necessary to spend heavily to defend some waterside places -- and to make hard choices about where to let the sea win.

"There will probably be some very difficult decisions that have to be made," said Rob Thieler, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey. "Are there places where we should simply retreat because the cost of holding the line is unacceptably high?"

Today, the governors of coastal states from New York to Virginia are scheduled to release an agreement on Atlantic Ocean issues, including the need to prepare for sea-level rise. The governors will pledge to identify places and facilities most vulnerable to high water, including port areas, parts of the power grid and other infrastructure.

Oops, I guess it will have to be another moment. I have to give kudos to this reporter for emphasizing the "might" because computer models "could be wrong." But it could just be that since we have a believer in the White House now and more scientists are voicing their disagreement with the consensus, now might be a good time to change the tone and get away with it? Nah, not until we fully bow at the altar of environmentalism.

I want to drown Gore and everybody that is so brainwashed to believe him in the Artic!!

I had the furnace on June 5th!!

If NYC got swamped it wouldn't be the worse thing in the world. Besides that ;I live far enough inland that I might end up with beach front property.:D

If NYC got swamped it wouldn't be the worse thing in the world. Besides that ;I live far enough inland that I might end up with beach front property.:D

I like the optimism, tom. :D

We don't have to worry about global warming. Sometime before that destroys our planet, an asteroid will make contact with earth and will end human life.

Hello:

I woke up this morning, and the war was over. I can tell because I didn't see it in my neighborhood.

excon

Hello:

I woke up this morning, and the war was over. I can tell because I didn't see it in my neighborhood.

At least you based it on observation and not computer models.

If that were the standard then I think our point is proven .

According to Long Range Expert Joe Bastardi, areas from the northern Plains into the Northeast will have a "year without a summer."
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=netweather&traveler=0&zipChg=1&article=9

Speech / Tom

As I've said before I'm not completely convinced either. But, for all the silly reports you link about cold weather here and there or another group of scientists who are pessimists about climate change there are reports about hot weather (see my previous link about the most severe bush fires our country has ever experienced) and another group of scientists who claim global warming is very real and man made.

I read a report yesterday (ill try and find the link) that more than 100 of the worlds leading climate studies institutions are convinced that the current rate of global warming is more than a natural trend. There is ample data to make claim that is in fact very much man made.

What is your big problem with the world trying to clean up its act? Sure you don't like Gore. We already knew that. And we know you won't like whatever policy Obama puts in place. We know that too. Or is it simply the scientists you have a thing against. Does it threaten you?

But the constant denying that something needs to be done is just plain ridiculous and is actually getting boring.

The world is over Gore and in fact none of us even really care about what he has to say. You guys might still be transfixed on him in the states but the rest of the world has moved on to listening to responsible and reputable science institutes of which there are many saying that we need to do something.

What is your big problem with the world trying to clean up its act? Sure you don't like Gore. We already knew that. And we know you won't like whatever policy Obama puts in place. We know that too. Or is it simply the scientists you have a thing against. Does it threaten you?

Asked and answered many times. I'm all for clean air, clean water, taking care of this place. I'm against a forced agenda that's going to drastically alter our lives based on very questionable 'science.' It's an agenda that has outright rejected debate, labeled and demonized dissenters and even gone so far as to brand some of us criminals for daring to question the consensus. That's ridiculous Skell, and we're the ones being told to have an open mind about it.


But the constant denying that something needs to be done is just plain ridiculous and is actually getting boring.

That's the problem Skell, everyone talks about the 'denial' but won't discuss the reasons for it.


The world is over Gore

He's the poster child.

How will your life be drastically altered? Sincere question? You may shed some light for me.

And Gore is your poster child Bit like your mate Rush is the Dem's poster child for the Pub's.

As I said there are countless other very reputable scientists and institutions who refute your claims.

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_12548887


... former Vice President Al Gore — co-founder of San Francisco-based Current TV, for which the journalists work — could be sent to North Korea to negotiate for their release.




Maybe Al Gore should offer to be the hostage in exchange for the freedom of the 2 journalists that work for him?





G&P

Again, if the best you guys have got is to attack Al Gore and link to articles about cold weather then you really have no argument at all.

Again, if the best you guys have got is to attack Al Gore and link to articles about cold weather then you really have no argument at all.

Skell, I've long thought The Goracle was irrelevant but I'm not the one who has held him up as some sort of environmental god... I think he should have stuck to his internet creation.

Nearly every page here has posts from you guys referring to Gore. In fact you guys are about the only people I still hear talking about him. So the fact that continue to do so long after his day in the sun means you are doing anything but thinking he is irrelevant.

