So much for the Global Warming "experts" who claim the Earth is getting warmer "because the sun is hot".

How would You know Buffalo Bob?? Did You give sun a rectal thermometer reading??

Larry

the Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century.

this would not be so if only we had taken the Gore-meister seriously . . .

a) CO2 is used in fire extinguishers
b) CO2 levels in our atmosphere are very high & ever growing

it's clear that CO2 is leaking out of our atmoshphere at the ozone holes and PUTTING OUT THE SUN

How would You know Buffalo Bob?? Did You give sun a rectal thermometer reading??

Larry

#2 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-04-21 07:24 AM | Reply | Flag

Pay attention Larry--here is how I know. I read. Try it. Then try thinking about what you've read.

"The Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century.

There are no sunspots, very few solar flares - and our nearest star is the quietest it has been for a very long time.

The observations are baffling astronomers, who are due to study new pictures of the Sun, taken from space, at the UK National Astronomy Meeting.

The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity. At its peak, it has a tumultuous boiling atmosphere that spits out flares and planet-sized chunks of super-hot gas. This is followed by a calmer period.

Last year, it was expected that it would have been hotting up after a quiet spell. But instead it hit a 50-year year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity.

According to Prof Louise Hara of University College London, it is unclear why this is happening or when the Sun is likely to become more active again.

"There's no sign of us coming out of it yet," she told BBC News.

"At the moment, there are scientific papers coming out suggesting that we'll be going into a normal period of activity soon.

"Others are suggesting we'll be going into another minimum period - this is a big scientific debate at the moment."

In the mid-17th Century, a quiet spell - known as the Maunder Minimum - lasted 70 years, and led to a "mini ice-age".

This has resulted in some people suggesting that a similar cooling might offset the impact of climate change.

According to Prof Mike Lockwood of Southampton University, this view is too simplistic.

"I wish the Sun was coming to our aid but, unfortunately, the data shows that is not the case," he said.

Prof Lockwood was one of the first researchers to show that the Sun's activity has been gradually decreasing since 1985, yet overall global temperatures have continued to rise.

"If you look carefully at the observations, it's pretty clear that the underlying level of the Sun peaked at about 1985 and what we are seeing is a continuation of a downward trend (in solar activity) that's been going on for a couple of decades.

"If the Sun's dimming were to have a cooling effect, we'd have seen it by now."

'Middle ground'

Evidence from tree trunks and ice cores suggest that the Sun is calming down after an unusually high point in its activity.

continued--

Professor Lockwood believes that as well as the Sun's 11-year cycle, there is an underlying solar oscillation lasting hundreds of years.

He suggests that 1985 marked the "grand maximum" in this long-term cycle and the Maunder Minimum marked its low point.

"We are re-entering the middle ground after a period which has seen the Sun in its top 10% of activity," said Professor Lockwood.

"We would expect it to be more than a hundred years before we get down to the levels of the Maunder Minimum."

He added that the current slight dimming of the Sun is not going to reverse the rise in global temperatures caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"What we are seeing is consistent with a global temperature rise, not that the Sun is coming to our aid."

Data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows global average temperatures have risen by about 0.7C since the beginning of the 20th Century.

And the IPCC projects that the world will continue to warm, with temperatures expected to rise between 1.8C and 4C by the end of the century.

No-one knows how the centuries-long waxing and waning of the Sun works. However, astronomers now have space telescopes studying the Sun in detail.

According to Prof Richard Harrison of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Oxfordshire, this current quiet period gives astronomers a unique opportunity.

"This is very exciting because as astronomers we've never seen anything like this before in our lifetimes," he said.

"We have spacecraft up there to study the Sun in phenomenal detail. With these telescopes we can study this minimum of activity in a way that we could not have done so in the past.""

That's how I know Larry.

Take that Larry!

You just got jap-slapped with a double cut-n-paste!

That'll learn ya! Don't ever challenge Boob's religion!

Somewhere in the world, Al Gore, is rocking back & forth in a corner sucking his thumb. Tipper is trying to coax him out with a green salad & by dangling his Nobel Prize medal so the light catches it...

Of course given that he's married to that wildebeast, he probably spends A LOT of time hiding...

What a tool...

"overall global temperatures have continued to rise. "

It's those smokestacks on the Moon that be the cause.

The solar wind is at an all time low as well.

