Global warming
Subject: The Great Man Made Global Warming Controversy
I’ve had it. We live in a world where people are told how to think. In the greatest example of Barking Dog Syndrome, man made global warming, we are told we humans are emitting too many greenhouse gasses and that’s causing global warming. May I ask the insipid, mindless drones what is causing the warming trends on the other planets in our solar system? I imagine they blame George W Bush for that as well.
Those on the vituperative left don’t even want to debate the issue, but stifle any opposing points of view. Who are the open-minded again? Our country is falling to hate and bitterness from the fascist left. Yes, I used the term fascist to describe the socialist left.
Fascists are those who want to federalize health care, who want to seize oil profits and re-invest them into alternative technologies, who believe the government is the last, best hope of mankind. Fascists tell us what we should drive, how we should live, what we should eat, where we can smoke, “instructs” us as to what we can and cannot say. They embrace the leaders of Syria, Iran, Venezuela, appease Al Qaeda by running away from another fight. They call themselves progressives which is the biggest joke of all. They want to censor talk radio because nobody listens to their drivel, and everybody listens to conservative talk radio.
Then they try to deny that the media is biased to the whacky socialist left, but the democrats prove the point by not doing a debate on Fox News. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of being asked challenging questions? I haven’t heard any yet. They don’t have the intellectual acuity to debate me let alone taking on the likes of Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, or any of the other republicans if truth be told...even John McCane has more common sense and decency.
This letter has not been edited.
Science-Bad..Religion-Good
Posted by on September 25, 2007 01:47 PMTry and forget that Al Gore promoted this and try using YOUR brain for a change. Right now there is a huge summit meeting on this. Most of the countries in the world believe its a fact. Most off the scientists believe its a fact. Even the damn Republican Party reluctantly agrees its a fact ( Gingrich, Swartzenegger, etc..). Let me guess, you think gravity is a hoax? You think the world is flat? You think the sun revolves around the Earth. Fox News is an oxymoron. There is no 'news' in FOX programming, just rightwing propaganda
Posted by No Scarecrow on September 25, 2007 01:57 PMPost 1:47 PM is bad and stupid
Global warming is good lie.
Global warming OK
Human caused? You're kidding. Right?
Even the experts admit they don't know the amount of change human beings are responsible for creating. They only know it is a chance to grab power and they are grabbing.
Best choice of all is to ask hard questions and require scientific proof, not the conclusions of a political group or those funded by such founded on a computer model.
For an answer to the problem IF it is partially man made I offer the observation that the "disaster" of Global Warming has at least a century before it is serious enough to impact us.
In the last 100 years we have gone from an agrarian based society to an industrial society to a technological society. We have evolved from an animal, mostly horse, transportation to automobiles, trucks and airplanes. This alone expanded our ability to trade and learn and expand. Our agricultural system has improved at least tenfold overall producing enough food to feed our citizens and much of the rest of the world.
We have gone from the hand carried letter to the pony express to ground carriers and air carriers and telegrams and e-mail and the internet. We even had one system of cargo transport that was more efficient fail because it was too dangerous. (Dirigibles had the highest cargo capacity with the greatest flexibility of any non-water transport in all of our history including today.)
We have gone from oil lamps and candles to electric lights and even solar power.
In the next hundred years we will see this progress again if we don't smother it with governmental good intentions and panic.
Global warming may indeed be real. So is human creativity and adaptability.
Or, as one very famous author (whose name I can't remember right now) puts it:
Don't think of the problem. Think of the solution.
Hey Scarecrow, have you watched the national geogrphic channel lately? Or the learning channel. In the last month some excellent programs all discussing global warming in one context or another. From how climate helped shape the earth, to cyclic solar patterns that caused the dark ages.
Your cynical attack at Fox News has nothing to do with the science of climate change. Niether does your hatred of religion.
Facts are coming forth, which includes the majority of scientific research and the majority of scientists who do not hold to the political opinion of human only global warming.
The industrial age put more carbons into the atmoshpere then at any time other then the shaping of the tetonic plates into the atmosphere.
In your quick to react without thinking you forget (or purposely left out) the Kyoto accord. A political traety we wisely did not sign. However your kind wants to blame America first even though China and India individually put forth more pollution then America in the last 50 years. Yet these two up and coming countries did not sign this or accept it.
You leave out the fact mexico pollutes more then America. The comparison to Europe is very misleading as when America is compared it is not to the continent of Europe but to individual countries.
