Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Saturday, September 08, 2007

Two-thirds of the world's polar bears will disappear by 2050, even under moderate projections for shrinking summer sea ice caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, government scientists reported yesterday.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Why didn't they say that. That's the best reason I've heard yet for a BTU tax. Where do I sign up?

Warming Will Kill Most Polar Bears

Yeah, and that 7 day scorching heat wave last week in So Cal just about killed me.

I wonder how they survived that last hot period the earth went through and the ice caps melted? Who was around wringing their hands for them then?

Sad.

I wonder how they survived that last hot period the earth went through and the ice caps melted? Who was around wringing their hands for them then?

Posted by goatman


You're right goatse_man, when things happen naturally that's proof that man's actions have no effect on the environment. Have some more kool-aid.

And the Y2K bug was going to kill all of the computers. One crisis after another what are we to do?

"I wonder how they survived that last hot period the earth went through and the ice caps melted?"

I don't know. Rasta seems to think it proove's that man's actions have no effect on the environment... somehow??? Regardless of the reasons the ice melted it is obvious the polar bears survived with no help from us. And what help could we provide anyway? I haven't heard of any big polar bear hunting epidemic.

when things happen naturally that's proof that man's actions have no effect on the environment. Have some more kool-aid.


What was that retort all about? I was merely trying to say the polar bears will survive. I never said that man did not influence global warming.

My advice rasta is not more kookaid for you, but less.


And the Y2K bug was going to kill all of the computers....

Posted by Dreadnaught at 2007-09-08 05:02


I actually stocked up on some supplies.

Eight Reasons to End the Scam

Concern over "global warming" is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01C, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers' expectations, modelers resort to "flux adjustments" that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says "climate modelers have been cheating' for so long it's almost become respectable."

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC's latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: "The Earth's atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes."

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the "climatic optimum," was even warmer and marked "a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations," observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. "There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today."

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth's climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990's levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is "no regrets." The alternative to demands for immediate action to "stop global warming" is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called "no regrets," and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.
www.heartland.org

In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.

"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.

Global Warming is the modern-day equivalent of class struggle. Global Warming is an easily understood, historically inevitable concept in Marxist Science designed to help the Party to crush capitalism and fulfill the mankind's utmost desire of appointing Al Gore President For Life and establishing a planned centralized economy world-wide (Global Socialist Revolution). In the absence of classical Marxist preconditions for the Revolution (global crisis of capitalism combined with massive poverty and despair), Global Warming stands out as the most convenient replacement thereof, providing both the means to manipulate the masses and a moral justification for doing so. As such it replaces the previously promising but failed agitprop tools as "Overpopulation," "Ozone Holes," "Global Famine," and "Ice Age 2." Until the time when it gets replaced by another convenient agitprop tool, Global Warming must remain an unquestionable dogma in all political discussions (you will be notified of any change, if any, by NPR and the New York Times.) The importance of Global Warming for the Revolution is too great to leave it in the hands of scientists. The masses must believe that it is beneficial to have faith in Global Warming whether it can be proven or not. If Global Warming didn't exist it would be necessary to invent it.


Professor Bates
Undocumented Victims of Capitalism For Human Taxes



The last time the poles were clear of ice, polar bears hadn't evolved yet.

The next time the poles are clear of ice will be 2060

news.nationalgeographic.com

wasn't this news, like 2 years ago in national geographic?

Polar bears may well be extinct by 2050 due to climatic trends, except in zoos. regardless of political affiliation, this trend in climatic change should concern everyone.

Cute picture Chris, but to link it on a thread about Global Warming is fraud.

Vern, do you know any polar bears? Have you ever discussed with them their plight? Have you ever had to console a distraught bear as it wept over a beer? If not, keep your fucking opinions about global warming to yourself. (Douche)

And right back at U Modearuht8. Keep your propagande where it belongs, in your anal cavity with your noggin.

Propagande was the French version. Thought a limp wristed cowardly type like you would understand it better while trying to play an internet Clint Eastwood in a Spaghetti Western.

Dogrednu,

em ot flesruoy etanidrobus uoy tsael tA

- DOG

Cute picture Chris, but to link it on a thread about Global Warming is fraud.

Posted by vernon at 2007-09-08 07:34 PM


You're wrong. Global warming is what caused those shrinking ice caps the polar bears were standing on in my photo. Hence a thread about global warming has everything to do with that photo. That is not fraud, that is fact.

That global warming exists is not disputed.
What is in dispute is how much of the greenhouse emissions can be attributed to mankind and how much is contributed to facts beyond our control such as warming of the earth's core, and what seems to be one of the largest contributors --water vapors. I agree mankind plays a part -- but as to how large a part I am beginning to think it is not to the degree that it has gotten all the publicity. However, my knowledge of the causes of global warming are very limited so I will continue to read and keep an open mind.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect. Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Professor Bates
Undocumented Victims of Capitalism For Human Taxes


Posted by professorbates at 2007-09-08 06:38 PM |


I love this person! lmao

"The trouble with conformity is that the process has strong positive feedback. The baaing starts up at a volume low enough to permit stronger-minded animals to think for themselves without too much trouble. Progressively, however, we break down one-by-one, losing all power of sensible judgment, to the point where we can do nothing but add our own baaing to the uproar, which eventually rises to such monumental proportions that nothing remains for the flock except the butcher's shop."

And the Y2K bug was going to kill all of the computers. One crisis after another what are we to do?

Posted by Dreadnaught at 2007-09-08 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag:


F-22 Raptor dateline shutdown

Global Warming as a means to gather wealth has pretty much run its course.

Granted, Gore came out of the scam considerably richer. But consider the
Live Earth failure and the recent Leonardo DiCaprio movie flop.

You can only make so much money off of any scam.

Unlike the United States efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan confronting the very real threat of anthropogenic Islamic Fascism the Global Warming scammers have used a 'bait and switch' technique where they call attention to a natural process that has been in action for over 10 thousand years and claiming they can 'fix it' if you only give them money. There is a name for people who still fall for the hoax - rubes.

Fortunately, so many people are wise to the scam it has lost the ability to take in cash. That, friends, spells the end for any hoax.

Don't take my word for it, just ask Leonardo DiCaprio.

ZULU

Is it that you feel there is no such thing as global warming at all or just that the idea of blaming the greenhouse emissions contributed by by man for the bulk of global warming is in error?

by by man ....

delete one "by"

CALIFCHRIS

"the idea of blaming the greenhouse emissions contributed by by man for the bulk of global warming is in error?"

Not just an error, an orchestra of convenience(tm) by many conducted for individual gain (by some) and to implement socialist agenda (by others).

By and large where there lots of money to made without really doing any work you can expect certain kinds of people to suddenly appear.

What crisis is next? Bears are beginning to hibernate, maybe that could be the next big money maker?

there is a lot of peer reviewed research that show man's effect on global warming, there is no scientific peer reviewd research to the contrary (just Rush saying so)

every time you ask for scientific proof from the right, they hide or call Gore a hypoctite, so dear global warming deniers give the peer reviewed science that supports your position. (most of whom probably don't know what peer review means) suggested link:
www.realclimate.org

as for Y2K, that was a farce from the right and religious folk, acutal computer programmers knew the date stored in a computer was Julian (no month or year or day)or dbase. Christian folk gathered in caves for the end of times from Y2K.

We have a polar bear here in WNY living in the zoo. He was fine during the hot weather. He'd just dive in the water get all wet... The polar bear is still alive.

BTW:

The Year the Global Warming Hoax Died
www.michnews.com

NASA off by 64 years on hottest year claim.
www.sciam.com

64 years ago it was hotter ...

Sunspots May Drive Heavy Rains in Africa
news.nationalgeographic.com

Evidence that sunspots effects earths weather.

Cosmic rays and Earth's climate
www.junkscience.com

evidence cosmic rays (rays from far far away) effects earths climate.

Now i'm not denying global warming - I am denying humans are the only cause. Weather is complicated. Meteorologist can't even predict the weather accurately within 24 hours the majority of the time.

Climate is complicated. No scientist would ever say humans are the only cause of climate change since climate always changes. Earth is always changing.

What evidence does anyone have to prove that humans are the cause of climate change? This is why no one is listening to the green peace climate march. Climate always changes with or without humans.

"What evidence does anyone have to prove that humans are the cause of climate change? "

2 places to start at:
www.realclimate.org Independant science site
www.noaa.gov US Gov site

there are a lot more sites, you can read the proof or keep claiming "no proof"
my guess is you don't want to see any proof, for you it's not science, just a political positon.

Pragmatous-
In your 11:38 post you regress from "I am denying humans are the only cause" to 'humans aren't responsible at all'.

All in one post.

Without irony.

Why is 1979 important? An August 28 National Post article on the subject explained (emphasis added):

The record melting of the passage comes two weeks after the NSIDC and two other ice-monitoring agencies in the U.S. and Japan declared that the Arctic Ocean ice cover has shrunk to its smallest size since regular satellite imaging of the polar cap began in 1979.

[...]