Ham Radio operators all over the world are watching the sun for spots, HF propagation has been terrible.

Cycle 24 can't get here soon enough.

It really is amazing the stupidity of Global Warming Deniers.

Here is the translation for fucking morons: Even with the sun at its dimmest (should be making things cooler), the earth is still warming up. When the sun's cooling cycle ends and starts heating up again, this will ADD to the problem.

You may resume sticking your head up your ass now.

Here is the translation for fucking morons: Even with the sun at its dimmest (should be making things cooler), the earth is still warming up.

As is Mars as evidenced by ice cap recession not seasonally explained.

Puzzling, isn't it?

You may resume sticking your head up your ass now.

Or get another cup of Gore-aid

Hurry everyone!! Stop breathing... it's the only way to save the planet!

As is Mars as evidenced by ice cap recession not seasonally explained.

Interesting that you, with your knowledge would throw that out there. You sound like Abdussamatov - the leading proponent of solar irradiance being the cause for Mars and Earth's warming. Of course it's convenient to ignore the most likely cause, Milankovitch cycles. Of course this article lends credence to the latter and further disproves the former.

What's funny about Abdussamatov is he discounts CO2 as a greenhouse gas on one hand, then says (PP) "ah, it's impact from Earth is minimal." Of course without it, we wouldn't be here, but what the heck. He's an interesting individual, to say the least.

Still, for some reason, all the denier mags and rags picked up his cut on the whole thing and went wild with it. Then they used Solanki's work, misconstrued it so badly Solanki put a rebuttal on his website (Planck Institute). He wasn't alone - they did the same with Nigel Weiss:

How did they measure it 100 years ago? And how acurate was it? Hell, we have a hard time calculating ice flow.

It's not completely accurate to compare Mars' climate change and our climate change as we have to totally different atmospheric compositions, as the majority of the Mars atmosphere is CO2 and ours is N2 and O2 with less than 0.04% being CO2...

However, If you use Geologic and Paleoclimatology to look at global climate change there is a definite cycle that happens every 100,000 years or so. Since the human race is just a common occurance in the history of earth, one could deduce that humans are not the ONLY factor of the changing climate, but that does not dismiss us from the damage we are doing in addition to the geophysical... Even a small shift in the Earth's axis can mess up our climate.

But these are just my thoughts without getting all scientific.

You may resume sticking your head up your ass now.

#10 | Posted by axe

I suppose the question to be asked then: will it be warmer or cooler there?

Doesn't a heat trap continue to trap heat, even if it's less heat?

I saw in the news this morning that some governments are releasing reports that aliens and UFO's really do exist. Really?, I had no idea that the Earth was round, and that the Alamo is located in Phoenix, Arizona, on top of Supertitious Mountain. Honestly, we are filled with UFA's (Unidentified Flying Aliens). They truly believe that the Earth is going to blow up via global warming. Everytime there is a story against GW (not George), they panic, and attack it. The recent blizzard in Colorado, they blame on the methane gas produced by residents of Earth, including the wombats that was reported on recently in Tasmania. Now they are also blaming overweight people. Look out Rosie, stay out of the view, maybe I should say, out of sight. Well, at least the wombats help produce organic toilet paper, and this protects the Earth from global warming. I recommend to the UFA to hop on flights to Tasminia as soon as possible to stack up on that "special" paper. Help save the Earth. Eat no hard foods, and drink plenty of liquids, until you get there, so that you do not have to, "go," and be forced to use that nice and soft Char###, like the teddy bear.

I want to see Your rectal thrmoeter reading of the Sun Buffalo Bob. I don't trust this hocus pocus guessing bit.

Larry

"Even with the sun at its dimmest (should be making things cooler), the earth is still warming up."

Isn't the earth cooling down now? Can you climate freaks even get your story straight?

okay so now IM SO CONFUSED

I remember it wasnt that long ago that people were telling us that we had better get used to freezing because the earth was getting colder and then we HAVE To make al gore a BILLIONAIRE because he says that its getting warmer.

okay so now IM really confused.

okay so now IM SO CONFUSED, #21 | Posted by afkabl2

Yes, you certainly are, aren't you. Try removing your head from your *ss, and see if that helps.

Green houses no longer work, now that the sun is cooling.

So now there's no need to cleanup the environment.

