I warned you about it earlier. Crank science sites across the internet feature news of another cheap hit on Rachel Carson and science in movie form.
“Not Evil, Just Wrong” is slated for release on October 18. This is the film that tried to intrude on the Rachel Carson film earlier this year, but managed to to get booked only at an elementary school in Seattle, Washington — Rachel Carson Elementary, a green school where the kids showed more sense than the film makers by voting to name the school after the famous scientist-author.
The film is both evil and wrong.
Errors just in the trailer:
- Claims that Al Gore said sea levels will rise catastrophically, “in the very near future.” Not in his movie, not in his writings or speeches. Not true. That’s a simple misstatement of what Gore said, and Gore had the science right.
- ” . . . [I]t wouldn’t be a bad thing for this Earth to warm up. In fact, ice is the enemy of life.” “Bad” in this case is a value judgment — global warming isn’t bad if you’re a weed, a zebra mussel, one of the malaria parasites, a pine bark beetle, any other tropical disease, or a sadist. But significant warming as climatologists, physicists and others project, would be disastrous to agriculture, major cities in many parts of the world, sea coasts, and most people who don’t live in the Taklamakan or Sahara, and much of the life in the ocean. Annual weather cycles within long-established ranges, is required for life much as we know it. “No ice” is also an enemy of life.
- “They want to raise our taxes.” No, that’s pure, uncomposted bovine excrement.
- “They want to close our factories.” That’s more effluent from the anus of male bovines.
- The trailer notes the usual claim made by Gore opponents that industry cannot exist if it is clean, that industry requires that we poison the planet. Were that true, we’d have a need to halt industry now, lest we become like the yeast in the beer vat, or the champagne bottle, manufacturing alcohol until the alcohol kills the yeast. Our experience with Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Clean Air Acts and the Clean Water Act is that cleaning the environment produces economic growth, not the other way around. A city choked in pollution dies. Los Angeles didn’t suffer when the air got cleaner. Pittsburgh’s clean air became a way to attract new industries to the city, before the steel industry there collapsed. Cleaning Lake Erie didn’t hurt industry. The claim made by the film is fatuous, alarmist, and morally corrupt.
When the human health, human welfare, and environmental effects which could be expressed in dollar terms were added up for the entire 20-year period, the total benefits of Clean Air Act programs were estimated to range from about $6 trillion to about $50 trillion, with a mean estimate of about $22 trillion. These estimated benefits represent the estimated value Americans place on avoiding the dire air quality conditions and dramatic increases in illness and premature death which would have prevailed without the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act and its associated state and local programs. By comparison, the actual costs of achieving the pollution reductions observed over the 20 year period were $523 billion, a small fraction of the estimated monetary benefits.
- “Some of the environmental activists have not come to accept that the human is also part of the environment.” Fatuous claim. Environmentalists note that humans uniquely possess the ability to change climate on a global scale, intentionally, for the good or bad; environmentalists choose to advocate for actions that reduce diseases like malaria, cholera and asthma. We don’t have to sacrifice a million people a year to malaria, in order to be industrial and productive. We don’t have to kill 700,000 kids with malaria every year just to keep cars.
- “They want to go back to the Dark Ages and the Black Plague.” No, that would be the film makers. Environmentalists advocate reducing filth and ignorance both. Ignorance and lack of ability to read, coupled with religious fanaticism, caused the strife known as “the Dark Ages.” It’s not environmentalists who advocate an end to cheap public schools.
- The trailer shows a kid playing in the surf on a beach. Of course, without the Clean Water Act and other attempts to keep the oceans clean, such play would be impossible. That we can play again on American beaches is a tribute to the environmental movement, and reason enough to grant credence to claims of smart people like Al Gore and the scientists whose work he promotes.
- “I cannot believe that Al Gore has great regard for people, real people.” So, this is a film promoting the views of crabby, misanthropic anal orifices who don’t know Al Gore at all? Shame on them. And, why should anyone want to see such a film? If I want to see senseless acts of stupidity, I can rent a film by Quentin Tarantino and get some art with the stupidity. [Update, November 23, 2009: This may be one of the most egregiously false charges of the film. Gore, you recall, is the guy who put his political career and presidential ambitions on hold indefinitely when his son was seriously injured in an auto-pedestrian accident; Gore was willing to sacrifice all his political capital in order to get his son healed. My first dealings directly with Gore came on the Organ Transplant bill. Gore didn’t need a transplant, didn’t have need for one in his family, and had absolutely nothing to gain from advocacy for the life-saving procedure. It was opposed by the chairman of his committee, by a majority of members of his own party in both Houses of Congress, by many in the medical establishment, by many in the pharmaceutical industry, and by President Reagan, who didn’t drop his threat to veto the bill until he signed it, as I recall. Gore is a man of deep, human-centered principles. Saying “I can’t believe Al Gore has great regard for real people” only demonstrates the vast ignorance and perhaps crippling animus of the speaker.]