I am leaving out the fact Al Gore is leading the way in misinformation on this subject. Unfortunately your nameing the GOP as also agreeing to global warming is false. They are not supporting the true facts but falling and prostating themselves to the left political adgenda.
Posted by Amature Climatologist on September 25, 2007 02:19 PMPaul of Aurora: you do have a right to dispute global warming, and a right to keep your blinders on. But a diatribe on the "fascist" left does little to enhance your credibility, it only shows your anger and your frustration at any one who does not share your conservative views and your total belief in the right-wing. Speaking of naive, how about you folks who believe everything that G.W. Bush wants you to believe, and smilingly do everything you can to polarize this country? That also plays right in to the terrorist's idea of "divide and conquer".Someday (hopefully soon), you will wonder what the hell possessed you.
Posted by Roland on September 25, 2007 02:30 PMIt's Americas fault, plan and simple.
That's what they want all of us to agree to. America is the fault of all the ills of the world. Specifically George Bushes fault. Until then, the argument will go on and on and on.
There's never any discussion as to HOW to fix the problem, HOW much the resolution will cost factoring in the exponential rise in the cost of EVERYTHING we touch and do, HOW long it's going to take before any noticeable change is detected, HOW they will know any attempted solution might be working. The list is endless.
And we're supposed to buy as gospel the facts as presented by Al Gore. While he's screaming the sky is falling, on the side this guy is selling carbon credits, the latest "SNAKE OIL or PET ROCK" and making a fortune in the process.
It wasn't an issue when Clinton was in office, the entire Senate voted against the resolution. I repeat, EVERY SINGLE SENATOR voted against the resolution. Where was Al Gore then? If he believed in it so passionately then as he does now, why wasn't more emphasis given to it by that administration? BECAUSE HE WASN'T MAKING MONEY OFF IT!!!
Posted by on September 25, 2007 02:53 PMThey want to censor talk radio because nobody listens to their drivel, and everybody listens to conservative talk radio..from the Letterwriter
Not everyone listens to conservative talk radio. Only right wing neanderthals but it is a good explanation as to where this letterwriter's head is stuck.
Posted by just sayin' on September 25, 2007 02:59 PMH O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
Posted by on September 25, 2007 03:09 PMHow can we believe the experts? Seems the more closely their evidence is scrutinized the more errors seem to pop up.
Didn't the experts claim for a fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record... Until their computer model flaws were exposed that is. Turns out it was back in the 1930's if I remember correctly, long before we became an industrialized nation, or world.
Posted by KW on September 25, 2007 03:51 PMIntellectual sasquatch , climate change has been going on for 4.6 billion years. Get used to it or move to Mars or Venuss--where it has also been going on for 4/6 billion years.
Posted by Hank on September 25, 2007 04:10 PMRight on, Paul! As Roland pointed out, your frustration is showing. Only part you left out (and where the heck is Hank today?) is how we can't use oil, natural gas or coal because wind and solar power will save the day (right). These folks are going to save the earth right to the point where we're back in the cave, and tax us to death on top of it.
Posted by SufferingFromFools on September 25, 2007 04:23 PM"I used the term fascist to describe the socialist left.' huh?
"They don’t have the intellectual acuity to debate me let alone taking on the likes of Rudy Giuliani, .."
Paul, judging from your confused rantings, you don't have the intellectual acuity to debate a chipmunk. Let me turn down Rush as I write this since "everybody listens to conservative talk radio."
In the world of wild-eyed, salivating wingnuts, this guy takes the cake.
Posted by drew on September 25, 2007 04:24 PMHuman Virus,
Soon we will all be wiped out by our stupidity and ridiculous infighting we as the supposed smartest beings on Earth can't ever come to one conclusion regarding anyting. One says one thing the other will disagree, we will never come together on a single issue again in America. America is done as the super power it once was, greed, power and the inability for any accountability is a great start. The Earth will be here for billions of years after we are gone, we can't harm the Earth we just harm and kill what it sustains. America is broken and possibly beyond repair, she no longer cares for her citizens and we have become the most selfish society in American history. The clock is ticking!!!
Posted by on September 25, 2007 04:37 PMI'm still waiting for the 'ice age' these same scientist predicted in the 1970s.
Or better yet, what happened to the all the global warming and end of life on earth scientist predicted would happen during the 1930s dust bowls?