What possible good can come from reducing CO2 emissions?

For those who have a hard time detecting sarcasm, see the above.

it's all those solar panels sucking up all of the sun's energy. All of you solar-sucking-deniers need to get your heads out of your asses. The debate is over.

use the tags [sarc] and [/sarc] if you need to

You do realize of course that humanity is a hairs-width in the life of this planet? Strictly by that standard alone we should get over our abilty to destroy the world with global warming.

Volcanoes, earthquakes, asteroids, ice ages, tsunamis (do you put an s on that for plural?) mass extinctions, cow farts, continental drifts. I mean really, we need to get over ourselves. We live on an active planet. Not to say we can't do damage, but come on.

The modern "environmentalist movement" is just another attack on businesses & a reason for more taxes.

The funny thing to me is that snooty libs made bottled water all the rage pursuing their Gap ad lifestyle & I wonder how much that is hurting the planet? Was your own damn bottle lazy.

Funnier still is all of the gala events that have celebrities & politicians flying all over the world spewing out jet fuel & limo emmissions so they can so they can drop $2500 bucks a plate to dine on some murdered defenseless animal! Don't worry though, there'll be a "save the animals" gala to fly off to soon enough.

Was your own damn bottle lazy =wash

The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity.

***

And we know this because we humans have been recording the sun's cycles for about 100-500 years?

The sun has been around how many years? Let's say 1 billion more then the earth, so that makes the sun about 7 billion years old.

And we have the nerve to decide that after 500 out of 7 billion years of obervation (0.0000071429%) we know how the fucking sun is suppose to behave?

Amazing...how you global warming fucks have nothing better to do. Get a religion or another hobby and stop wasting our time.

And we have the nerve to decide that after 500 out of 7 billion years of obervation (0.0000071429%) we know how the fucking sun is suppose to behave?

Come on Beach, we type here for at most 5 hours a day, never talk directly, yet believe we know all the most intimate details about who each of each other really are and what they do with their lives.

"we type here for at most 5 hours a day...

Posted by kanrei at 2009-04-21 12:40 PM"

Oh my god. I gotta get outta here.

"The funny thing to me is that snooty libs made bottled water all the rage pursuing their Gap ad lifestyle & I wonder how much that is hurting the planet?"

Real liberals have been complaining about the use of bottled water for years. Bottled water is a curse because of the bottles but also because it provides an excuse to lower standards and thereby costs on municipal water supplies.

Yes, you certainly are, aren't you. Try removing your head from your *ss, and see if that helps.

#22 | Posted by Newyawker at 2009-04-21 12:00

ah good one

the old head in the ass joke

shit fuckhead...thats older than I am

try something better than this if you want to play in the DR major league

#31 | Posted by danni

Wasn't there something too about letting it get all hot in your car or whatever & some kind of chemical breakdown that was supposed to make the water unhealty to consume? There seems to be no redeeming qualities at all.

When I was in recycling, we would export the recovered plastic PET bottles to China & the little liner in the caps was an EVOH contaminant. It brought less money as it is harder to process & therefore less desireable. If they have to make the damn things, is that little liner really necessary? They say it makes for a better seal & a fresher taste but given we can put a man on the moon, you think they'd be able to come up with something.

But let the "it's all politics" scream come from the deniers* again - all the while denying that they're the ones that made it political.

The deniers aren't the ones calling for enforcement of BS EPA laws that will raise our energy prices by about 30%. The deniers aren't the ones calling for 'Cap and Trade' to be inserted into the next budget at a cost of upwards of a trillion dollars. The deniers aren't the ones saying that enviro-legislation must be rammed through quickly, before skepticism continues to grow. The deniers aren't the ones clamoring for Kyoto, which is major ass-ream of a protocol to the US.

The very computer models that the alarmists foist as infallible ALSO show that these measures would have almost no impact on slowing the warming whatsover.

It is the alarmists who are making this political - they are legisltating to take an unfathomable amount of money from ALL of us, with no positive return whatsoever - money flushed down the toilet.

You have the audacity to say it's the DENIERs who are making this political? Please.

You have the audacity to say it's the DENIERs who are making this political? Please.

A completely political and ideological rant and closing with that line?

SWEET!

"When I was in recycling....

#33 | Posted by HATEBIGGOV at 2009-04-21 01:00 PM"

So much for the Global Warming "experts" who claim the Earth is getting warmer "because the sun is hot".