I've never even seen his documentary. I'd heard of climate change long before he came along. I actually think he is irrelevant, along with your snowing in Texas stories. It's the countless other scientists who are saying we need to have a look at what we are doing that I do find relevant and think you should maybe pause to listen to just a bit longer than you do to Gore.

Yeah I think the climate HAS BEEN CHANGING, even before humans came to dominate the earth.

And we are talking about Gore - it is in th title of the OP.






G&P

What is your big problem with the world trying to clean up its act?


As Steve said we have never objected that.Nobody I know of objects to sensible changes that are not draconian life-altering changes imposed based on a very questionable premise.

Our government is now desperately trying to insitutute cap and trade. Their concern is not the climate change. They need the revenue to pay for the funding gaps in their proposed health care ideas. They make no secret about that . But they can't sell it to America that way . That is where those so called worlds leading climate studies institutions run cover for their policies.

Well the number of reputable scientists who dispute their claims is growing as the hysteria is replaced with genuine study.


The undeniable fact is that the globe has been warming since the glaciers of the last ice age. I live on or near the edge of the glacier advance and I can tell you that where I live was fertile farm land long before the introduction of the internal combustion engine.

Yep, another climate change update...

Not So Windy: Research suggests winds dying down (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hTDEhuJEga5TgzmbnWtYF1Y5Gm7gD98NNON81)


WASHINGTON (AP) — The wind, a favorite power source of the green energy movement, seems to be dying down across the United States. And the cause, ironically, may be global warming — the very problem wind power seeks to address.

The idea that winds may be slowing is still a speculative one, and scientists disagree whether that is happening. But a first-of-its-kind study suggests that average and peak wind speeds have been noticeably slowing since 1973, especially in the Midwest and the East.

"It's a very large effect," said study co-author Eugene Takle, a professor of atmospheric science at Iowa State University. In some places in the Midwest, the trend shows a 10 percent drop or more over a decade. That adds up when the average wind speed in the region is about 10 to 12 miles per hour.

There's been a jump in the number of low or no wind days in the Midwest, said the study's lead author, Sara Pryor, an atmospheric scientist at Indiana University.

Wind measurements plotted out on U.S. maps by Pryor show wind speeds falling mostly along and east of the Mississippi River. Some areas that are banking on wind power, such as west Texas and parts of the Northern Plains, do not show winds slowing nearly as much. Yet, states such as Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Kansas, Virginia, Louisiana, Georgia, northern Maine and western Montana show some of the biggest drop in wind speeds.

Just thought I'd highlight that part about "speculative" and disagreement. I don't know about you guys, but I'd consider the wind slowing down in these parts a blessing. Here in the High Plains our trees tend to lean to the north permanently due to the prevailing winds.

As Steve said we have never objected that. Nobody I know of objects to sensible changes that are not draconian life-altering changes imposed based on a very questionable premise. Hello again, tom (you too, Steve):

You're trying to have it both ways.

We've had this discussion before - about throwing our trash into the air. You SEEM to say that you don't mind cleaning up that kind of stuff, as long as it's "sensible"...

But, this is where I'm confused. Either throwing trash into the air is just fine, or it isn't. If it ISN'T fine, and you're willing to cut back, then it kind of looks like you indeed, accept the premise... Yet, you BOTH continually use the term "questionable" when you speak of it.

Plus, if you didn't accept the premise, why on earth would you accept ANY change at all, sensible or not? If you righty's came up with dingbat stuff, I'd call you on it. I'd tell you there AIN'T no dingbat stuff, and there's NO "sensible" response to dingbat stuff. But, that's just what I'd do.

So, which way is it?

excon

Simple there are unrelated issues besides the climate that we are thinking of... like human health .

That is why I at least do not object to taking measures to reduce the amt of "trash " as you call it into the air.

However ,I never have ,and never will call CO2 "trash" . Nor do I think that the emission of CO2 is a health concern. Contrary ,I think C02 is an essential component of the atmosphere.Plants and things grow because of it.

When the planet was warm and green there was plenty of it . Then there was climate change and there was less C02 and glaciers grew all the way to where I live in NY . When the glaciers grew the amt of life shrunk and it was misery and a tough existence for the remaining life.

Who's to say that the warming is not the natural state of the planet ? Certainly not these so called scientists who are basing their findings on information that is in such a short time frame of planetary history that their conclusions cannot be based on anything except preconceived ideas .

Why is climate change a concern when change is the constant ? And on what basis besides an agenda is there a conclusion that our emissions are the cause ? None .