"[A]nalysts at the Canadian Ice Service and the U.S. National Ice Center confirm that the passage is almost completely clear and that the region is more open than it has ever been since the advent of routine monitoring in 1972."

Getting the picture? Claims of "grim consequences" and "record low" ice levels are based on a satellite record which began in 1979, while routine monitoring of the region started in 1972.

How can anyone make a claim with a straight face that ice conditions in the Arctic are either historically low or grim when we've only been monitoring these levels for the last 35 years? Is everything that happened in this region - in thousands of millennia since the Big Bang occurred - totally irrelevant?

Such is especially the case given the history of successful sea-based explorations of the Arctic dating back as far as 1903.


newsbusters.org

in thousands of millennia since the Big Bang occurred - totally irrelevant?

no it isn't, but you don't know that, find some real science

The supposed increase in global temperature is an estimate, and much of which data going into that is also estimated due to lack of accurate, long term records. Indeed, the estimate used to convict mankind as being responsible for any increase in temperature, has to ignore major factors which are responsible for heating; i.e., the sun.

The sun is factored out of all the models because it is *estimated* to be the same, always, and neither adds more, nor substracts from global warming. For that matter, up until recently, the public thought that CO2 was the ONLY cause of global warming, and that any increase over the "norm" was responsible for increases in overall temperature!

Not so, as we've recently discovered, and where methane is 20 times more retentive of heat than is CO2, and that dramatic increases in CO2 caused by nature; e.g., Mt St Helens, Pinatubo, several Alaskan volcanoes and others in South America; are absorbed rapidly and overall CO2 levels are soon their *estimated* natural standard!

So, and with uncontrovertable evidence that Venus and Mars are undergoing warming, along with some of the larger moons of Jupiter and Saturn, it seems that the sun IS the reason for any increases we are undergoing in global warming -- mankind didn't do it!

You'll have to find some other reason to hate humanity ...

You'll have to find some other reason to hate humanity ...

You'll suffice.

By the Way, Tadowe, how 'bout you support this before I trust another typed word that flows from you fingers:

"That Iraq/Saddam supported al Qaeda...with his rewards for the murder of Americans or NATO members?"

Cooper quibbles, "By the Way, Tadowe, how 'bout you support this before I trust another typed word that flows from you fingers:"

I don't care an iota whether you trust my opinion, or not! None of you can even begin to understand the scorn I have for your collective opinions!

In that opinion, you and your ilk are literally traitors who elevate party over nation, and I spit on your "trust" because I don't "trust" your party of subversive, war profiteering for votes gangsters! You and your ilk are like goose-stepping brownshirts, wielding your batons of lies and propaganda to advance party uber alles!

Take your petty demands and shove them!

"I don't "trust" your party of subversive, war profiteering for votes gangsters!"

WOW. A PERFECT description of the NeoCon Republicans and Karl Rove style politics.

WHO's awarding the 'war profiteering' 'cost plus' contracts in Iraq? Ain't the Democrats boy.

Wanna read about it? OK. Here ya go:

"The Great Iraqi Swindle"
www.rollingstone.com

Tadowe-
I didn't ask for your opinion. At this point your opinion is without merit as you state "facts" to support your opinion, and are insulted when those "facts" are questioned.

Your opinion in meaningless.

Just support this, Tadowe, and I'll have a mote of respect for your opinion:

"That Iraq/Saddam supported al Qaeda...with his rewards for the murder of Americans or NATO members?"

Of course you can't support that, because there's nothing out there to support it. You just pulled it out of your quite purple rhetorical ass.

But if you do have evidence of payments from Saddam to al Qaeda, you really should inform the Republican Party, as they are eager to use it against the "party of subversive, war profiteering for votes gangsters! You and your ilk are like goose-stepping brownshirts, wielding your batons of lies and propaganda to advance party uber alles!"

Or something like that.

Cooper goes on, "I didn't ask for your opinion. At this point your opinion is without merit as you state "facts" to support your opinion, and are insulted when those "facts" are questioned. Your opinion in meaningless."

All discussion is "opinion", and no matter what reference may or may not be provided to support it.

It is a fact that Saddam offered rewards to the martyrs of Islam if they died fighting the jihad against Israel and her "evil" allies. However, you don't want to hear it, or present any opinion in opposition to it -- so you make the subject become: *ME*

Now, it is my opinion you apparently need to *TRUST*, before we can go on with anymore presentation of opinion ... otherwise, and like some intransigent child, you will continue to stalk me with your demands for *TRUST*, as if you would ever do so!

Not only do I consider your party to be traitorous and the ilk neonazis, but I think you are actually a case of arrested development: approx. 8 years old... go find a mother figure, I'm not your daddy to *trust* ...

Good mornin' Tadowe :]

Tadowe-
You said Saddam paid al Qaeda.

It was a part of your rationale for invading Iraq.

"Good mornin' Tadowe :]

Posted by CalifChris"

Evidently not LOL

Cooper decides to discuss anyway, "But if you do have evidence of payments from Saddam to al Qaeda, you really should inform the Republican Party..."

Here's the "tell" as they say in poker!

I would send the evidence to the commander-in-chief, not the Republican party. But, basically, you've delved to the very foundation of all these issues: slavish partisanship. Everything to you is directed at a war against your political opponents, and you refuse to acknowledge that the entire USA is at war -- not just the hated Republicans ...

What a despicable bunch of party uber alles gangsters you represent!

Tadowe-
So, in other words, you just pulled that out of your ass.

I guess I can see why you would reflexively despise the party of "lies and propaganda" though;)

Gotta go.

Have a good night/morning.

AU joins in, "WOW. A PERFECT description of the NeoCon Republicans and Karl Rove style politics."

Funny! As most Texans know (family there) Rove and Bush became skilled at cooperating with the Democratic majority legislature, and not browbeating them, as I do the ilk, here. It is that inveterate need to spin reality to fit your statement(s) of the moment, though, isn't that right, AU? The need to associate me with your icons of propagandistic hate you raise and shake to incite the mob?

"WHO's awarding the 'war profiteering' 'cost plus' contracts in Iraq? Ain't the Democrats boy."

Congress controls the money, you know that! Besides, why would you trust any answer without a reference?

You can take that demand out of your butt, now, btw ...

"The supposed increase in global temperature is an estimate, and much of which data going into that is also estimated due to lack of accurate, long term records."

True enough. These nuts can't accurately predict the climate for next week, let alone the year 2050. Maybe they can tell us when the next Krakatoa, Vesuvius, Tambora or Penatubo eruption will occur. Any one of those events would shatter their phony predictions.

www.emporia.edu

...and these envirowackos are concerned with my SUV...what a joke.

...and these envirowackos are concerned with my SUV...what a joke.

sure ignore the evidence, say stupid things, put your heads in the sand, but you should start now to invent an answer for when your grandchildren ask you why you did nothing, "..but Rush said so" won't do!

"Funny! As most Texans know (family there) Rove and Bush became skilled at cooperating with the Democratic majority legislature, and not browbeating them, as I do the ilk, here. It is that inveterate need to spin reality to fit your statement(s) of the moment, though, isn't that right, AU? The need to associate me with your icons of propagandistic hate you raise and shake to incite the mob?"

TadWOE

Then they gerrymandered Congressional districts, and once in office in D.C. proceeded to set the pit bulls like Delay on an 'eat the enemy' diet, instead of including Democrats in ANYTHING. They put them in the friggin' basement after refusing to give them a place to meet. The VP tells a Senator 'fuck you' ON the Senate floor. Ya, great bunch Bush/Cheney/Delay turned out to be.

Pragmatic and principled Republicans i like.

I say feed all the NeoCons to the Polar Bears. The bears and American public will both be better off in the long run.

The human race shrugs, turns away, and moves on.

Native Americans machine gun intelligent marine mammals in the name of sprituality.

And so it goes.

People who deny global warming exists are not going to have their minds changed. All we can hope for is that their children grow up to be smarter than they are.

There is virtually NO doubt now that global warming is man-made. The dissenting views we're seeing now are from people who still believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs, and by scientists paid $10,000 to publish anything that's contrary to the scientific consensus.

Thanks guys. I hope your children can forgive you.

There is virtually NO doubt now that global warming is man-made.

I feel sorry for your kids Genius.

The dissenting views we're seeing now are from people who still believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs, and by scientists paid $10,000 to publish anything that's contrary to the scientific consensus.

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Source

RAY

Were you aware that particulate pollution is what's keeping the earth's temperature from being another 1 degree Celcius hotter at this moment? It reflects the suns rays in the clouds and in the contrails left in the wake of tens of thousands of daily airline flights around the globe.

Measurements they did during the 4 days airliners were grounded worldwide after 9/11 showed a spike in temperatures immediately without the contrails left by airliners. Global dimming is a known undisputed fact by scientists.

Good luck to your grandchildren. I think they're going to need it. Let's hope you're right. But, I doubt you are. Sadly,, you won't be around to know.....

Celsius

"And the Y2K bug was going to kill all of the computers. One crisis after another what are we to do?"