#1 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

What a moron.

No serious person ever said that as a reason for warming.

#36 | Posted by mOntecOre

Woah a personal attack. What a surprise.

I was in recovered fibers for 6 years & was very successful. I still work in waste management & therefore have probably done more for this planet & my community than you ever have or ever will.

Just because I don't buy into hysterical, lefty, hyperbole where the environment is concerned doesn't mean I don't care.

What I do is let companies know why it's beneficial for them to recycle from a profit/loss standpoint. Even if they aren't generating enough recovered fibers to warrant a financial return on your investment of equipment, labor, & time from sales, there is still a savings in landfill diversions, transportation, & disposal fees. You can then offer what you make from recovered fibers at a better rate because they're cheaper. Plus, least we forget, the PC factor of being "green". I suppose we DO have you to thank for that. Who knew you were actually helping business w/ your political correctness: the laws of unintended consequences. LOL!

Good old private sector, non-compulsory, business sense with a practical, workable approach to environmentally sound operations. I know. Grab your pillow if you're not biting it. It scares the hell out of you.

It really is amazing the stupidity of Global Warming Deniers.

Here is the translation for fucking morons: Even with the sun at its dimmest (should be making things cooler), the earth is still warming up. When the sun's cooling cycle ends and starts heating up again, this will ADD to the problem.

You may resume sticking your head up your ass now.

#10 | Posted by axe
------------
Axe, I disagree with you and the whole concept. Tell us again about the melting ice in Western Antarctica while denying the Eastern Antarctica's ice buildup. Global Warming is like a Magician doing magic tricks. The Magician is just like the global warming scientists. In order to pull of the trick the magician will direct your attention elsewhere...sort of like Ooooo look at the melting ice because it's a dishonest argument. The Eastern side has built up at a faster rate than the Western side's melting. Hmmmm guess those polar bears are going to die...of old age!

Global Warming scientists use the same methods that someone like Michael Moore. He takes the info that supports his arguments but neglects the REST OF THE TRUTH because that information does not support his argument.

Lonnie

The bible is a book of superstition. It is time to face reality.

That people believe the bible shows that people will believe anything if they are told the same thing time and time again by people in authority positions.

#3 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-04-19 03:24


That people believe global warming shows that people will believe anything if they are told the same thing time and time again by people in authority positions.

That people believe global warming shows that people will believe anything if they are told the same thing time and time again by people in authority positions.

#40 | Posted by perfman at 2009-04-21 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag

The fact that they have solid evidence makes no difference to morons like yourself. The bible has as much proof as space aliens--as a matter of fact--the original stories of the bible ARE based on space aliens.

Scientists speak from logic--not beliefs. Big difference---look it up.

LWALK17

The concept is global--not local. That local conditions in a certain area show an increase in ice level. that means nothing to the global concept. Just because it still gets cold and snows in the winter doesn't mean that Global Warming is false. You have looked at the problem for about ten minutes and take your cues from people who have been consistantly wrong for decades. The scientists who are warning have spent their lives on the study, and have staked their reputations and their futures on their results.

You show the same kind of logic that Bush showed when he ignored that report about terrorists attacking in planes. You think the people making the report are dumber than you. You are wrong, and so was Bush. Your mistake will have graver consequences than his. His mistake only cost a few hundred thousand lives---yours will cost millions of lives.

BBob is absolutely correct.

(I just love being able to say that without any sarcasm.)

So much for the Global Warming "experts" who claim the Earth is getting warmer "because the sun is hot".

#1 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

What a moron.

No serious person ever said that as a reason for warming.

#37 | Posted by midiman at 2009-04-21 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ever read anything about Global Warming? How about integrity? Let's see if you have the integrity to apologize for your statement.

Global Warming scientists use the same methods that someone like Michael Moore. He takes the info that supports his arguments but neglects the REST OF THE TRUTH because that information does not support his argument.

Lonnie

#39 | Posted by lwalk17 at 2009-04-21 03:26 PM | Reply | Flag

People who ignore information pertinent to their line of study--are not scientists. Scientists want the answer---they don't care what the answer is.

You, on the other hand are talking out your ass with no proof whatsoever of what you say.