That’s a whopper about every 15 seconds in the trailer — the film itself may make heads spin if it comes close to that pace of error.
Where have we seen this before? Producers of the film claim as “contributors” some of the people they try to lampoon — people like Ed Begley, Jr., and NASA’s James E. Hansen, people who don’t agree in any way with the hysterical claims of the film, and people who, I wager, would be surprised to be listed as “contributors.”
It’s easy to suppose these producers used the same ambush-the-scientist technique used earlier by the producers of the anti-science, anti-Darwin film “Expelled!“
Here, see the hysteria, error and alarmism for yourself:
Ann McElhinney is one of the film’s producers. Her past work includes other films against protecting environment and films for mining companies. She appears to be affiliated with junk science purveyors at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an astro-turf organization in Washington, D.C., for whom she flacked earlier this year (video from Desmogblog):
Remember, too, that this film is already known to have gross inaccuracies about Rachel Carson and DDT, stuff that high school kids could get right easily.
Anyone have details on McElhinney and her colleague, Phelim McAlee?
More:
- A few sane, scientific-minded people have noted the film, too.
- Ecorazzi had some sharp words
- Update, October 12, 2009: One of movie’s producers acting badly, as Al Gore provides evidence of the movie’s errors
Related posts, at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub:
- The killer CO2 cloud climate change “skeptics” don’t want you to know about
- Monckton will lie about anything
- Monckton lies again (and again, and again, and again, and again . . .)! The continuing saga of a practicer of fictional science
- Post-film premiere update, here
Please spread the word:
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Ed, by now you should realize that “what you find” or your analysis of things doesnt hold a lot of weight with me. So when you say that you “cant find any evidence” I am more likely to belive that you didnt look hard enough. Those emails are hundreds or thousands of pages long and I seriously doubt that you have conducted a proper sampling of them. Yet you somehow manage to draw definite conclusions about what they dont contain. This is what you would call a “smoking gun” of a biased analysis.
Ive looked through the emails for maybe half an hour and already found this one thread that fails the standards of open and honest science.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=490&filename=1107454306.txt
It contains quotes such as these,
“We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.”
and
“If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”
This one,
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=498&filename=1109021312.txt
“PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !”
Here’s an explanation of how data was manipulated,
Comments in the computer code actually admit that data was “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.”
Here’s an article from the same site that explains how the Hockey Stick curve was falsified by Mann (Mann is not from CRU)).
I remember reading one of the emails and the guys from CRU were critisizing Mann for producing the bogus curve. It shouldnt be a shock since CRU attempts to do good work and seem genuinely concerned about their professional standards. But thats not to say that they dont make mistakes and dont have their own biases.
I dont think we should give them a free pass just because they have good intentions or just because they are generally good scientists. We should also wait until the emails have been thoroughly investigated before we make definite conclusions. Some will claim that this “proves a global conspiracy” and others will claim that it “reinforces the credibilty of Gore.” I imagine that the truth is somewhere in between.
LikeLike
I link to accurate information anywhere. I don’t like to repeat myself too often. If I’ve already covered the material somewhere else, a link is a courtesy to you.
You’re welcome.
I assume that you found it accurate and convincing. You offer no substantial or constructive criticism, nor any rebuttal of any kind.
LikeLike
I read that article before I looked at the posts. I think his conclusion is hasty and wrong.
What comes through a serious reading is that there are long arguments about data, which data sets to use, in order to provide the most accurate picture, the best detail, and the best models of what will happen in the future.
The comment about the death of John Daly was unfortunate. Understandable, I think. It offers nothing other than bad manners, however — there is no manipulation of data (some would accuse Daly of having done that, which would make the macabre comment, if accurate about Daly’s death, more than understandable). There is nothing illegal. There is nothing scientific about it, nor unscientific about it. You see emotional responses of people who take seriously the accuracy of data, and who feel seriously wounded by the most-often-unfounded gripes from denialists.