WTF does that have to do with anything. Anyone working in IT at the time can tell you that it could have had significant consiquences had those of us responsible for maintaining systems not put in significant effort to fix troubled systems.

It was IT workers greatest hour. We sacrificed and got the job done and now mankind should to the same on our contributions to climate change.

Don't you love the bogus "petitions" and "surveys?"

Now for links to actual scientific organizations:

American Geophysical Union:
"Greenhouse gases likely drove near-record U.S. warmth in 2006"
www.agu.org

Here's the National Academy of Sciences links page:
"Searchable Collection
Global Warming/Climate Change Collection
Fifteen recent publications from the National Academies about the science and policy implications of global warming and climate change."
www.nap.edu

The American Institute of Physics:
"The Discovery of Global Warming
A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) understand what people are doing to cause climate change."
www.aip.org

The Union of Concerned Scientists:
"Global Warming 101
Human Fingerprints"
www.ucsusa.org

And the ice is melting whether you like it or not.

31 Jan 02
web.pdx.edu

5 Mar 02
web.pdx.edu


Hey Onna, I was a Christian back in 2000, and I was not in a cave for Y2K. Nor were any of my friends. It was hardly just a Christian "right" concern. There was stuff all over the mainstream news, Dan Rather and all his people.

As for the polar bears, can't they just evolve? You know, grow less hair, start eating seaweed, grow flippers, all the other magical stuff that animals are supposed to do when there are environmental changes?

Global dimming is a known undisputed fact by scientists.

Amazing. The science genius's like Zat likes to quote think they can model the future with mathematical equations and computer models. Meanwhile they have no credible theory of climate change that accounts for changes before the 19th century. They know next to nothing how the sun and cosmic radiation effects climate. Establishment science has become more like religion.

idiots won't look at actual science, so links to real science are worthless,besides right wingers generally lack the inteligence to understand science. for proof just read Ray's comments.

really sad!

Onna
You are wrong on all counts. I'm an engineer by profession and my politics leans towards anarchism. I know real science when I see it. This crap on global warming is not real science. It's gobbledygook masquerading as science. If you understood science, you would understand my criticisms. Zat is an establishment scientist running in the herd with the rest of them.

Y2k,
to programmers (I am one) adding and subtracting dates is not feasible, so we used the Julian date, not calendar date. to find out what it is see description on wikipedia. you may then understand why the Chinese, who did nothing on Y2K, had no problems.

en.wikipedia.org

Julian date method has no year, has no month , has no day, just a big number that can be instantly translated to a calendar date. remember those old daily accountant's calendars with the big number at the bottom? easy for aging, just subtract 30. every accounting program uses this date internally. (some used the Ashton-Tate dbase format)

we wasted a lot of money on a non-problem and few knew how this phony scare got started (think IBM PC, thing clock chip)

"This crap on global warming is not real science. It's gobbledygook masquerading as science."

see, more proof of stupidity, keep going Ray, ignore the real science, your grand kids will be ashamed of you.

As for the polar bears, can't they just evolve? You know, grow less hair, start eating seaweed, grow flippers, all the other magical stuff that animals are supposed to do when there are environmental changes?

Posted by Marie3 at 2007-09-09 02:30 PM


this is possibly the most scientifically ignorant statement ever posted.

Why?

Coming from a Buddhist secular preacher druggie atheist I must point out you seem to be one of the LEAST likely to make any call here.

Is this "astute" statement AB or BB*

*Before or After bong.

"This crap on global warming is not real science. It's gobbledygook masquerading as science. "

RAY

Melting polar ice caps, glaciers, thawing permafrost layer, rising sea levels - all scientific crap, eh?

Why don't you seal all your opinions on this for your grandkids to open in say, 50 years? Put your reputation on the line for your convictions.

Were it not for someone, somewhere having to reduce CO2 levels and thereby somehow hurting the economy in your view, you wouldn't have a problem with acknowledging the fact that the Earth is warming up, and people like you are unwilling to want to do anything on behalf of mankind to assist it before it crosses a line we can't turn back from.


I mean, whatever happened to erring on the side of caution?

see, more proof of stupidity, keep going Ray, ignore the real science, your grand kids will be ashamed of you.

Posted by onna at 2007-09-09 03:03 PM |


That's real convincing. You can't refute my argument so you take the ad hominem route. You believe because a "majority" of scientists say so. Is that about right? If that logic had any validity we would still be living in the Dark Ages.

this is possibly the most scientifically ignorant statement ever posted.

It was until:

Why?

Melting polar ice caps, glaciers, thawing permafrost layer, rising sea levels - all scientific crap, eh?

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2007-09-09 03:21


You are either misdirecting or misreading. I don't argue over global warming as a fact. My argument is over the obsession towards human causation to the exclusion of far more powerful influences like water vapor, the sun and cosmic effects. The amount of CO2 emitted by humans is a tiny fraction of total CO2. How do you explain Mars warming up too?

The human causation theory has a political stench to it.

Ray, you shouldn't keep showing such ignornace all you need do is quote a peer reviewed science article that supports your view. that is if you know what "peer reviewed" means. that's easy just one article would give you credibility. do it for your kids.

RAY

Come on man. We contribute to it daily. Shouldn't we at least be doing what WE can as humans to lower our contributions and seek solutions to the rest?

When it became apparent we were causing holes in the ozone we took action and banned freon and other substances and at least kept it from getting worse.

We aren't living on Mars.

Come on man. We contribute to it daily. Shouldn't we at least be doing what WE can as humans to lower our contributions and seek solutions to the rest?


Posted by AMERICANUNITY

* * * *

So what are you doing?

PS RAY

The hole in the ozone was caused by propellents in products we don't use on a scale anywhere near the level of gasses coming from automobiles and industrial plants.

So, the question is, if we created a hole in the ozone the size of Antarctica with spray cans, why is it implausable that we created the problem with CO2 through the use of fossil fuels in hundreds of millions of automobiles and other industrial output over the last 100 years?

If not, why.

When it became apparent we were causing holes in the ozone we took action and banned freon and other substances and at least kept it from getting worse.

I've heard arguments on both sides of this. Can you provide something to back this claim up?

So, the question is, if we created a hole in the ozone the size of Antarctica with spray cans...

WE did??

Ray, you shouldn't keep showing such ignornace all you need do is quote a peer reviewed science article that supports your view. that is if you know what "peer reviewed" means. that's easy just one article would give you credibility. do it for your kids.

Posted by onna
* * *

Will this do?:
epw.senate.gov
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Or how about this one?:

www.dailytech.com

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Onna
I got into this above by citing this
Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

You don't know who you are talking to. Anyone who tells me that the facts of reality are determined by scientific committees cannot know the fundamentals of what is science and what is politics.

Americanunity

We aren't living on Mars.

You dismiss my mention of Mars' warming so lightly without thought that it is not only earth that is warming. Warming has been noticed on Jupiter too. That should suggest factors outside earth. There is no way humans are going to control climate change.

So, the question is, if we created a hole in the ozone the size of Antarctica with spray cans, why is it implausable that we created the problem with CO2 through the use of fossil fuels in hundreds of millions of automobiles and other industrial output over the last 100 years?

If not, why.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY
* * * *

Doesn't it bother you, a little bit, that with all those hundreds of millions of cars and planes and boats and spacecraft and volcanoes and utilities--that the temperature of the earth is up only one Celcius degree in that same time period?

The urbanization of the world. Major volcanoes. Highways and roads sprawling over the planet. The nuclear age. The space race. Two world wars featuring billions of tons of ordnance dropped, and tens of billions of tons of fuel burned.

One degree. Thanks, but I think I'll keep my SUV.

for the ozone hole see US Gov site:
www.ozonelayer.noaa.gov

as for dailytech.com, Zatoichi found these people to be unreliable to say the least, he gave real science links, but you don't want those, you want the crap.

Celsius, should have been. Apologies.

The hole in the ozone was caused by propellents in products we don't use on a scale anywhere near the level of gasses coming from automobiles and industrial plants.

At the time, Dupont's patent on freon was about to run out. They made a killing on the replacement for Freon. The stuff is heavy. I never found a good explanation on how gusts of wind can carry particles to the upper atmosphere.

The ozone layer is caused by the sun on our atmosphere. It is thick at the equator and thins out towards the poles. The hole in the Antarctic appears in the spring after six months of darkness. No one knows if there was a hole before they took measurements.

There is more to this scare stuff than meets the public eye.

"So what are you doing?

Posted by rightisright"

My house has all CFL bulbs. We have motion sensors and timers that turn the lights off when we enter a room, and turn them off on a timer if no one's there. We upgraded our AC unit to a much more energy efficient model, even though it was far from being worn out. We turned up the temp in the summer and lowered it in the winter. We bought a water heater that heats water on demand rather than heating it repeatedly over and over. We did replacement windows, and shot new insulation everywhere the test showed leaks, including our entire roof area after having our house tested for it's energy efficiency.

Our cars get close to 40 mpg, and both my wife and I work at home as much as possible. We turn off computers and other electronics when not in use and replaced our computer monitors with LCD's. We also replaced our lawn mower with an electric model, and make sure our cars are tuned up and running at top efficiency.