Posted by on September 25, 2007 05:55 PM"I'm still waiting for the 'ice age' these same scientist predicted in the 1970s."
Far out, 5:55! Are you still wearing your polyester bell-bottoms, platform shoes, and pukka beads, driving your Pinto, and listening to your 8-tracks on your quadrophonic sound system? And how do you know "these same scientists" really are the same ones? And that they're using the same technology they had 30 years ago?
Ah, yes, how could we puny humans have any serious effect on the atmosphere or the environment? (I guess the term "atom bomb" means nothing to people who pose that question.) Silliest thing I ever heard. Next thing you know people will be claiming that humans are capable of landing on the moon or bouncing information off satellites in outer space.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on September 25, 2007 06:56 PM"I'm still waiting for the 'ice age' these same scientist predicted in the 1970s."
There wasn't a consensus prediction of an ice-age in the 1970's. There was a single Newsweek article that they have since retracted that made the claim there might be a new ice-age.
You simply don't know what you're talking about...
Posted by on September 25, 2007 07:19 PMI don't understand all the fuss over the debate. Seems to me like Democrats and Republicans alike should do what they can to help keep our planet clean and our energy bills low no matter what they believe. I drive a fuel-efficient car and have energy efficient bulbs in all my light fixtures because I want to save money. If I end up being part of the global warming solution too, great.
Both sides need to get off their high-horse and shut-up. I think if there is global warming, it's caused by all the hot air being pumped out of the mouths of closed-minded idiots on both sides of the debate.
Posted by The Blood of Tyrants on September 26, 2007 06:00 AMalgore said gw was from co2. if it is true all of you who believe in gw can help today by not taking another breath and exhaling all of the co2 the rest of us will have to deal with.
Posted by on September 26, 2007 06:29 AMI believes in the bible ( tho i never read what it sez) and it dont talk about global warming so there aint no such thing. Quit saying its happening cuz I dont like it. I know it t aint happening here cuz it got cold last night.
Posted by Amateur Religionologist on September 26, 2007 07:06 AMWhere are all of the MAJOR HURRICANES we were all going to die from last year and this year? It is almost October and we have yet to see one major hurricane hit the US since Rita in 2005. I wonder if that is attributed to Global warming as well?
Posted by on September 26, 2007 08:06 AMI just heard that if the earth temperature decreases just 2 degrees for a period of years, we will be in an ice age. GO warming!
Posted by Tom on September 26, 2007 08:08 AMIt's those pesky liberals again:
"Said C.D.P. Chief Executive Paul Dickinson: “Wal-Mart will encourage its suppliers to measure and manage their greenhouse gas emissions, and ultimately reduce the total carbon footprint of Wal-Mart’s indirect emissions. We look forward to other global corporations following Wal-Mart’s lead.”
Posted by Truth on September 26, 2007 08:11 AMIt's those pesky liberals again:
From the Wall Street Journal"
"Amid growing awareness about the implications of climate change, large corporations have started taking action to reduce their carbon footprints, according to a report to be released today."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119060044005737017.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Posted by Truth on September 26, 2007 08:17 AMIt's those pesky liberals again:
"Last month, Internet search company Google announced it would go 'carbon neutral' by the end of the year. The month before that, automaker General Motors joined a coalition of businesses calling for governments to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. At about the same time, 300 corporate representatives packed into a London conference centre to learn how they too could reduce their carbon emissions. Corporations, consultants, academics and even some environmentalists agree that the last year has seen a fundamental shift in the way many businesses view climate change. For most corporations, the question is no longer whether global warming is happening, but how to get ready for it. "I've been working at the interface of business and the environment for 15 years. I've never seen this pace of change," says Nicholas Eisenberger, managing principal at GreenOrder, a New York firm that works with companies on sustainability strategies."
http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0708/full/climate.2007.31.html
Posted by Truth on September 26, 2007 08:20 AMIt's those pesky liberals again:
"WASHINGTON - Major corporations and environmental groups on Friday announced what they called an "unprecedented alliance" to push for quicker action against global warming — urging lawmakers to pass mandatory curbs on carbon emissions, in contrast to President Bush's voluntary approach.
In a statement, the 10 U.S.-based companies and four environmental groups called for mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, including those from power plants, transportation and buildings.