You defend Monckton’s general name for scientists as “bed-wetters?” At least the scientists keep their caustic comments private, and based on history. They don’t make a habit of making public lectures merely to malign denialists. They don’t tout them for fundraising on hack political sites.
I found no instance of any attempt to subvert a peer-review process. Certainly there is nothing like the behind-the-scenes, no-review, secret publication of of the intelligent design paper in the obscure biology journal a few years back (an act that many of the denialists abjectly approve).
I haven’t found any refusals to release data to journals, but they may be there. Most of the climate warming data are in the public domain. Perhaps Monckton should reserve his term “bedwettters” for those on his denialist side who refuse to go into the field to make their own observations, can’t make any case out of the mountains of publicly-available data, and then whine that other scientists won’t share the products of the scientists’ own hard work.
If you can make a case that any of these instances are consequential, please do so. And do it with reference to the e-mails, and please read the threads. Denialists already claim that that making charts with real data is an unethical trick — I don’t trust denialist judgment on any of the processes. Stick to the data.
Where is there manipulation of data? Please be specific, and explain what the data are and where the real data are, and what the difference is.
Tax evasion? I doubt it. Misappropriation of grants? Perhaps, but I doubt it. The rules are hard, and they are rules that denialists rarely play by — I don’t trust their claimed knowledge of grant rules, either.
But that’s a good point. If any of the grant money is U.S. federal grant, and if there are data frauds, then there is a federal crime. Many of the climate scientists who have made the case for warming play by those much-higher-than-usual ethical standards every day, and stay within all ethical bounds. I think many of the bright lights of the denialist crowd couldn’t survive a grant application.
Threats to physically assault denialists? In Texas, much of those would be justified. Denialists regularly pop out with claims that would be felonies under U.S. federal grant rules, and claims that would excuse assault and battery in tort.
How many denialists actually have body guards? They don’t take their own stuff seriously, let alone the obviously fantasy threats of scientists working on the other side.
As a summary, I rather agree with this one at RealClimate:
LikeLike
As I’ve noted often, it helps to be familiar with science. Scientists and mathematicians I’ve worked with often refer to a statistical operation on data as a “trick.” In this particular case, the “trick” is adding in a line on the graph that shows the actual, measured data, compared to what the models predicted.
Only in the Bizarro world is using real data considered an unethical maneuver.
Of course, by this “trick” it is demonstrated for all to see that the climate models used in this case predicted the actual measurements very closely. I can understand why climate denialists regard this as foul — they’ve never recognized the strong data and accuracy biases of reality.
Reality has a profound and well-known liberal bias, too.
LikeLike
This article provides a more balanced analysis of the emails than you will find from Ed,
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/23/cru-emails-reveal-a-worrying-pattern-of-bad-behaviour/
and concludes that,
“statements suggesting “the science is settled” can no longer be sustained”
and
“the emails do provide evidence of attempts to subvert the peer-review process, refusal to make data available to journals, attempts to manipulate the editorial stance of journals, attempts to avoid releasing data following FOI requests, tax evasion, rejoicing at the deaths of opponents, manipulation of results, apparent misappropriation of grant money, and threats to physically assault rivals.”
LikeLike
Moderation, come on over to the thread on the e-mails.
I haven’t found a single post that indicates anything other than a motivation to get the science right and present real data to policy makers to take proper action. Can you show me a post where the motivation was opinion, and not science?
In the thread I highlight and post a dozen links to there, the opinions come from your side. The scientists discuss how to respond, and ultimately determine the way to respond is by carefully setting out known sets of data in other scientific papers, to be criticized before publication, to establish a science-based foundation that refutes the critics, without holding a press conference, without any expression of opinion, but with the mere presentation of the actual data.
I noted several links to follow much of that thread in context.
Your turn.
LikeLike
Did Ed just post a link to his own website? Is he citing his own opinion to support his opinion? That is a rather circular form of reasoning.
What the emails CLEARLY show is that the scientific conclusions made by these people were sometimes motivated and based on opinion and not on scientific reasoning. To follow the scientific method you must present all of the data even if it contradicts your conclusion or cannot be explained.
Once again Ed returns to personally insulting me when I dont belive everything that he preaches.
(“climate hecklers like Moderation and Hexmate? They are deficient in psychology and social relations, too, it appears.)
I have attempted to stick to evidence and avoid these immature comments, but sadly that is not the case for Ed and Hex.