We're doing our little part. We're not fanatics. The changes have been cost effective as well. My kids are very involved. Last weekend the younger ones participated in planting hundreds of trees bought with money raised through fundraising at their school. Nearly every kid participated. The kids seem to care more than most adults as they'll be around here longer than we will....

You?

Zatoichi found these people to be unreliable to say the least, he gave real science links, but you don't want those, you want the crap.

Posted by onna at 2007-09-09 03:57 PM


You obviously don't know crap about science and politics.

typical right wing bull pupu:
"At the time, Dupont's patent on freon was about.."

1. the patent on R12 was over for a long time, many years, no one had a corner on it, any one could make it

2. R134a, the primary R12 replacement is an open patent, anyone can make it

do some research idiot
show your stupidity elsewhere!

RightIsRight

Automobile use is growing exponentially. 40 years ago most families had one car and mom stayed at home. There are several times more autos on the roads now than then. Vast areas of the planet that used to suck up CO2 are now inhabited. Rainforests around the globe are being burned for farming. The population of the world in 1960 was around 1 billion. Not now.

China and India will and another 200 million automobiles to the mix in the coming decade.

You keep your SUV. Why should you care?

Typical.


We're doing our little part. We're not fanatics.


Meanwhile the military establishment consumes energy with wild abandon and all of Asia is industrializing. Invest in Exxon. It's the future.

typical right wing bull pupu:
"At the time, Dupont's patent on freon was about.."

1. the patent on R12 was over for a long time, many years, no one had a corner on it, any one could make it

2. R134a, the primary R12 replacement is an open patent, anyone can make it


Dates please?

BTW I'm an anarchist.

It's amazing the righties can't seem to think beyond the most basic, rudimentary level.

They seem unable to grasp satire, nuance,context,irony.

They need our help.

You?

Posted by AMERICANUNITY
* * * *

Nothing. I bought some low-energy bulbs when they were on sale, but don't really like how much light they throw off, so I probably won't do it again. My Lexus SUV gets about 27 mpg highway, but it's a lot more comfortable than anything else I've ever driven, and it's paid for--so it would be inefficient to replace it with another model, no matter how fuel-efficient. I fly a lot, and am always amused to hear how we need to be planting more trees--there are more trees in the US now than when Columbus found it. If you like trees, then plant away--but IMO it's good roads we don't have enough of. I do switch off the lights when I'm leaving a room, though. So all in all, my so-called "carbon footprint" is about 1/50th of Al Gore's, Tom Cruise, Leonardo DiCaprio, or Babs Streisand.

RightIsRight

My last post was in reply to your :One degree. Thanks, but I think I'll keep my SUV."

1 degree Celsius is 2 degrees Fahrenheit. One more degree Celsius and the oceans will be so high and full of fresh water that sea life will no longer be able to survive as it is. Also, is the fact that the permafrost belt is melting. The permafrost that used to ABSORD CO2 is now RELEASING it back into the atmosphere.

If we've raised the Earth's temperature 2 degrees in the 80 years the auto has been around, and the massive proliferation of autos didn't really begin until a couple of decades ago, with hundreds of millions of new auto users about to take the road, and China industrializing, we'll reach that additional 2 degrees before you can whistle "I'll keep my SUV"

The population of the world in 1960 was around 1 billion. Not now.

China and India will and another 200 million automobiles to the mix in the coming decade.

You keep your SUV. Why should you care?

Typical.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY
* * * *

Perfect example of what I'm talking about. The population of the world was over 3 billion in 1960, and China and India are forecast to add another 50 million vehicles by 2020. Which suggests that you are pretty insouciant about your use of facts.


Why?

Coming from a Buddhist secular preacher druggie atheist I must point out you seem to be one of the LEAST likely to make any call here.

Is this "astute" statement AB or BB*

*Before or After bong.

Posted by Dogrednu at 2007-09-09 03:13 PM


HA! Thank you for teaching me patience and tolerance.

Peace

Brian

Aside from the mising snow in the Alps when I go visit family down there once a year, I had an interesting encounter with global warming a few weeks ago. I found some very unusual spiders living in the fields behind our house. They build gorgeous, intricate nets and it looks like there's a big plump bumble bee caught in the middle of the net. The bumble bee is actually the spider and it's called a wasp spider in German (Wespenspinne). It's large and really quite stunning, almost exotically beautiful, but it looks like the kind of spider you don't want to mess with. And it looks out of place here, because it is.

The wasp spider is native to the hot southern areas of Europe and has only very recently started appearing here in Germany. The only explanation for that is of course the warming climate. As far as I could tell from googling... it's never been seen in Germany, ever, until the past couple years.

And it's supposedly harmless but I'm not gonna go playing with one anytime soon!

Regarding global warming being caused by human pollution, I think posioned air and water are reason enough to regulate pollution out of existence. I don't need the contentious political argument to convince me. And there is no reason why it can't be profitable. It just requires a little effort and entrepreneurial spirit!

And, is it a known fact that today's polar bears lived through a warming period before?

Bella: You're in Spain I think?(Could be totally wrong), how was the European summer this year?

Gee RightIsRight

I thought you might be OK. Now, I'm just lumping you in with all the other righties who'd rather point the finger at Al Gore with a smug, self-satisfied grin. Good for you your car gets 27 mpg. We all have to fly now and then. But, the fact remains that we're on a losing curve and unless average people like you and I give a shit, I guarantee you China and India won't.

All the trees in America won't make up for the millions of acres of rainforest cut down in Brazil - where North America has gotten vast amounts of oxygen over the eons of time, far more than from any other source including our own trees. The melting permafrost belt used to ABSORB CO2 - now it RELEASES it back into the atmosphere.

When vast swaths such as Madagascar have been completely deforested, we'd better plant some damn trees wherever we can.

I'm sure your Republican heros use far more private jets and live in bigger houses than the rest of us put together. They could give a shit too.

patent dates:
1. Patent Number 1,833,847 was issued November 24, 1931 (reissued August 7, 1934) to Thomas Midgley, Jr., Albert L. Henne and Robert R. McNary, all of Ohio, for "Heat Transfer." The original application was filed February 8, 1930.

2. June 18, 1935: Herbert Wilkins Daudt and Mortimer Alexander Youker were issued Patent Number 2,005,706 for "Organic Fluorine Compound." It was assigned to Kinetic Chemical Inc., of Wilmington, Delaware, the forerunner of DuPont. It's opening paragraph: "This invention relates to organic fluorine compounds, more particularly fluorinated derivatives of acyclic hydrocarbons and a process of the production thereof."

3. July 9, 1935: Patent Number 2,007,706, filed January 30, 1931 was issued to Albert L. Henne and General Motors Corporation. Titled "Manufacture of Fluorated Aliphatic Compounds," Henne states "this invention relates to chemical processes for the manufacturer of fluoro and/or halo-fluoro derivatives of aliphatic hydrocarbons, and more particularly, of halogen derivatives of the methane homologs having relatively high melting points."

4. Patent Number 1,953,216, issued April 3, 1934 to Howard M. Elsey and assigned to Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company appears to accidentally cover CFC refrigerants. While it's titled "Insulating Liquid" and is targeted to electrical apparatus with liquid insulators, one of Elsey's claims is " ... As a new composition of matter a fluorinated mixture of hydrocarbons that is liquid at ordinary temperatures and solidifies below approximately -1 C."

Patents don't last forever, those for "CFC Refrigerants'" ran out in the 50s
Assuming their term is a maximum of twenty years, all of these patents ran out in the early 1950s. That means GM's, Frigidaire's, Kinetic's, Westinghouse's and yes, even DuPont's patent on "Freon," had run out long before the ozone layer was discovered to be suffering.

Proof of that also appears in the November 5, 1946 registration of the trademark Genetron. General Chemical Company Corporation, later Allied Chemical, then Allied-Signal and now Honeywell Inc., claimed rights for: "Normally gaseous halogenated hydrocarbons; normally gaseous chemicals for use in propelling parasiticides (sic) and dispersing them in aerosol form." No mention of refrigerants, but they declare first usage on January 4, 1946. On May 12, 1951 they again received registration for "genetron" with a Goods and Service claim of: "Halogenated hydrocarbons sold as such as chemicals of commerce."

Just think how many millions of car owners out there were crediting all that cool air to the magic of Freon, when in fact they were being cooled by Genetron!

Conclusion
So, DuPont's expiring patent did not cause the switch to R-134a.

"China and India are forecast to add another 50 million vehicles by 2020"

RIGHTISRIGHT

That's 13 years from now dude. What about 20, 30, 40 year from now as emerging economies enable hundreds of millions more to buy autos.

Geez man, we have a problem now, and yet you want to pick a figure that makes you feel good.

In 1960, most people outside North America and Western Europe didn't own cars. Not Asia, Africa, not the Soviet Union. And Europe has always had much more fuel efficient vehicles anyway. Totally different scenario now on the planet.

I should have qualified the 1 billion as in the 'industrialized' world. Oops. My bad.