The concept is global--not local. That local conditions in a certain area show an increase in ice level. that means nothing to the global concept. Just because it still gets cold and snows in the winter doesn't mean that Global Warming is false. You have looked at the problem for about ten minutes and take your cues from people who have been consistantly wrong for decades. The scientists who are warning have spent their lives on the study, and have staked their reputations and their futures on their results.

You show the same kind of logic that Bush showed when he ignored that report about terrorists attacking in planes. You think the people making the report are dumber than you. You are wrong, and so was Bush. Your mistake will have graver consequences than his. His mistake only cost a few hundred thousand lives---yours will cost millions of lives.

#42 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob
--------------------
Bob,

I didn't say snow I said ICE there is a difference! You just lost whatever credible sense you might have had. So tell us how Millions are going to die? Don't start by quoting the melting ice myth either because it's already been disproved by the report on Antarctic Ice growth.

The bottom line is the debate is not nor will it ever be over. We had that report released then there was another article that talked about global warming scientists losing 190,000 square miles of ice. That's the size of California. How do you lose an area the size of California?

Lonnie

Global Warming scientists use the same methods that someone like Michael Moore. He takes the info that supports his arguments but neglects the REST OF THE TRUTH because that information does not support his argument.

Lonnie

#39 | Posted by lwalk17 at 2009-04-21 03:26 PM | Reply | Flag

People who ignore information pertinent to their line of study--are not scientists. Scientists want the answer---they don't care what the answer is.

You, on the other hand are talking out your ass with no proof whatsoever of what you say.

#45 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob
---------------------
Sure I have proof! It's a report that was released saying that the ice in Western Antarctica has increased more rapidly than the melting ice. You'd think one of these so-called honest scientists may have mentioned it BEFORE they started their the ice is melting chant.

I can give you a link to the report if you'd like but I doubt that will make you question these so-called HONEST scientists.

Lonnie

The bottom line is you believe what you want to believe--facts mean nothing to you.

You only speak of East Antarctica---you ignore the West. If the West Melts--the East may follow. You have no idea how Globval Warming works--yet you consider yourself an expert. I suppose you think the people who are warning about Global Warming never heard of the East Antarctic ice shelf, and they are simply lying about theior results in order to get more funding--and they have enlisted scientists from all over the world in their conspiracy. Carry on.

Sure I have proof! It's a report that was released saying that the ice in Western Antarctica has increased more rapidly than the melting ice.

Actually the Western Antarctic is losing ice, rapidly and severely. The Eastern Antarctic has parts that have increasing ice, from increased snow. There is no gain in icesheets extending into the ocean.

We also know the oceans surrounding Antarctica have warmed. Snow requires moisture. The Antarctic is a desert. One that's become a bit wetter recently. Any clue as to why, and why the Eastern part is showing some areas of increase?

This is the problem with taking a blurb from a newspaper, not reading the report (not yet released) and fixing the little information one gains into a preexisting framework.

Anyway, carry on.

This is the problem with taking a blurb from a newspaper, not reading the report (not yet released) and fixing the little information one gains into a preexisting framework.

Anyway, carry on.

#49 | Posted by YAV
----------------------
Believe what you want. Here's the link.

Believe what you want. Here's the link.

What's different in that article than what I said?

"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."

I predict that this will somehow prove global warming. Maybe we'll even see a graph!

That's the most controversial part of the article. They qualified the heck out of it with "expected to confirm" and "expanded." As I said, once again:

This is the problem with taking a blurb from a newspaper, not reading the report (not yet released) and fixing the little information one gains into a preexisting framework.

So the good news, fellow Drudgies, the report has been released:

Actually the Western Antarctic is losing ice, rapidly and severely. The Eastern Antarctic has parts that have increasing ice, from increased snow. There is no gain in icesheets extending into the ocean.

Anyway, carry on.

#49 | Posted by YAV

"Satellite images show that since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade."

400,000 square kilometres sounds like a gain

CricketCricket,

I'm guessing you're not arguing the first part, only the latter?

I did make the mistake of saying 'no gain' based on the original newspaper article, of assuming (since they pointed out the issue with Western Antarctica) that the Eastern area did not sufficiently make up the difference.

I'm completely good with what was reported in GRL. I'm also absolutely fine with being wrong on that one point, especially in light of the rest of the article.

So, you win. There's been a small increase in sea ice off the East coast.