Called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, the group includes aluminum giant Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, DuPont, General Electric, Lehman Brothers and four utilities with a big stake in climate policy: Duke Energy, FPL Group, PG&E and PNM Resources. (MSNBC.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and GE's NBC Universal unit.)"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16708004/
Posted by Truth on September 26, 2007 08:23 AMIt's those pesky liberals again:
"Citigroup to cut carbon emissions by 10%
Citigroup news release
January 25, 2006
Demonstrating its ongoing commitment to environmental and social issues globally, Citigroup Inc. today announced a commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions on a global basis by 10% by 2011. To accelerate this reduction, Citigroup is joining the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Climate Leader Program. This voluntary industry-government partnership identifies environmental leaders in adopting aggressive goals and strategies for curtailing greenhouse gas emissions at manufacturing and other facilities."
"Citigroup joins the 79 corporations, including Xerox, the Gap, Frito-Lay, DuPont and General Motors, who have already pledged their commitment to lowering emissions through this EPA-sponsored program. With today's announcements, 46 companies have set GHG reduction goals. EPA estimates that these goals will prevent more than 8 million metric tons of carbon emissions equivalents per year. These reductions are equal to the annual greenhouse gas emissions of 5 million cars.
Since its inception in 2002, Climate Leaders has grown to include 79 corporations whose U.S. emissions represent 8 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions."
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0125-citigroup.html
Posted by Truth on September 26, 2007 08:26 AMSoros' MoveOn Buys Global Warming Hoax:
How many people know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?
That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.
That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.
----
THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX--BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY GEORGE SOROS!
Good letter Paul,right to the factual point.
Posted by Keith on September 26, 2007 09:59 AMI think we should be doing things that may help Global Warming.
Here's my problem with Al Gore.
He makes this doom and gloom movie and millions of dollars .He writes a books and makes millions of dollars. I have no problem with that we live in a capitalist society.
Then Al Gore flys in a private jet all over the country warning us we are in big trouble if we don't change , " our " ways.
The private jet he fly's on is a model that puts out more CO2 than any other one on the market. He drives in big SUV's,He owns a mansion that emits huge amounts of CO2 and expects us to change the way we live to help cut down on emmissions.
What is wrong with this picture?
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on September 26, 2007 10:03 AMHank - If I remember right, it was Hansen who wouldn't reveal the program codes used in computer models that pointed to gw. It wasn't until another scientist was able to backstep thru the process that serious errors were discovered. One of which being the claim that 1998 was the hottest year on record.
If Soros was the money machine behind Hansen, it would certainly explain why so many claims of scientific evidence was being refuted by other reputable scientists.
Posted by KW on September 26, 2007 10:03 AMPaul M LaSalle :
May I ask the insipid, mindless drones what is causing the warming trends on the other planets in our solar system?
Well, for one, Pluto's highly elliptical recently had it's nearest approach to the sun so what would you expect the temperatures on Pluto to do? That then raises the question of what connection Pluto's orbit has to do with the Earth's temperature.
momma y :
For an answer to the problem IF it is partially man made I offer the observation that the "disaster" of Global Warming has at least a century before it is serious enough to impact us.
In the last 100 years we have gone from an agrarian based society to an industrial society to a technological society.
...
Global warming may indeed be real. So is human creativity and adaptability.
The problem though is CO2 has a residence time of about 100 years so while I have confidence in our ability
to adapt, this sounds like it would be more of an reactive approach instead of addressing the cause.
Amature Climatologist:
Facts are coming forth, which includes the majority of scientific research and the majority of scientists who do not hold to the political opinion>/b> of human only global warming.
You are confusing scientific and political opinion which are two very different things
The industrial age put more carbons into the atmoshpere then at any time other then the shaping of the tetonic plates into the atmosphere.
Huh? The tectonic plates are "shaping" even today and have been for a few billion years. Plate movement is very slow - it has taken about 300 million years for the Atlantic Ocean to open as far as it has. So it's not very clear when this "shaping" put more CO2 in the atmosphere.
02:53 PM:
And we're supposed to buy as gospel the facts as presented by Al Gore.
I don't give a damn about what Al Gore says, I don't care for him at all.
KW:
Didn't the experts claim for a fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record... Until their computer model flaws were exposed that is. Turns out it was back in the 1930's if I remember correctly, long before we became an industrialized nation, or world.
Got a source for that KW? Given your habit of grossly misstating references, I bet you have this one really wrong too - I'll bet you are confusing temperatures in the 1930s in the US/North America (which had high temps in the 30s) with global temperatures (which didn't).
BTW - we became industrialized well before the 1930s.