I'm finished talking to righties for now.

Selfish lot who don't care about anything but making money.

Conclusion
So, DuPont's expiring patent did not cause the switch to R-134a.


Onna - you gave the reason why Dupont was getting competition.

When was R-134a patented? By who?

Selfish lot who don't care about anything but making money.

Isn't that the problem. No one seems to have enough of it except for a few idealists.

AMERICANUNITY says" I'm finished talking to righties for now."

you should understand, right wingers have talking points, most of which are false, so it's probably just stupidity. check out their ignorance on Freon vs DuPont, or Cadmium poisioning.

they just follow their leader's talking points which they claim is proof (it is proof, proof of ignorance). Actual research, no way not for them.

plus surveys show they read less!

Corporations have fought every single antipollution effort there ever was - yes, it was all about money. Had we followed Jimmy Carter's energy plan (he created the Energy Dept.) we'd be self sufficient, and automobiles would all be getting great gas milage to boot. Thanks though to the special interests who've backed the righties over the years we've gutted most of that. Bush even opposes lowering the levels of mercury corporations can put into the ecosystem.

I've never seen a huge gas guzzling SUV with a 'Kerry/Edwards' sticker on it, but I've seen more 'W' stickers than I can count. And they're always the rudest drivers on the road to boot. "Me first'' mentality rules the day.

Oh, and that thing about no trees here until Columbus came along....what utter bullshit. The entire eastern half of the United States was old growth forest. Land was cleared for farming once we started settling and populating the continent.

Onna - I say Dupont was the beneficiary of the freon scare. Again, when was R-134a patented? By who?

Me a right winger? Don't make me laugh.

Had we followed Jimmy Carter's energy plan (he created the Energy Dept.) we'd be self sufficient, and automobiles would all be getting great gas milage to boot.

I was around when Carter subsidized the synfuels project. It was an economic bust.

And who can forget Carter's gas rationing schemes that had me getting up 5:00 in the morning waiting in gas lines. Price controls on natural gas resulted in severe shortages until Reagan abandoned them.

"I was around when Carter subsidized the synfuels project. It was an economic bust."

So was I. The oil companies have fought any turn away from fossil fuels with every lawyer and lobbyist they could throw at it. They're still at it. They fight milage standards. They fight pollution controls. They fight for a buck no matter what. Case closed I think we can agree.

Carter had a plan to make us oil independent by 1990. Reagan let that get gutted to crap. Now we pay terrorist supporting countries for it and ship our Alaskan oil to Asia.

So, what about all that flag waving anti-terrorist crap boys? You're paying for some of it every time you gas up. I just love hearing idiots with huge SUV's and a W sticker on the back window weenie-whine about how expensive it is. Duh. When you get 15 mph on the highway because you wanted something big enough for you and all your entire extended family, don't complain. What? Your kids are 6' 8" tall and 250 lbs all of the sudden? Nope. You wanted to be a big shot.

Oil companies say they can't make money pumping oil out of Texas and Oklahoma ground at $70 a barrel, because I suspect they would rather pay a cheaper royalty for U.S. Government owned reserves.

Yeah sure. Blame the oil companies as if economics counts for nothing.

Now we pay terrorist supporting countries for it and ship our Alaskan oil to Asia.

Because it's cost effective.

They fight milage standards.

It's been demonstrated that consumers drive more with low mileage cars.

They fight for a buck no matter what.

So does the IRS.

Ray
didn't I tell you to stop showing stupidity
you a right winger?, I'm laughing, you sure know their talking points

here's a link on Freon
don't look at it, stay stupid, continue proving I'm right
www.imcool.com

(I am in the Refrig,A/C business. I know about Refrigerants, been doing it for 30 years)

currently Honeywell is large seller of R-134a
(they compete with Du Pont, but you knew that right?)

Onna

You still haven't answered my question about the original patent rights to R-134a.

Warming has been noticed on Jupiter too.

Ray, that is incorrect. No warming on Jupiter has been detected except in the lower band. The rest of the planet's temperature is cooler so there is no net gain in temp. Jupiter also provides it's own heat - outputting 2.5 times as much as is received - so making any linkage to ol' Sol is specious.

Yav

Good point. Then how do you explain Mars' warming?

"China and India are forecast to add another 50 million vehicles by 2020"

RIGHTISRIGHT

That's 13 years from now dude. What about 20, 30, 40 year from now as emerging economies enable hundreds of millions more to buy autos.

Geez man, we have a problem now, and yet you want to pick a figure that makes you feel good.
* * * *

Uh, dude, you're the one who said they were going to add 100 million cars in 10 years. Now I've already got you down to half that in 13. If you want to make up facts as you go along, that's your prerogative, but in a world with Google it'll be obvious when you do so.

Here's your problem: you have to convince me that another 50 million cars will be an environmental disaster, when the last 500 million cars haven't been. Maybe you're one of these guys who don't mind automobiles and planes, as long as it's not Chinese and Indians who have them--that seems to be the position that the limousine liberals have taken. If that's you--it's OK, it's a free country and all that. But don't pretend to be trying to save the world by refusing a Chinese family a car, when your family has two of them.

"A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge." Source

It's a 52 minute lecture if you have the time to listen.

"They fight for a buck no matter what.

So does the IRS.

Posted by Ray"

And you'd like to pay for highways, bridges, law enforcement, air traffic safety, our military, guarantees on safety for everything from water to the food you eat, and a myriad of other things that give you an American quality of life with what?

If you want to bitch about the largest government waste in U.S. history you can write to the man who succeeded in accomplishing that at:

George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C.

We'll have spent a trillion in Iraq, given the largest tax cuts to the fewest taxpayers in history, and created the single largest government program since the 60's thanks to him.

You're always welcome to send the IRS a few extra bucks to pitch in on all the NeoCon agenda anytime you'd like. They won't refuse it. In fact, someone is going to have to raise taxes in the near future because of W's wasteful drunken sailor ways.

Thanks for the laughs, Ray.
Happy extinction, you deserve it.

Ray, Mars has been an interesting discussion at RealClimate. You might enjoy reading a little bit of it:

www.realclimate.org

What I'm struck with in the whole solar output discussion - which gets pushed out as far as Pluto - is how basic physics is ignored. The irradiance/meter^2 is falls off at a 1/r^2 rate. To warm Pluto or even Jupiter we're talking some serious heat on Earth. Nothing like what has been recorded.

Du Pont has patent on HFC 404A, HFC 407C, and HFC 410A
Honeywell has patent on HFC 507 HCFC 408A
neither has patent on R-134a, R-134a is royalty free, though Du Pont filed for a patent on Oil to be used with R-13a

so why are you interested , do you believe that "patent ran out" story (totally debunked)
must be some reason you ask, want to prove the "patent" story

(I am one of the largest sellers of R134a on West Coast, and I am not a DuPont Distributor)

Hold on a minute Unity.. The Dems aren't exactly afraid to tax an spend. I remember a few years back after 40 plus years of a Democratic controlled Congress and Presidency we had the highest rates of inflation since the Great Depression. Mortgage rates were 20% alone.

Also I love Global warming. No more Snow Blowiing. I can see folks selling Plam Trees on eBay. Can't wait!!!

AU

No need to remind me. I bitch about Bush every chance I get. The problem goes beyond Bush. He's a product of a political system that has grown cancerous. It won't matter what party is in power in 2008. It's going to be more of the same.

You don't follow economics like I do. The federal government has accumulated a massive debt that has no chance of being paid off while Washington continues to spend like there is no tomorrow. The shit is just starting to fly. The stats on this site show just how bad it is.
Grandfather economic report Scary stuff!

YAV, neat story on Mars, but don't show it to Ray, he won't read that. he is allergic to real science, look at his referances and you can see that.

Grandfather economic report Scary stuff!

Posted by Ray at 2007-09-09 06:09 PM | Reply |


I bookmarked your site the other day. Will to go thru it when I get a chance.

Onna

Point taken. I still stand by the mythology of human caused global warming. The amount generated by humans is a tiny fraction of total CO2.

Happy extinction, you deserve it.

Posted by Zatoichi at 2007-09-09 06:01


Thanks. Meanwhile, I'll continue to enjoy the warm weather.

Hey Zat

While I'm reading about Mars, take a look at this. The authors claim that electric forces dominate the universe. They argue that that the paradigm shift explains theories that can't be explained by mainstream science. I found it interesting.
The Electric Universe

"Happy extinction, you deserve it."

Same ol', same ol'. You need new material, Zat. You used this one up when you were DATA.

RAY

I've been following the needless massive mounting national debt and it's ramifications for several years. That's why I couldn't for the life of me figure out why Bush would press for tax cuts when he was planning on spending a trillion dollars or more in Iraq. By the way, I'm not a 'leftist liberal'. I'm an independent voter who's voted R in the presidential elections several times and holds several Republicans in Congress in high regard. But, I won't be pulling the 'R' lever for the foreseeable future. Not as long as the radical right has a firm grasp on the GOP.

Take care man.