"In contrast, East Antarctic has shown little change or even a small cooling around the coast, which is consistent with the small increase in sea ice extent off the coast."

A damning contradiction to what I said, eh?

If the snow and ice increase on the continent of Anarctica we could see a dramatic decrease in sea levels. You lefties better tell Al Gore and Chicken Little.

Actually, Global Warming will bring on another ice age. Once the ocean currents stop carrying warm water north, the glaciers will return rapidly. I haven't seen anywhere that the Antarctic Ice has anything to do with that ocean current. The CO2 and man made pollution won't kill humanity---it's the frozen methane hydrate.

Once the tipping point of releasing the frozen methane hydrate...

The fact that they have solid evidence makes no difference to morons like yourself. The bible has as much proof as space aliens--as a matter of fact--the original stories of the bible ARE based on space aliens.

Scientists speak from logic--not beliefs. Big difference---look it up.

#41 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-04-21 03:40 PM

just a humorous(to me anyway) observation of how
people will completely believe one thing and completely disbelieve another.
that you felt the need to call me a moron without knowing me or my position on any issue says much.

warming sure, ice sheets covered half of north america at one time. man caused warming, not so sure i am able to buy it.

A completely political and ideological rant and closing with that line?

The rant was factual, as evidenced by your tepid response to it.

A completely political and ideological rant and closing with that line?

The rant was factual, es evidenced by your tepid response to it.

Until You Buffalo Bob or Your Global Warming Proponents go up to the Sun and take a rectal thermometer reading You are just blowing smoke up everyones assses by saying the Sun is hotter or cooler. Until You can physically measure the suns temprature nobody knows what it is. If they say they know they are God damned lying to You.

Larry

So... let me understand this.. now that its becoming clear that global warming is crap..

We now say.. well, that's only because the sun got cooler. What about the last decades when the sun was warmer, could that possibly... naah.

I knew that bastard gore was right about global cooling, or was it warming?

Jeff, I revisited our exchange. My response was because you didn't address what I said, but one line, out of context, of what I said. That line?

"But let the "it's all politics" scream come from the deniers* again - all the while denying that they're the ones that made it political."

Ironically, your response was exactly what I was talking about.

I suppose I could be clearer. The people that have misrepresented the research and researchers (the only thing I was discussing) are the deniers. Now, I probably could find cases where the affirmers (?) have misrepresented the researchers or their work, but it's not organized, it's not on the website of the Senate (Minority page), it's not a "report" with misquotes, quotes out of context, all put together to "affirm" GW, it's not bogus petitions with dead people and people who, when asked, say "I never signed that, I don't believe what the petition states." like the deniers have done.

So, if you want to discuss the politicalization of the politics and policy, that's one thing - and both sides certainly have done that. But that was not the subject of that sentence in post #13.

In fact, I don't think you can find an instance of me taking a position on any policy regarding GW. Only the research, the use of the research, and the mischaracterization of the research.

You're determined to change my record, aren't you!

So, because you felt I gave you a lack of due diligence in my original response, I'll take some time now to respond:

The deniers aren't the ones calling for enforcement of BS EPA laws that will raise our energy prices by about 30%. The deniers aren't the ones calling for 'Cap and Trade' to be inserted into the next budget at a cost of upwards of a trillion dollars.

None of which has anything to do with my post or point. That is all politics, not research, not lying about what researchers said, not taking their work out of context, or their statements out of context.

Now that you mention it, you do know that 30% number is off by more than an order of magnitude? That, in fact, that's a lie? If you really do want to discuss it I can find the study. I have no idea where you got the "trillions" number, but I'd be interested (though, to be redundant, that has nothing to do with post #13).

The deniers aren't the ones saying that enviro-legislation must be rammed through quickly, before skepticism continues to grow.

I have no idea what you're talking about on this. Rammed through quickly before skepticism continues to grow? Afraid of losing a "political" battle? Yes, I know. Apparently this is a fear the right-wing is spreading. It's has nothing to do with the research or the science being misrepresented. It's political. Again.

(continued)

(continued)

The deniers aren't the ones clamoring for Kyoto, which is major ass-ream of a protocol to the US.

You lost me again. How is signing a treaty (or not) an ass-reaming of US protocol? I have no idea how to respond. Again, this is a political/policy issue.