08:06:
Where are all of the MAJOR HURRICANES we were all going to die from last year and this year?
Last year there was an El Nino year which tends to suppress hurricane formation as well as keep those that do form out in the Atlantic rather than making landfall.
It is almost October and we have yet to see one major hurricane hit the US since Rita in 2005.
Hurricane season lasts until the end of November - we still have a couple of months to go. Even so, there have already been 2 Atlantic hurricanes this year to reach category 5 (Dean & Felix).
Hank:
THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX--BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY GEORGE SOROS!
Eh, Hank and science are mutually incompatible...
KW again:
If Soros was the money machine behind Hansen, it would certainly explain why so many claims of scientific evidence was being refuted by other reputable scientists.
Well KW, given how often you have made stuff up as far as "scientific evidence" your idea of refutation and just what has been refuted (and why) most likely have little if anything to do with reality.
Posted by CL on September 26, 2007 10:24 AMIf man is causing global warming, then we need to stop having sex..from the letter
Actually a good idea if this guy does not reproduce. His genes should leave the pool
Posted by on September 26, 2007 10:41 AMThey solved the problem with the temperature on planet Pluto...
They now say it's a star, and doesn't qualify for planet status. Which I might add was "approved" by less than 5% of the worlds astronomers...
Problem solved...
Posted by on September 26, 2007 10:44 AMTruth,
You are right…it’s a trendy fad that a lot of corporations have opportunistically joined.
September 25, 2007 07:19 PM
Wrong. You simply don't know what you're talking about...
In June 1974, Time magazine also claimed that an ice age was imminent because air pollution was blocking the warming rays from the sun. Now they are claiming that air pollution (which is what they call CO2) is trapping the warming rays from the sun.
I guess if one wants to force an agenda down peoples’ throats, it’s best to have things both ways just in case.
The urge to save the Earth from mankind is usually a false front for the real urge to control mankind. This has much more to do with controling global economics than it does with ecology.
The earth has cycles where it heats up and cools down for example the ice age,and what caused it to end. There was another ice age that stared in the 1300's and end in the 1850's. I don't fell that at those times man could have statred or ended either of these, and in the past seventy yares the worst years for globle warming? was all before WW 2. Again probably not caued by mankind.
Posted by brad on September 26, 2007 11:11 AMBrad,No facts please,there is liberals on this site.
Posted by Keith on September 26, 2007 11:50 AMCL - Aren't you ready to admit GW is overhyped and blown out of proportion? Will it take another 10 years and even more exposing of the junk scientists trying to make a buck off of this beofre you come around to reality?
Al claimed catastrophy in 10 years, 10 years ago and now we discover Hansen has been the real betrayus by cooking his own NASA books.
You seem an educated man so I assumed you keep up with news from multiple sources rather than just the outlets that present what you want to hear.
But since you (for some reason) didn't get the memo on Hansen having a programming error that incorrectly identified 1998 as the hottest year on record, I'll provided you this link to back up my claim.
And since you will claim my link is biased. Here's the NASA link showing the new temp findings after correcting Hansen's error. Of course, this did get changed quietly as to reduce the embarressment for NASA.
The real question now is just how accidental was this error, and was it exposed as opposed to corrected?
In any event, this revelation gives even greater cause to question every scientific body claiming a dooms day scenario from climate change, even NASA.
Posted by KW on September 26, 2007 12:45 PMI am ambivalent on human caused GW, but for the person who thinks plate tectonics puts out carbon dioxide, I know what you meant.
Volcanoes emit that and volcanoes are caused by plate subduction, magma melt and rise.
Still, that sounded kind of funny, but, there is an international society, called something like. "The Society to Stop Continental Drift".
They met a few years ago in Denmark and screwed a five foot screw into the ground to stop the continent from drifting. You could join them.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 26, 2007 01:08 PMQuestion to CL
What is the percentage of man mande CO2 compared to natural emissions of CO2 currently?
What is the additional % needed from manmade CO2 needed to attribute to global warming?
Last year was pedicted to be disasterous from a Hurricane perspective but you tend to blow that off as ElNino. Sure that was the case but what of all the predictions of disaster and death? Those scare tactics worked and then when it didnt happen, a shrug of the shoulders and a lame ass excuse given.
Yes Global warming will get worse, even if it is not man-made as the money involved in this movement is too large to ignore. Hell, I am even buying into it and working to profit. But hey, it must be ok to make $$$ off the fears of others. That is the preaching right now until the mega companies start bringing in huge profits(which they are already beginning to do) Then it will be a bad thing, Right?