"I remember a few years back after 40 plus years of a Democratic controlled Congress and Presidency we had the highest rates of inflation since the Great Depression. Mortgage rates were 20% alone.:

ASHWORTH

You mean when the national debt was $385 billion when Carter left office rather than the multiple trillions now? Those interest rates were already starting to spike when Carter too office when the bill for Vietnam came due.

Here's a chart that shows the national debt year by year since the 70's. It skyrocketed every time a Republican was in office, and decreased every time a Democrat was in office. It did go up under Carter to $385 billion when the bill for Vietnam came due, but other than that look for yourself, then come back and tell me who's more pragmatic fiscally. Reagan's 'tax cuts' merely drove the debt through the roof. 'Borrow and spend' is NOT good fiscal policy. It's incredibly irresponsible.

www.lafn.org

The oil embargo and the bill for Vietnam were the reasons for the interest rates during Carter's term. As I mentioned in my previous post, that trend was already beginning by the end of Ford's term. The oil embargo did us in.

Gas doubled overnight, and the cost for everything went up, the money supply was tight due to the Vietnam bill coming due Thus inflation and high interest rates. See how simple it is? How do you feel about paying over $500 BILLION a year in interest on the national debt and rising? Love it do ya? THAT is one of the largest costs of government now. Only SS payments are more. Until this year it was more than the defense budget. THAT went up due to Iraq as equipment wore out in the sand and crap of Iraq.

Yav
The link blames large scale dust storms on Mars warming. Maybe. I don't know. But then the site has another link on the sun.

"The solar influence on climate is a controversial topic in climate research (see previous posts here and here). The irradiance changes are assumed to be relatively small and the importance of potential amplifying mechanisms is still a matter of current debate. One reason for these uncertainties is that there are only approximately 25 years of satellite-based observations of the solar irradiance. Sunspot observations for the last 400 years clearly indicate that current levels of solar activity are very different from the state of the sun during the Maunder minimum (from approx. 1645 to 1715 AD) where almost no sunspots could be observed."
The Sun

Too little is known about climate change. Earth has had warmer times before human roamed the earth. I see too much betting on CO2 to the exclusion of factors that can't be accounted for.

Some other viewpoints on the sun:

"The Sun is undergoing a power surge

Since the late 1970s, three Sun-watching satellites recorded surprising changes in heat, ultraviolet radiation, and solar wind. Dr. Sami Solanski, director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, said, "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures." "The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was...." Dr. Solanski admitted to not knowing what is causing the Sun to burn brighter. A leading authority, Eugene N. Parker, adds, "...we really do not properly understand the physics of the varying luminosity of the Sun." This highlights the fundamental problem with the global warming verdict from climate experts. It is based on profound ignorance about how the Sun really "ticks" and what forms of energy are input to a planet's climate. For this they can blame astrophysicists. "
?Source

As for the polar bears, can't they just evolve? You know, grow less hair, start eating seaweed, grow flippers, all the other magical stuff that animals are supposed to do when there are environmental changes?

Posted by Marie3 at 2007-09-09 02:30 PM |


Lmao...





The human causation theory has a political stench to it.

Posted by Ray at 2007-09-09 03:31 PM |


Indeed, and Hillary has said as much. Something to the effect of (if it's done right it will create jobs and wealth for all Americans.... especially the ones that can't seem to any longer make it in cattle futures today.

According to Ray, Dr. Sami Solanski, director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, said, "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures." "The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was...." blah blah blah




The director of the Institute is Dr. Ulrich R. Christensen.

Solanski is on of the Scientific Members of the MP Society, Directors
Prof. Dr. Ulrich R. Christensen
Prof. Dr. Sami K. Solanki
Prof. Dr. Vytenis M. Vasyliunas

Prof. Sir Ian Axford (retired)
Prof. Dr. Tor Hagfors (retired, died on January 17, 2007)
Dr. Helmut Rosenbauer (retired)

Here are Solanski's solar irradiance data from his own web page:
www.mps.mpg.de

data
www.mps.mpg.de

We are currently at a sunspot minimum.
www.petermeadows.com

Ray,

Maybe you should read between the lines of your cited source. Or better yet, don't cite the first hit when you search google.

"Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus.""

Half of the papers explicitly or implicitly cited humans as the source for global warming. Only 6 reject the idea outright. The rest are neutral. You're splitting hairs and so is the author. Technically, not a consensus (by 4 percentage points), if you're buying the author's calculations.

Second, the words used in the search are the same as were used in the original search.

"Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007."

I wouldn't expect 2 searches of a database, using the same terms, 4 years apart (or more) to turn up similar data. Terminology changes. Scientific experiments change. Ways to measure the experiments change. AND, the guy is a MEDICAL doctor. Ho wouldn't have a clue what to search for if he wanted the right answer. Get a climatologist to do the search and THEN get back to me.

Try again douche. And my kid can beat up your kid.

Ray,

Here's a present for you. It's a link to a reputable news source, versus the same regurgitated article that most people use as an excuse to let our planet go to shit.

www.usnews.com

Frankly, I don't know why people like you don't seem to care more for the planet. Even if it weren't all man made, it's still happening, and if it were possible to ensure we aren't contributing, wouldn't it be worth it not to?

Save the planet? So emotional DD. There ain't a thing that can be done to change something so little understood. And if there was, I don't know how you can possibly imagine a world body of nations suddenly getting together to conquer this thing. Those dipshits can't even balance a budget. So get a life.

Try again douche. And my kid can beat up your kid.

Posted by ddenton at 2007-09-09 08:27 PM


I hear the WWF needs a few steroid juiced hunks.

"There ain't a thing that can be done to..."

save this so your great grandchildren will understand why you did nothing.

just give up, not much to be proud of. there are a lot of us that will push and push till we find a solution, just one favor from you, stay out of our way,

Onna
There is no solution. Too little is known about climate change. All you're doing is blowing hot air.

"Solar Variability and Climate
Does the Sun affect the Earth's climate?

"Radiation from the Sun makes Earth a habitable planet. Fluctuations in the solar radiative output are therefore likely to affect the climate on Earth, but establishing both how the output of the Sun varies and how such variations influence Earth's climate have proved tricky. Increased amounts of data from the Sun and about the climate on Earth over recent years means that rapid progress is being made. This work is aimed at understanding solar variability and the Sun's influence on the Earths' climate."
Max Planck Institute

THERE ARE MORE BEARS NOW THAN THERE WERE 20 YEARS AGO!!!!

So because it's so little understood, it's not finding a solution? If intellectual lazy-asses like you were in charge nothing would get done. Your apathy is pathetic. People are doing things to solve the problem now you lazy turd.

Look around. Even car companies like GM and Ford who had NO reason to build low emission vehicles just a few years are are now on board because they recognize the public wants more efficient vehicles that use less gas and create less pollution.

On her way to the king's palace, Chicken Little met Henny Penny. Henny Penny said that she was going into the woods to hunt for worms.

"Oh no, don't go!" said Chicken Little. "I was there and the sky fell on my head! Come with me to tell the king."

So Henny Penny joined Chicken Little and they went along and went along as fast as they could.

Soon they met Cocky Locky, who said, "I'm going to the woods to hunt for seeds."

"Oh no, don't go!" said Henny Penny. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king."

So Cocky Locky joined Henny Penny and Chicken Little, and they went along and went along as fast as they could.

Soon they met Goosey Poosey, who was planning to go to the woods to look for berries.

"Oh no, don't go!" said Cocky Locky. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king." So Goosey Poosey joined Cocky Locky, Henny Penny and Chicken Little, and they went along as fast as they could.

Then who should appear on the path but sly old Foxy Woxy.

"Where are you going, my fine feathered friends?" asked Foxy Woxy. He spoke in a polite manner, so as not to frighten them.

"The sky is falling!" cried Chicken Little. "We must tell the king."

"I know a shortcut to the palace," said Foxy woxy sweetly. "Come and follow me."

Sniper,

While there may be more polar bears now, the ice they use to hunt seals is disappearing. It's only a matter of time before the ice disappears, and the bears with it.

after the chicken little story, now we know Ray's intellectual level. curing ignorance is beyond the realm of science, maybe in future - not now.

"grandpa, why didn't you do somethin about climate change?", and grandpa says "let me tell you the chicken little story"

Thanks Ray for the links. Anyone following this discussion - check the graphic from your link, the Max Planck Institute. I have included the same link below to the graphic in it's large format:

www.mps.mpg.de

The reconstructed irradiance versus temperature increase is fairly clear in it's implications.

Still Solanki has an interesting point. His data is data, the correlations he's drawing should be investigated more thoroughly. From his website:

Climate can vary for many reasons. In particular, human activities can lead to radiative forcing through changing the atmospheric concentrations and distributions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by more than 25% in the past century and since the beginning of the industrial revolution (see Fig. 4). There is no doubt that this increase is largely due to human activities, in particular fossil fuel combustion. Prior to this recent increase, CO2 concentrations over past 1000 years, a period when global climate was relatively stable, fluctuated only slightly around the average value. Concentrations of other greenhouse gases has also increased (check here for the current concentrations compared to the pre-industrial ones

On the other hand, since the Sun is by far the largest supplier of energy to the Earth's surface, any change in the radiative output of the Sun also affects the energy balance of the E(a)rth's surface and atmosphere, so that at some level it influences our climate, too. But how strongly does the Sun vary and to what extent does it influence the Earth's climate? It is important to find a firm answer to these questions in order to estimate the solar contribution into the global warming and in particular to determine its weight relative to that of the man-made greenhouse gases.