The very computer models that the alarmists foist as infallible ALSO show that these measures would have almost no impact on slowing the warming whatsover.

First, the computer models (that's not what they are, but moving along) aren't infallible. They are just models. They help us see what _might_ happen. Anyway, if the models say what you say they say, and they are infallible, then why aren't you an alarmist?

I am curious about these results that show nothing can be done. That goes contrary to the entire point of modeling. You may be confusing dire results with devastating results? The point of the models is to see what _might_ happen, what the results might be, and how to prepare and what can be done to minimize any negative impact.

At any rate, it sounds a lot like you're saying we can't do anything anyway, so let's not do a thing.

It is the alarmists who are making this political - they are legisltating to take an unfathomable amount of money from ALL of us, with no positive return whatsoever - money flushed down the toilet.

Unfathomable? No positive return, whatsoever, flushed down the toilet? OK. That's certainly not political trash talk, is it? :)

You have the audacity to say it's the DENIERs who are making this political? Please.

I'm the one being audacious?

Hence my response to your post. I wasn't being dismissive, I was rather amused at a completely political nature of you arguing how political the other side was.

Anyway, as I said, I was addressing the misuse of research.

Hope that clears up any confusion.

There are still people who believe anything can be done to stop global warming? Or global cooling?

Really?

Funny.

Maybe the scientists should shoot some nukes into the sun and try to perk it up again.

Hey maybe we should have a 12 Aerosol can solute for earth day?

Lonnie

Yav,

I didn't mean to take you out-of-context - I simply misconstrued what you were saying. Your clarification cleared much of that up. In short, you and I, for the most part, were speaking toward completely different issues.

Now that you mention it, you do know that 30% number is off by more than an order of magnitude? That, in fact, that's a lie?

The number came from USAToday just this week. I was short on time yesterday, but intended to link the article and create a userblog.

I have no idea what you're talking about on this. Rammed through quickly before skepticism continues to grow? Afraid of losing a "political" battle? Yes, I know. Apparently this is a fear the right-wing is spreading. It's has nothing to do with the research or the science being misrepresented. It's political. Again.

The comment came from Obama's 'climate czar' (sic). He acknowledged that public skepticism was growing toward the notion of man-made GW and that it was imperative to ram-home climate legislation quickly, before the skepticism has a chance to grow further.

You lost me again. How is signing a treaty (or not) an ass-reaming of US protocol? I have no idea how to respond. Again, this is a political/policy issue.

It was poorly worded on my part. Kyoto is disproportionately harsh to ALL first-world countries. However, some get reamed worse than others. The biggest loser is the US and the one hit the least hard is Europe.

The point of the models is to see what _might_ happen, what the results might be, and how to prepare and what can be done to minimize any negative impact.

At any rate, it sounds a lot like you're saying we can't do anything anyway, so let's not do a thing.

That's not at all what I am saying. For the sake of argument, let's assume these models are fairly accurate. What do we do? These models indicate that if Kyoto had perfect adherence, the global warming experienced by 2100 would be delayed until 2105 - 5 whole years. The problem is that over this time Kyoto would absorb trillions of dollars. History has shown that wealth-production is the fastest and most effective method of creating environmental friendliness. When people are wealthy, they care about this stuff. The issue I have with cap/trade and Kyoto is that the money could be spent WAAAAAYYYYYY more effectively in different ways.

Unfathomable? No positive return, whatsoever, flushed down the toilet? OK. That's certainly not political trash talk, is it? :)

If you aren't familiar with it, check out this book:

Hi Jeff,

You raise some good points. I know it's popular for some people to bash the research/science of GW, but the driving reason for that behavior is the concern over what doing something about it might cost. That cost being change in lifestyle, taxes, etc. That could make an interesting (and useful) thread, though I don't know how popular it would be. I rarely get into that side of the discussion. Besides, I'm not that cynical. I honestly believe we can find solutions, implement greener energy, conserve without seriously impacting our lifestyle. Do I think we can reverse what appears to be happening? No, but I think we can mitigate the impact somewhat, and we can prepare for what _might_ happen.

Up until now the form of argument the deniers (and again, I am not talking about people that honestly question) has been to discount the research, lie about the researcher's work, take their quotes out of context, etc. This "work" has been picked up by the right-wing, so it shows up here and in the media.