So ,yes... put scrubbers on smoke stacks .Convert to clean burning efficient breeder reactor nuclear energy .(you never hear them advocating this sensible solution) . There are good reasons that convince me that makes sense,and there are things that can be done that are not economy destroyers . But don't try to sucker me with chicken little mumbo jumbo disguised as scientific fact to force feed a enviro-marxist agenda down my throat .

But, this is where I'm confused. Either throwing trash into the air is just fine, or it isn't. If it ISN'T fine, and you're willing to cut back, then it kind of looks like you indeed, accept the premise... Yet, you BOTH continually use the term "questionable" when you speak of it.

I use "questionable" when referring to the 'science' behind the agenda which has most often been used by the media, environmentalists and left-leaning politicians as propaganda. There's no question that clean air is a good thing - regardless of the validity of climate change.


Plus, if you didn't accept the premise, why on earth would you accept ANY change at all, sensible or not?

Answered numerous times already. Who doesn't like clean air, clean water and appreciate not having to pick up the refuse of others from their yard. Who wants to go camping, fishing or hiking and see piles of trash left behind? On the other hand, who wants the feds controlling your thermostat or being forced to drive an unsafe tin-box of a car with holes for a floorboard for our Flintstone feet to get 'er going? Why are we going to muck up the landscape with thousands of wind generators (except near Hyannisport) but not build any nuclear power stations with proven technology?

I'm in the fire suppression business, why hasn't CO2 been banned if it's such a dangerous gas? Why don't we have rules for recycling the gas in extinguishers and beverage cylinders like we do for halogenated agents, some of which have been banned?

When those on the side of climate change decide to have an honest discussion with an open mind I'll listen, but I'm not too keen on having this crap forced down my throat. I thought you were a bit of a rebel, too.

Yesterday at a forum, The Goracle compared the battle against climate to change to the battle against Nazis.


Al Gore invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6658672.ece) yesterday when he urged political leaders to follow the example of Britain’s wartime leader in the battle against climate change.

The former US Vice-President accused governments around the world of exploiting ignorance about the dangers of global warming to avoid taking difficult decisions.

Speaking in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by The Times, Mr Gore said: “Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilisation in World War Two. We have everything we need except political will, but political will is a renewable resource.”

Mr Gore admitted that it was difficult to persuade the public that the threat from climate change was as urgent as that from Hitler.

Also, the Times has scrubbed the article of its reference to Nazis... minus the browser header which still does at this time.

http://deceiver.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/agbrowserheader.png

Let's see, Hitler killed 6 million Jews, climate change has killed how many people? And some of you wonder why we rail against this nonsense?

Let's see, Hitler killed 6 million Jews, climate change has killed how many people? And some of you wonder why we rail against this nonsense?Hello Steve:

You DO understand, don't you, that the effects of global warming WILL kill a bunch of people. Could it be 6 million?? It could! The Goracle is the canary in the coal mine. I don't know if we had one of them BEFORE Hitler killed 6 million people, but maybe 6 million people would be alive if we did. And, if we DID have one, I'll bet there would be people like you who made fun of him.

excon

Hello Steve:

You DO understand, don't you, that the effects of global warming WILL kill a bunch of people. Could it be 6 million??? It could! The Goracle is the canary in the coal mine. I dunno if we had one of them BEFORE Hitler killed 6 million people, but maybe 6 million people would be alive if we did. And, if we DID have one, I'll bet there would be people like you who made fun of him.

And Saddam Hussein COULD have had WMD's. I remember all the chiding about arguments on the POTENTIAL threat from Hussein based on questionable intelligence, I think you participated in that chiding did you not? By that example it should be perfectly reasonable to chide the climate change doomsayers for the POTENTIAL threat from climate change based on questionable science in the face of evidence of an 8-year downward trend in global temperatures (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/cap-trade-again-368611-4.html#post1839170) and a growing number of reputable scientists that are challenging the consensus.

Bush was roundly condemned for fear mongering, ‘lying’ about Iraq, cooking the evidence and otherwise not having an honest discussion prior to beginning the offensive. Gore and the other climate doomsayers have earned this criticism for the same reasons. The double standards on this are ridiculous.

Gore is desperate because he is losing the narrative. The facts are becoming inconvenient truths .
That is why he is shifting his narrative to other things than the science to things almost metaphysical .

The thing even more bizarre from his Oxford speech was not the Nazi reference . It was his foray into human psychology . He said climate change, is "ultimately a problem of consciousness". ..... "What is being tested is the proposition of whether or not the combination of an opposable thumb and a neocortex is a viable construct on this planet".
He said that evolution has taught men to react to real physical threat but did a poor job teaching us to react to abstract threats like civilization killers. But he takes heart in the fact that once the human conscious is at one with the problem the collective will move rapidly to solve the problem..

Weird .