BTW, Arp (from Ray's holoscience site is an interesting character. His theory had more weight before the Hubble and other instruments came online. Today there is no argument about quasi-stellar objects being quite distant. He has compiled a nice book of anomalies that is quite interesting, however.

Then there is Zat the quack.

Here are Solanski's solar irradiance data from his own web page: www.mps.mpg.de

"Dr. Sami Solanski, director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, said, "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

The chart clearly shows irradiance somewhat stable while it's temperature has been increasing for since the sixties.

Chart

Oh, and sunspot data from Zatiochi's link:

1996-1999 negligible.
2000-2002 lots of sunspots - hundreds if not thousands.
2004-2007 negligible.

"grandpa, why didn't you do somethin about climate change?", and grandpa says "let me tell you the chicken little story"

Posted by onna at 2007-09-09 09:32 PM | Reply

I got a great idea. Let's pressure our commander-in-chief to declare war on the sun.

Ray - you may want to look at that chart a bit closer.

"hundreds if not thousands."

Read it again, Edison.

Somebody else caught Ray's stupidity.

Better look at your chart again Ray.


Happy extinction, moron.

www.mps.mpg.de

Irradiance flat.
Temperature climbing.

Ray extinct soon because he's stupid.

Yav
The holoscience site blew me away. I was reading it all this morning. They make a point that has always bothered me. Since Einstein, scientists have been substituting mathematics and computer modeling for good old fashioned hypothesis and experiment. Now they are running into a wall of observations they can't reconcile. That tells me that a paradigm shift is in order.

Nice chart, Ray.

Irradiance flat.
Temperature climbing.


That's what I said?

the holoscience site is a favorote spot for the "fixed earth" site, geocentrism can't exist as it's not in the bible. great site, follows in the educcational tradition of the flat earth society.

now you can understand why reason is alien to Ray.

Ray-
(hint: The "temperature anomaly" in your chart does not refer to the temperature of the Sun.)

As Zatoichi and YAV have commented:

Irradiance flat.
Temperature climbing.

"That's what I said?"

Posted by Ray

That's what the chart says, imbecile.
Happy extinction; You deserve it more than ever.

Then what does the chart represent? Where does it say?

Ray extinct soon because he's stupid.

Posted by Zatoichi


Where does that leave you?

Ray,

I believe it says that up until the last 30-35 years, there's been a correlation between irradiance and climate cycles. The last 30-35 years the Earth's temperature has risen dramatically though there's been no significant increase in solar irradiance. This is highly out of character with the past data on solar irradiance.

This correlates with Solanki's statements - that human introduction of green house gases (including but not limited to CO2) are the main cause of global warming. Solanki's concern appears to be, and this is speculation on my part, that given the high past correlation, in order to understand the ramifications of green house gases, we need to understand what is at stake should we encounter a period of high solar irradiance.

some one caught quote mining the http://www.mps.mpg.de site

making it say something it doesn't (called quote mining)

Solanski - mea culpa.

Thanks Yav
I looked at that chart over and over again and it couldn't draw a distinction between one line measuring the sun and the other, earth. The scales mean nothing to me because I have no standards to compare with.

No problem Ray. I hope it makes a bit more sense now?

You may find this really cool. The Institute's latest mission:

The name of the mission, STEREO, is an acronym for "Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory" which reveals the goals of this mission: A better understanding of processes on the solar surface and their impact on the Earth's atmosphere; in short: improve our understanding of "space weather". For the first time, scientists will be able to look at the Sun through the telescopes of the two independent probes from two distant vantage points in space. The field of view will comprise the Sun, its atmosphere, the corona, and the heliosphere out to the Earth's orbit. The observations will for the first time allow a three dimensional analysis of solar eruptions and coronal mass ejections, their magnetic fields and the cosmic ray showers they cause.

www.mps.mpg.de

Ray I see what's confusing. All data is at Earth reference. The Sun doesn't enter into it, just the energy from the Sun reaching Earth (Watts per square meter - irradiance).

The irradiance reaching Earth (left y axis) and the Earth's global temperature anomaly (difference from mean, right y axis) are plotted against year - x axis.

the holoscience site is a favorote spot for the "fixed earth" site, geocentrism can't exist as it's not in the bible. great site, follows in the educcational tradition of the flat earth society.

The site presents a new way of looking at the forces that control the universe. I never said I accept them, because I don't have to background. I do agree with their criticism that current theories are running into roadblocks that beg for a different paradigm. So shove it Onna.

Excuse me, the plotted anomaly is not the difference with the mean, it's the global mean difference from the global norm for that chart.

Yav
One of the first things I learned as a freshman is to label my charts. The site specializes in the sun. Who would have thought it was giving measurements on earth.

I suppose I had an advantage in reading the chart then. I know the numbers already for average irradiance and the Earth's surface. It's used in photovoltaic output calculations.

Ray-
If solar irradiance is flat, how would the increased "temperature anomaly" from the Sun reach and heat the Earth?

Can we agree that convection and conduction are out?

Cooper
I'm not sure what you mean by temperature anomaly form the sun? I misread the chart. The temperature anomaly is on earth. That said, the sun gives out more than light and heat. Much is not understood about the sun to dismiss it as having no effect on climate change. Neither are cosmic forces. And I have yet to see any explanations for climate change before the 20th century.

Can we agree that convection and conduction are out?

At 93 million miles. Yes.

Ray-
Um, it could be 100 miles, and still the relatively empty space would preclude conduction or convection, which leaves radiation (irradiance).

Ray-
As the Earth is concerned, "light and heat" from the Sun are the same thing. Do you propose some other mechanism whereby the Sun mysteriously warms the Earth?

Hell, maybe it's Mossad and the Jewish/neocon/Osama/Sun conspiracy.

AU notices, "Then they gerrymandered Congressional districts, and once in office in D.C. proceeded to set the pit bulls like Delay on an 'eat the enemy' diet, instead of including Democrats in ANYTHING."

Well, I did live in Dallas when the Democrats last gerrmandered the state, before the "redistricting" was done AFTER a Republican majority was voted into office by the citizens of Texas.

There it is, just another example of the point: Democratic party members are NOT democratic ... and will vilify their opponents *forever* for accomplishing democratic processes when they aren't the majority. They will hatefully spit at Republicans and calling the democratic actions the most pejorative term they can think to apply ... except when they are the majority, and then it is "redistricting".

Ironically, as you might expect from Texas, the paleo-democratic majority of Democrats were *RICH* and had re-gerrymandered the state to continue to reduce large city voter influence (ethnic and racial minorities) and diluted it with large swaths of agriculutural and small city (white) numbers, and which benefitted the "rancher" groups, private and large agricultural businesses, as well as oil, gas and chemical industries.

The redistricting done by the neo-Republican majority increased ethnic and racial minority influence in voting and resulted in several Democratic representatives to congress -- as you look at honesty in "gerrmandering" like ungrateful brats suspicious of missing teeth ...

Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up'
By Fred Langan in Toronto and Tom Leonard
Last Updated: 1:43am GMT 09/03/2007

Pictures of a polar bear floating precariously on a tiny iceberg have become the defining image of global warming but may be misleading, according to a new study.

Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased due to the efforts of conservationists

A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment.

In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.

"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.

His findings back the claims of Inuit hunters who have long claimed that they were seeing more bears.

advertisement
"Scientific knowledge has demonstrated that Inuit knowledge was right," said Mr Taylor.

While fellow scientists have accepted Mr Taylor's findings, critics point out that his study was commissioned by the Inuit-dominated government of Nunavit.

Critics claim the government has an agenda to encourage polar bear hunting and keep the animals off the endangered species list.

In small Inuit communities, hunters kill bears that wander too close to human settlements and, in this particular region, they are licensed to kill six polar bears a year.

Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased not because of climate change but due to the efforts of conservationists.

The battle to ban the hunting of Harp seal pups has meant the seal population has soared - boosting the bears' food supply.

At the same time, fewer seal hunters are around to hunt bears.

"I don't think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming," said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears."

Bear numbers on the west coast of Hudson's Bay had shrunk by 22 per cent over the past decade, he said.

"They are declining due to global warming and changes in when the ice freezes and melts in Hudson's Bay," he added. He and other scientists in his group are concerned that the retreating ice in the Arctic may pose a danger to future generations of polar bears because of 'habitat loss'. "The critical problem is the sea ice is changing. "We're looking ahead three generations, 30 to 50 years.

"To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant."

However, Prof Derocher conceded that some polar bear-related evidence of the damaging effect of global warming was misplaced.

Contrary to concern over a celebrated photograph of a bear and its cub floating on a tiny iceberg, the animals often travel in that way, he said.