Posted by on September 26, 2007 01:16 PMKW:
You are correct. After Hansen's phonied-up data, bougt and paid for by George Soros, was properly expunged, it was then revealed that 5 of the 10 warmest years of the 20th C occurred in the 1930s and that 1934 was the warmest year ever recorded, not 1998 as the Soros G-W analysis claimed.
Posted by Hank on September 26, 2007 01:32 PM
KW:
But since you (for some reason) didn't get the memo on Hansen having a programming error that incorrectly identified 1998 as the hottest year on record, I'll provided you this link [ http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880 ] to back up my claim.
And your link explicitly says:
GISS U.S. Temperatures (deg C) in New Order
So you got it wrong, exactly as I predicted when I wrote:
I bet you have this one really wrong too - I'll bet you are confusing temperatures in the 1930s in the US/North America (which had high temps in the 30s) with global temperatures (which didn't).
Then you wrote:
And since you will claim my link is biased. Here's the NASA link [ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt ] showing the new temp findings after correcting Hansen's error. Of course, this did get changed quietly as to reduce the embarressment for NASA
And of course right at the top it says:
Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C)
Also, note that your "source" is wrong when it states that the numbers are "GISS U.S. Temperatures (deg C)" - they aren't, they are temperature anomalys - 1.25 degrees C for 1934 would have been pretty darn cold...
The real question now is just how accidental was this error ...
I don't know KW - did you screw this up on accident? Given your track record and the fact that I actually predicted the exact mistake you made makes the possibility that you did this by accident a verrrrrry remote one.
In any event, this revelation gives even greater cause to question every scientific body claiming a dooms day scenario from climate change, even NASA.
The only thing in question here is your presentation of facts which are once again flawed (like that was a suprise).
Posted by CL on September 26, 2007 01:36 PMI really love conservatives. They really makes my day chippy. You know, conservatives will happily follow any "Dear Leader". They're natural followers. They don't think. They just do. Which is great when you need a source of mindless drones.
Take for example: Gas was on the average $1.25 a gallon in 2000. Not any more. A gallon of gas has hovered pretty close to $3.00 per gallon since George W. took office. And since George W. is not worried about it, the mindless conservatives are not either. Never mind the fact that they can't really afford $3.00 a gallon with their large full size gas guzzling SUVs and trucks.
Conservatives are great cattle for the super rich. They will happily toe the party line as long as they have enough to cover their basic needs. They don't mind giving up all of the extra cash and handing it to George W. and his rich friends.
Even the oil executives are claiming that there is no reason why a barrel of sweet crude is over $80 a barrel. Remember, a barrel of crude was only between $10-$20 8 years ago. An yet, you will never hear a single complaint from a conservative on the price of gas. Just because George W. is not worried.
But you have to give some credit to a conservative on their pluck. They will happily support this illegal war based on lies. Just as long as they are allowed to sit on their fat asses here. So what if our troops are mostly from the poor working class. The conservatives are too busy fighting online playing HALO 3. You will never see these conservatives who support the war in Iraq actually fight in it. They are all talk and no balls. You know, gay men have more balls than the average conservative. Gay men are not afraid to be gay no matter how much hate is thrown at them. A conservative: nope. No Balls. No Brain.
They will never confront the issue on why we pulled out the bulk of our troops in Afganistan. Remember: the Taliban and Bin Laden are in Afganistan. If the conservatives are true patriots as they claim. They should all enlist go to AFGANISTAN and kill BIN LADEN. (They will also benefit from losing their fat asses during basic training.)
But you know, George W. doesn't really think about Bin Laden or Afganistan so the mindless drones don't either.
And as for Global Warming: don't worry about it. The chances are, the human race will kill itself way before we all freeze to death. With world leaders like George W., he will bring the apacalypse soon enough. Especially with his people puppets in tow. World War III, here we come!
It's a good thing that conservatives are "Gun Loving" and "God Fearing". We are going need those people when God brings down the S#*%storm. They'll have all the guns to shoot Him with.
Posted by on September 26, 2007 01:38 PMThanks for spouting your inane gibberish, LaSalle. Too dumb to live, too stupid to do what's right...
Posted by on September 26, 2007 01:55 PMCL - When I made my claim of Hansen lying, YOU are the one trying to twist the meaning into an argument you can win. Which you won't. I'll stomp your silly notions faster than Teddy stomps wind turbines on the cape my friend.