Weird .Hello tom:

Yeah, he's weird. Einstein was weird too. Freud?? Bonkers! Newton?? All screwed up!

Your point?

excon

LOL, he's starting to sound like Mrs. Kucinich.

This (http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog/general/178-phelim-mcaleer-a-ann-mcelhinney) is why I am skeptical of apocalyptic climate change claims...

NC7bE9jopXE


The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization's recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was "a mistake."

Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled "Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts," which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.

Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the "Hardtalk" program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.

"I don't think it will be melting by 2030. ... That may have been a mistake," he said.

Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.

The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing "misleading information" and using "exaggeration and alarmism."

Leipold's admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.

Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization's practice of "emotionalizing issues" in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.

Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.

"We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. ... The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model," Leipold said. "If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary."

The arctic ice will be completely melted by 2030... but that may have been a mistake. He doesn't really think it will be melted by then, he can't vouch for the claim and he thinks it's fine to scare the public. I appreciate his honesty...

Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.

"We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. ... The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model," Leipold said. "If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary."


This really gets to the crux of the issue and reveals the true goals of the environ-mental-cases.

Leipold seems to be stating quite clearly that his goal is THE SUPPRESSION OF ECONOMIC GROWTH.

It is possible to grow an economy without having a deliterious effect on the climate. Cleaner fuels would accomplish that. NUCLEAR POWER would accomplish that. Clean coal burning would do it. Natural gas would do it. We don't need to prevent economic growth to protect the climate. We can grow the economy safely.

But his goal isn't really to prevent climate change. It is to prevent ECONOMIC GROWTH. Climate change is just an excuse.

I think Leipold let a bit of his true agenda slip out accidentally.

Elliot

Actually El, I think it goes beyond that to "social justice."

"The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model... "

Actually El, I think it goes beyond that to "social justice."

"The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model..."

Good point. It's not as if POOR people don't use energy too, to heat homes, drive cars, etc. But he only seems concerned with the RICH people who use energy. I wonder why that is...

Leipold's basic assumptions SEEM to be:
Rich people are bad.
Industry is bad.
Economic growth is bad.
Poor people, though, should get a pass.

Elliot

Good point. It's not as if POOR people don't use energy too, to heat homes, drive cars, etc. But he only seems concerned with the RICH people who use energy. I wonder why that is...

Leipold's basic assumptions SEEM to be:
Rich people are bad.
Industry is bad.
Economic growth is bad.
Poor people, though, should get a pass.

Elliot


That also works for the health care debate.

That also works for the health care debate.

Actually, it is a general liberal attitude, and it is one of the basic thought processes that explain their agenda.


Some others are:

Violence never solved anything.
Everything has to be fair, which is to say that everyone has to be the same.
If there were no differences between people, there would be no wars.
If there were no distinctions between good and evil, there would be no wars.
Government are there to solve all your problems and are fundamentally good and benevolent.
All corporations are just out to get you and take advantage of you and must therefore be stopped by the government which is there to solve all your problems.

These concepts are the ones that determine liberal policy. The fact that HISTORY has proven each of these concepts to be fundamentaly wrong or flawed doesn't change the fact that they are the basic concepts of liberalism.

Elliot

Yep.

I love it, carbon traders were arrested in the UK (http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/carbon-traders-arrested-for-tax-fraud/) for not paying the taxes.


British officials said the people arrested could be part of an organized group that operated a network of companies trading large volumes of the permits. The officials did not name those arrested. The agency said the fraud was carried out by companies in the network that bought the carbon permits outside of Britain without paying Value Added Tax, a levy known as V.A.T.

The companies in the network are suspected of adding the V.A.T. to the price of the permits, which they sold in Britain. The companies then disappeared before paying the tax to British authorities.

Last month, Britain exempted carbon trading from the V.A.T. to curb the possibility of similar cases in the future. France and the Netherlands took similar steps earlier in the summer. Even so, the tax agency said it “still intends to pursue relentlessly those that may have used carbon credit trading to cheat the public purse.”

I also love the solution to the problem, scrap the tax and you won't have any violators. I can see it now, the mob is probably already positioning itself for the new cap and trade market.

I can see it now... greasy men in long black coats in the streets saying, "Pssst, got some carbon credits for ya... real cheap. Check it out... whadya mean 'where'd I get 'em?' They fell offa da truck."

Elliot

Heritage Foundation reports that the cap & trade bill requires us to reduce CO2 output by 83% from 2005 levels.

What are the plants going to take in to produce oxygen?

If the population of the world continues to grow (or even remains the same) we are going to need a LOT of plants.

These eco-idiots have a suicide complex, and they want to take US with them!