"Bears will often hang out on glacier ice or large pieces of multi-year ice," he said.

The state of Alaska yesterday questioned the scientific justification for proposals to add polar bears to the US endangered species list.

Tina Cunnings, a biologist attached to the Alaskan government, questioned whether they needed sea ice to survive, saying they could adapt to hunt on land and find alternative food sources to seals.

Prof Derocher said the theory was "absolutely fanciful


www.telegraph.co.uk

Kerrin,

I can't believe I'm going to have to explain this. Polar bears are moving into areas inhabited by humans because their natural prey is unavailable, I.E no ice to hunt on. The same thing has happened to mountain lions where I live. Less natural habitat for the animals they hunt means less food, and they will go where food is.

And I can't even believe a biologist would say "hunt on land and find alternative food sources to seals". I only an idiot would suggest that any animal pushed out of it's natural habitat buy our activities should be expected to adapt. That's why you have racoons eating our garbage in our cities.

Q1: How long have polar bears been around?
Q2: How many natural climate changes have they survived in their time on this planet?
Q3: How much more tax money will I be robbed of in the name of the polar bear?

Ray,

"The amount of CO2 emitted by humans is a tiny fraction of total CO2."

Here's the thing people in your position don't understand. There's naturally existing CO2 in the atmosphere, but the amount we've been contributing since the industrial revolution can't be mitigated by natural processes anymore.

www.eia.doe.gov

More ridiculous scare-mongering by the Left. It is a natural cycle of life for all the polar bears to be killed once every 20,000 years or so.

--The Right--

Warming Will Kill Most Polar Bears

As it did the North American Mammouth?

Right, the 1% of total CO2 that humans account for has overtaken the natural proccesses of the planet. Seems reasonable. It's a real bummer that natural processes aren't a little more flexible.

Interesting article on what may have killed the mammoths in north america...

www.washingtonpost.com

P.S. "Most" doesn't mean all. Polar bears have survived warm climates in the past, and they will do so again in the future. Get used to change folks. This planet has been doing it for 4.5 billion years.

Denton
I'm looking at the chart and I have a hard time getting out of what I'm looking for; they use two different scales. Yes it looks like human emissions contribute contribute to concentration. A chart that compares the quantity of natural CO2 and human CO2 would be more meaningful. The argument I've seen that in terms of quantity, the human part is a tiny fraction.

Then I notice that it doesn't include water vapor which, I think, is somewhere on the order of 80% of all greenhouse gases. It's easy to be fooled by statistics and I'm dubious about what I see.

Out of six billion people on this planet it is impossible to get any significant reduction even if it was human caused. Then there are the benefits of warming to consider: open land to energy and mineral exploration and faster crop growth.

Assuming human influence, to go to the apocalyptic stage would take an enormous redoubling if human emissions in face of a cold outer space. And I haven't included warming from earth's core.

Ray,

Assuming the environment were stable before we starting contributing to it by burning large amounts of fossil fuels, the only major change in natural CO2 emissions would come from wildfires or volcanic eruptions. I'm not a climatologist, but that would make some sense to me.

"The argument I've seen that in terms of quantity, the human part is a tiny fraction."

If you look at the chart, the line representing total atmospheric CO2 content was rising, but not at the rate it is now until the industrial revolution began. The line that represents man-made (Anthropogenic) emissions rises at a sharp rate, in sync with the overall emissions. Based on that, I'd say the increase is man made.

"Then I notice that it doesn't include water vapor which, I think, is somewhere on the order of 80% of all greenhouse gases. It's easy to be fooled by statistics and I'm dubious about what I see."

Yes, it's easy to be fooled by statistics, if that's the idea. Yes, water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, that doesn't mean it's the only one, and that doesn't mean other gases can't contribute to the greenhouse effect. Water vapor percentages in the atmosphere aren't increasing at the same rate at CO2 and Methane, if at all. If they are, it's because the planet is heating, which would have to be caused by other gases. So if there's an increase in the greenhouse effect, it's not because of the water vapor. It would have to be attributed to the variable that's changing, and that would be CO2 and Methane.

"Out of six billion people on this planet it is impossible to get any significant reduction even if it was human caused. Then there are the benefits of warming to consider: open land to energy and mineral exploration and faster crop growth."

On the contrary, it would be possible, if it were man made, if people would try. If legislation were passed to reduce factory emissions, use non-polluting power sources, reduce vehicle emissions, and so on, yes, there would be financial consequences. Yes, some people would lose their jobs, but the same was thought when we moved from production and manufacturing based economy to an information based economy. People went back to school and retrained themselves. Many companies saw the value in retraining their employees and paid for it themselves. Now kids are going to school for technology related jobs that pay more than manufacturing jobs. A difference can be made.

On the subject of the benefits of warmer weather, yes, in colder climates, there would be more space to plant crops because the ground would thaw. However, in places that are already considered fertile and used for farming, an increase in temperature by just a few degrees would cause more moisture to evaporate from the soil than could be replaced by rainfall, if that were to stay the same. That would turn the farmland we have useless, and if we had the means to irrigate it all to sustain current crop production, we'd be using more of our drinking water.

"Assuming human influence, to go to the apocalyptic stage would take an enormous redoubling if human emissions in face of a cold outer space."

I don't think anyone here thinks "The Day After Tomorrow" is going to happen. The changes that are going to have the biggest impact are the ones that will happen slowly, like the melting of arctic ice. Eventually, we'll hit a tipping point where it will become more dramatic, but I don't think that will happen for another 50 to 100 years. Personally, I'm not willing to wait that long to make a change, and neither should you.

Polar bears at the San Diego zoo reach longer than average longevity. Gee....how does that happen?

Gee....how does that happen?

Impressive.

No animal expert, but I'm guessing regular food, medical care, and lack of predators might have something to do with it.

So...we should send food, medical care and cut down the population of Polar Bear predators.........

We can crack water to produce hydrogen for energy(including salt water). A by product is clean potable water for drinking/irrigation and transport it to where it is needed.

www.interstatetraveler.us

The retort of the day goes to...


"We have a polar bear here in WNY living in the zoo. He was fine during the hot weather. He'd just dive in the water get all wet... The polar bear is still alive."

-Posted by pragmatous at 2007-09-08 11:38 PM |

This may be the most moronic statement I have ever heard. It feels good to laugh.

Denton

First of all, climate has never been stable. In the distant past, it's oscillated between extremes of hot and cold. I argue that if there is no viable theory of climate change before man, then there can be no viable theory to account for change after man. Current predictions are based on computer models. There are too many variables and unknowns for computer models to be reliable.

Second, if you look at the link you posted at 10:53, it shows emissions from developing countries are increasing faster and have surpassed industrial countries. They want the standard of living we have and they aren't going to be stopped.

Third, I want to see quantitative stats because there is a major difference between adding drops of water to a cup of water verses adding drops to a gallon of water. I believe that the stats are misleading and uninformative because most presenters have a political agenda.

Fourth, you far overrate the competence of government. Congress can't even balance a budget and we are stuck with an intractable war that consumes enormous amounts of energy. The world body of nations could not come to an agreement on something like this. They would all be trying to outmaneuver the other -west verses east.

In conclusion, you want the impossible.

Over the course of thousands of years, yes, the environment oscillates. We've been putting carbon into the air for little more than 100 years, and it shows by the link I cited earlier.

Every change for the better in our civilization, be it technology, human rights, etc has started in western countries. Yes, developing countries will use more carbon, just like we did. If we lead, they will follow. To simply throw you hands up and say "it's too hard, we can't fix the problem" is fucking lazy.

You said before you're an anarchist, and it's obvious that even in the face of evidence saying it was man made, and evidence that our civilization and our country have overcome obstacles like polio, malaria (in developed countries) and even just basic hygiene, you're still content just to give up.

As one poster said earlier, you deserve extinction.

Eventually, we'll hit a tipping point where it will become more dramatic, but I don't think that will happen for another 50 to 100 years.
-------

Barring a comet collision, when since to formation of the planet has a dramatic change in the climate happened in 50 to 100 years? You actually think in the 4.5 billion year history of this planet, humans will be the first and only thing ever to cause global climate change in a 50 year period? Take a deep breath and let in a little common sense once in a while. We're not that significant.

Also, the next time a government agency tells you there is a crisis ask yourself "why does that always end up costing me more money?" Is it possible there is a reason those sponsered by the government are telling us we need to put more money into this "problem". Isn't this a conflict of interests?

The 50 to 100 year period is when most scientists who are experts on the subject believe the increasing amount of CO2 and methane is going to spur on other problems such as increased permafrost thawing in siberia, alaska, and canada. It's also the period when they believe the increase in surface water on glaciers is going to begin irreversably speeding up glacial melting. The increases in these processes will "tip the balance" and begin the release of more methane into the air and fresh water into the seas.

If you want to thumb your nose at the empirical and scientific evidence, feel free to do so. If your house were burning down, would you take the time to think of how much it's going to cost to fix it, or put the fire out?

Denton
I'm also a realist. I know you are not.

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2010 World Readable