Fact - Hansen had a programming error that produced incorrect results that he claimed showed proof of GW. The ONLY question here is was it an honest mistake or on purpose to keep the government money flowing in?
Fact - Hansen claimed that 1998 was the hottest year and this was wrong. Whether (no pun) or not it's the world or the 48 states isn't my claim, it's Hansens. This is the claim that HE made, not me, and has since been corrected. That's why I showed you both links so you could compare and see. But you choose to seek only fault in my links and are missing the truth you try so desparately to avoid.
Unlike you I can see the contradictions of these phoney scientists but if this is what you live for, by all means, defend away.
Just quit trying to claim "I" made the error. It was and still is Hansen.
Posted by KW on September 26, 2007 02:37 PMJust quit trying to claim "I" made the error. It was and still is Hansen.
Hansen isn't the programmer, just a convenient bogeyman for denialists.
Even Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist, says that man has caused climate change, fer Pete's sake.
The only people who disagree are a tiny, loud minority of mostly white males.
Best,
D
Posted by Dano on September 26, 2007 02:51 PMWell Mr. Chippy day. Using current pricing adjusted for inflation, during the first Gulf War gas was averaging $2.80 a gallon. http://zfacts.com/p/35.html Today we're averaging $3.13. So in 25 plus years the change isn't that significant. What's common denominator here? Tick...tock...tick...tock. Ok times up. There was a war in the gulf region. Guess what?... This is where 50+% of the worlds oil comes from.
What's also changed between now and then? Tick...tock...tick...tock Ok times up again. China alone has doubled it's oil imports in the last decade alone. http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/041220-china-iran.htm
Now a lesson on the "price" of oil. The current price on oil is based on the ability to meet future demand. Flow of which is controlled in large part by OPEC. Much in the same way "mad cow" disease scares increase the the current price of beef, milk, butter, and every other dairy product. Because there's a force in play that may effect the ability to meet future demand.
So, I'll venture to bet you've got no problem spending $4.50 for a 16 ounce cup of Starbucks, so doing the math for you is $36, give or take depending on the price of coffee and dairy. Or perhaps $5.00 or more for a cocktail at your local watering hole. Do the math there...
Looks like the $3.00 gallon of gas is a bargain...
Add that to your Chippy day!
Posted by on September 26, 2007 02:56 PM01:16 PM:
What is the percentage of man mande CO2 compared to natural emissions of CO2 currently?
I've seen estimates where human CO2 emmisions are something like 3%-5% of total CO2 emmisions. That would make natural emmissions about 95%-97% of the total CO2 emmissions
What is the additional % needed from manmade CO2 needed to attribute to global warming?
That depends on the total available CO2 sinks. I've seen estimates where the sinks more or less equal the level of natural CO2 emmissions which would mean the rest would be human-caused increases in atmospheric CO2, but the error bars are quite large (ie about 15% for the amount of human CO2 emmissions). See:
http://www.carleton.edu/departments/geol/DaveSTELLA/Carbon/carbon_intro.htm
for a good explanation.
We do know that the increase in human CO2 emmisions roughly matches the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels (from ~315ppm in 1960 to ~355ppm in 1992 for example). We can also guage the human contribution of CO2 from fossil fuels from the change in ratio of C13 in the atmosphere (see the linked article for an explanation of that).
Last year was pedicted to be disasterous from a Hurricane perspective but you tend to blow that off as ElNino. Sure that was the case but what of all the predictions of disaster and death? Those scare tactics worked and then when it didnt happen, a shrug of the shoulders and a lame ass excuse given.
From http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/elnino/index.html :
It is now well-accepted that El Niño reduces hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin. Gray (1984) uses physical processes that accompany El Niño to describe reduced hurricane activity. Gray (1984) also finds that of the 54 major hurricanes striking the United States coast during 1900-83, only four occurred during the 16 El Niño years in contrast to 50 making landfall during the 68 non-El Niño years. This is a rate of 0.25 major hurricanes per year during El Niño events and 0.74 during non-El Niño years, almost a three to one ratio. Richards and O'Brien (1996) showed that the probability of 2 or more hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. coast during El Niño is 21%, while the probability of 2 or more U.S. hurricanes during neutral conditions is 46%. However, the data and methodology used in Richards and O'Brien (1996) work are limited.