When Ed wrote,
“The e-mails dispel all climate “skeptics” claims that there is a conspiracy among scientists to skew records or data in any fashion.”
he lost a lot of credibilty with me. Dont the emails show that in some fashion the data was skewed. This quote for instance,
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
suggests that they are using “tricks” to “hide the decline”. If Ed can give the context to this quote that shows how it is not data manipulation, then he would be showing better form.
or
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
Shows that the data suggest that warming has significantly slowed but that their preconceptions led them to discredit the data. They also admit that the system is “inadequate.
or
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”
Suggest that they are attempting to hide things. Some might call it a conspiracy.
All of these things directly contradict things that Ed claims to be truth. He is welcome to post specific counterpoints to these things. Maybe provide specific context to the quotes that show them in a different light. I would suggest that he avoids making conclusion BEFORE he looks at the evidence.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Smoking guns in the CRU stolen e-mails”
Ed you are grasping at loose straws! You can’t even see Ed! Hang on – the EMS unit should be there any minute now. Save your strength Ed – don’t try to talk just wait until the medics get there. Try to think of pleasant thoughts like Al Gore is whispering in your ear that global warming is under control now.
LikeLike
Smoking guns in the CRU stolen e-mails
LikeLike
I understand the position of these idiots; everyone knows that the earth has gone through many extreme climate changes throughout the very existence of it. Why now would we not be going on to catastrophic climatic change!? Please panic and run to the streets, better yet kill yourself and save the carbon footprint.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Your being privy to e-mails between scientists in which they discuss the disturbing discoveries they have made about Earth’s climate warming, does not in any way rebut or cast doubt upon the findings.”
Ed don’t move! You might break your head off in there. Just wait the for the EMS unit to show up. They are on their way!
LikeLike
Ed said: “As I noted, you should point us to the smoking gun that reveals warming is a hoax.
Can’t do it, though, can you.
That’s the point”
Ed don’t try to talk right now – save your strength!
LikeLike
Ed said: “Here’s the background you need to understand “Climategate”:”
Hang on Ed the EMS unit is on the way! You can thank me later for saving your life!
LikeLike
Some, perhaps many, of the e-mails are true, but cast no doubt of any sort upon the science that verifies warming occurs, and that humans contribute greatly to it.
As I noted, you should point us to the smoking gun that reveals warming is a hoax.
Can’t do it, though, can you.
That’s the point.
Your being privy to e-mails between scientists in which they discuss the disturbing discoveries they have made about Earth’s climate warming, does not in any way rebut or cast doubt upon the findings.
LikeLike
Here’s the background you need to understand “Climategate”:
http://carbonfixated.com/newtongate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-renaissance-and-enlightenment-thinking/
LikeLike
Ed said: “Machiavelli wrote of George Soros, according to Hexmate, “Surely the most adept of all the princes in all of history. I wish I could survive to meet the man.””
Ed you are getting delusional – it must be that severe case of rectal cranial inversion you have. Hang on I’m calling 911. EMS is on the way – they’ll get you to the hospital so the doctors can perform surgery before you lose conciseness.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Hexmate, Moderation, you should read all of those e-mails carefully. When you find the smoking guns that indicate they are fixing temperature readings, let us know.”
The emails are true Ed. The jig is up! Now pull up your pants. Oh, and by the way Ed you really need to change your underwear too. The latest discovery about this global warming farce seems to have soiled your bvd’s. Eeeegh… I can’t look any longer and the smell is repulsive!
LikeLike
Ed said: “Obstreperous and obnoxious hecklers are disliked universally. This is a surprise to climate hecklers like Moderation and Hexmate? They are deficient in psychology and social relations, too, it appears.”
Ed since you say we are hostile and detestable it would only be appropriate to say it takes one to know one now doesn’t it Eddie? Ed you have been a social outcast and psychologically deranged for years as evidenced by your commentary. You need to buy some friends Ed. Gonna cost you a lot of money though. Especially with you showing off your butt like that all the time.
LikeLike
Ed said: “1. “ClimateGate” is a bizarre claim that something might be wrong with science over the last 50 years because in the past five years climate scientists have gotten testy. Hex and others show their complete misunderstanding of all the rules of logic.”
Ed this is BS and you know it.
LikeLike
Ed said: “I Googled climategate, and what I found is that Hex’s butt is hanging out just as before. I’m convinced he doesn’t pull his pants up because he can’t find where to pull them up to, with both hands.”