I have heard Bjorn Lomborg's take on the financial impact (I've seen a couple of interviews), but I haven't read his book. He certainly believes in GW, and the human contribution - at least in the interviews, but argues about what should be done about it. It might be worth picking up the book, but in general, he really didn't impress me so I didn't bother.

As to the 30%, I suspected you were repeating Boehner/McConnell and other Republican's completely discredited talking point:

The Democratic budget is proposing a national energy tax which according to studies at MIT could pose a $3,128 burden on every working family in America

But, as the misquoted (again? why? It's so easily checked!) MIT Professor, author of the study, John Reilly wrote to Boehner and the Republicans:

"It has come to my attention that an analysis we conducted examining proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Report No., 146, Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals, has been misrepresented in recent press releases distributed by the National Republican Congressional Committee. The press release claims our report estimates an average cost per family of a carbon cap and trade program that would meet targets now being discussed in Congress to be over $3,000, but that is nearly 10 times the correct estimate which is approximately $340. [...] Our Report 160 shows that the costs on lower and middle income households can be completely offset by returning allowance revenue to these households."

BTW, I'll be gone for the next 2 days - so you get the last word, Jeff!

Mornin' Yav!

Up until now the form of argument the deniers (and again, I am not talking about people that honestly question) has been to discount the research, lie about the researcher's work, take their quotes out of context, etc. This "work" has been picked up by the right-wing,

I agree with your point on this - much effort has been made to discredit the research and methodologies itself. This is done through a combination of legitimate skepticism, willful deception (such as deliberately mis-quoting a scientist), and simple ignorance.

so it shows up here and in the media.

The source I cited was USAToday, and it made no mention of a specific dollar amount per family. It talked about wind-power mandates, the cost of such energy relative to coal-fired plants AND pointed out that such mandates required coal-fired plants as a back-up as wind-generated energy is unpredictable.

That cost being change in lifestyle, taxes, etc. That could make an interesting (and useful) thread, though I don't know how popular it would be. I rarely get into that side of the discussion.

You should strongly consider it. Look, tremendously costly legislation is being proposed, right now as I type this, under the auspice of 'saving the planet'. The basis for this is the what_might_happen scenarios bandied about by climatologists and their computer models. Given the fact that the degree of 'consensus' among the scientific community has dropped considerably in the last few years; isn't it WAY more prudent to pull back and hold off this type of legislation until our understanding of macro-climate improves considerably? This is the public treasury we are talking about. I've only recently become interested in this topic. Care to know the Genesis? Ethanol mandates and subsidies. A perfunctory study into ethanol quickly demonstrated a net-loser in terms of energy; yet our government is spending billions of dollars propping up the practice of burning food for energy???

My point has been from the start that this toxic politicizing of this issue has been rampant on the alarmist side as well. The retarded Hanson brother at NASA being a prime example. Going further, this elderly super-genious scientist (his name escapes me at the moment. I just read an article about him in NYTimes magazine) who has been very critical of the methodology of climatologists as well as their apocolyptic conclusions. He has been treated as if he's a delusional heretic for his stance. Even among some within the scientific community.

Enjoy your couple of days away from the DR!

Have none of you heard of inertia or mass heat. When the sun or the earth's own magma or whatever stops heating the thin crust that covers this molten piece of rock, it takes a while to start cooling off. It may even continue to appear to gain temperature for a while by some measurements while the total mass heat declines.

The system is so complex, only politicians can understand it. Scientists just provide ammunition for the politicians to use - and most of them don't have control of the gun - all they care is that it points away from themselves.

"The system is so complex, only politicians can understand it"

Absolutely the BEST LINE EVER!!!!

Make T-shirts man & coin that phrase, I'd buy one. No shit, you'd make a fortune. It could apply to anything the government fucking touches. I won't steal it.

FF!

BTW: Is that yours or did I just miss the best line ever in my quote searching?

I'm assuming it's yours? Provided that it is, you should be proud. Kudos either way. Bravo. I'm really pissed that it's not mine.

Enjoy your couple of days away from the DR!

Good evening, Jeff!

I fired up the laptop in my hotel room so I could see what you might have posted. Good response. I agree with you on corn ethanol. Similar genesis for me, and a discussion about options/direction would be enjoyable.

Anyway, I couldn't seem to stay away from a good conversation.

Signing off now, time to get supper!