BTW - note that the above article was published in 1998.
KW -
You Explicitly claimed that the hottest year on record turned out to be in the 30's.
Didn't the experts claim for a fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record... Until their computer model flaws were exposed that is. Turns out it was back in the 1930's if I remember correctly, long before we became an industrialized nation, or world.
I challenged that claim with the prediction that you were using temperatures for the US or North America, not global temps and asked for your source.
You gave a source and low and behold it used data for the US.
I didn't twist a damn thing. You claimed the 30's were the hottest on record - it's right there in black and white.
Posted by CL on September 26, 2007 03:46 PMAll of you. Want something really scary to think about?
If all that frozen methane in the ocean thaws, then we will really have a problem.
If the Northern Atlantic becomes less salty, this is the "salt dump" that keep the Gulf Stream going, the U.K. will freeze over.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 26, 2007 03:58 PMHave fun with your GW there CL. It'll keep you busy for at least a few more years.
Then you can start crying about global cooling again.
Posted by KW on September 26, 2007 04:41 PMWell KW, I dug up where Nasa uses your data source:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
The data you cited is plotted under "Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States" you'll find your data under the "tabular data"
link. There's tabular data and graphs for global temperatures too - for a graph of global and US temps see this chart:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/USHCN.2005vs1999.lrg.gif
Data for global temps in the 30s - columns are year, annual mean and 5 year mean
Tabular data for "Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change":
1930 -.06 -.10
1931 -.01 -.11
1932 -.06 -.07
1933 -.17 -.08
1934 -.05 -.08
1935 -.10 -.06
1936 -.03 .00
1937 .08 .02
1938 .12 .05
1939 .03 .08
and 1998:
1998 .57 .38
and 2005:
2005 .62 *
Tabular data for global temps from metrological station data only:
1930 -.03 -.04
1931 .02 -.06
1932 .04 -.01
1933 -.11 -.02
1934 .05 -.02
1935 -.08 .00
1936 .02 .05
1937 .12 .04
1938 .15 .08
1939 -.02 .10
and 1998:
1998 .71 .48
and 2005:
2005 .76 *
while the data YOU cite for the US (tabular data link under "Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States") is:
1930 .15 .14
1931 1.08 .26
1932 -.01 .63
1933 .67 .60
1934 1.24 .42
1935 .03 .40
1936 .19 .44
1937 -.15 .35
1938 .85 .35
1939 .84 .44
and 1998:
1998 1.24 .52
and 2005:
2005 .71 *
So now do you see the problem with your claim that the 30's were the hottest on record???
Again CL, I'm repeating what Hansen already admitted to.
Yet you keep saying it's "my" claim. This is your "twist" I refered to earlier. Nice try.
For a guy that likes to follow me around attempting to catch me in an error, you sure must think highly of me to liken me to a scientist.
Thanks for the compliment!
I could do with a little less of the stocking though. Is this a habit of yours?
Posted by KW on September 26, 2007 05:48 PMSharon said: "If the Northern Atlantic becomes less salty, this is the "salt dump" that keep the Gulf Stream going, the U.K. will freeze over."
Send Bango Skank home beforehand, please.
Posted by on September 26, 2007 06:14 PMNo way 6:14. We need free thinkers here.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 26, 2007 06:19 PMH O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
H O A X -- to raise taxes and enrich limousine liberals, and exert control over the sheeple of the world.
Posted by on September 26, 2007 06:37 PMDon't flatter yourself KW.
Posted by CL on September 27, 2007 08:58 AMHank: "THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX--BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY GEORGE SOROS!"
Yeah, sure, Hank, Hansen is the only scientist around who thinks man contributes to global warming. Now get back in your hole.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 12:53 PMDano,
Oh, I get it. It's a racial thing. Why didn't we all think of that?
"Even Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist, says that man has caused climate change, fer Pete's sake."
Dano, you left out the fact that Lomborg does not think that there is one darn thing we can do to correct the problem that he falsely believes humans have created.
So, it seems that it's all hopeless. We're just going to bake to death. And it's all George Bush's fault, of course.
Dano,
Oh, I get it. It's a racial thing. Why didn't we all think of that?
"Even Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist, says that man has caused climate change, fer Pete's sake."
Dano, you left out the fact that Lomborg does not think that there is one darn thing we can do to correct the problem that he falsely believes humans have created.
So, it seems that it's all hopeless. We're just going to bake to death. And it's all George Bush's fault, of course.