Oh Eddie, you are looking in the mirror again and you tried to make a funny out of it. Better luck next time Ed. I know it is difficult for you to accept the fact that global warming is nothing more than something Al Gore invented, but that is a fact so deal with it Ed; looks like he has plenty of accomplices too. In the mean time please pull your pants up we are all getting nauseous looking at your butt. No offense Ed but you really need to start working those gluts!
LikeLike
Global warming nuts are hysterical because people are beginning to understand you are hysterical nuts. EOS.
LikeLike
This post at Scholars and Rogues rather puts things in perspective, I think:
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2009/11/20/climategate-not-likely/
LikeLike
I Googled climategate, and what I found is that Hex’s butt is hanging out just as before. I’m convinced he doesn’t pull his pants up because he can’t find where to pull them up to, with both hands.
1. “ClimateGate” is a bizarre claim that something might be wrong with science over the last 50 years because in the past five years climate scientists have gotten testy. Hex and others show their complete misunderstanding of all the rules of logic.
In order to rebut the fact that the planet has warmed considerably, there must be evidence that it hasn’t warmed. That can’t happen.
In order to rebut the well-working theory that climate will continue to warm, one must have some scientific evidence that the climate won’t continue to warm. So far the best evidence is a plateauing of warming since one of the hottest years ever recorded, that plateauing being completely consistent with annual fluctuations in the 200-year trend to fast-track warming. While the cause of the plateauing is not well understood, the fact of the plateauing offers no evidence that warming has stopped, nor that human releases of greenhouse gases are not the cause.
2. The e-mails dispel all climate “skeptics” claims that there is a conspiracy among scientists to skew records or data in any fashion. They do reveal a great degree of patent anger at people who use insult and invective at scientists with no data to back a science case.
Obstreperous and obnoxious hecklers are disliked universally. This is a surprise to climate hecklers like Moderation and Hexmate? They are deficient in psychology and social relations, too, it appears.
3. In order to believe climate change and warming are hoaxes, one must believe that a few scientists were rich enough to afford not doing real work, but instead devoted 20 or 30 years to concerted political action that is still hidden from even the most energetic of investigative journalists, that they were able to get policy makers whose careers depend on saving money rather than finding silly places to spend it change their stripes and go along with unsupported scientific claims that are, at best, bad news. Plus, one must believe that these evil scientists were able to recruit the US Department of Agriculture and the Arbor Day Foundation to convince every plant in North America to change its breeding and migrating habits while a false plant-zone map was created (in 1935!) and updated, until it shows plants growing a hundred miles north of their previous zones. This is nothing short of miraculous, and means these scientists are, in fact the Intelligent Designer (God, to those not in on the ID hoax).
Audubon carried a short note recently that about more than 50 species of birds in North America have moved. George Soros, whose name and money are mysteriously and miraculously absent from the misnamed “Climate Gate” stuff, reveals himself as a political genius without parallel in history, having recruited song birds to do his political work for him.
Machiavelli wrote of George Soros, according to Hexmate, “Surely the most adept of all the princes in all of history. I wish I could survive to meet the man.”
Hexmate, Moderation, you should read all of those e-mails carefully. When you find the smoking guns that indicate they are fixing temperature readings, let us know.
In the meantime, spend a little time looking at the 7 Warning Signs of Bogus Science. While you’re at it, check out the 7 Warning Signs of Bogus History, too.
LikeLike
Eddie! Oh oh Ed – you have been caught with your pants down again!
LikeLike
Hey Ed!!
The gig is up, bud. You and your co2 cronies are done. Google Climategate. We now have the proof that the IPCC and all its backers have been full of s*** since day one.
Go check it out. its their emails. Their words. Their lies.
Save your intellect Ed, before its to late.
LikeLike
Here is another interesting link. The author gets in the way of the story which by itself is very interesting.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Apparently some Russian hackers released emails and documents from the Hadley CRU in Britain that suggest (prove?) that high profile AGW advocates have engaged in,
“Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.”
This is a government funded agency whose “HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.” They certaitnly are a powerful and influential group.
There is an interesting comment by ‘coldclimate’ on Nov 20th at 3:21pm. They mention the journal Climate Research. Ed you must be aware of this journal???
The information appears to be legitimate, but we should know more as things develop. It certaintly pokes a giant hole in the “scientific consensus” that Ed loves to preach.
LikeLike
Actaully they do claim that on average warming has stopped or paused.
They also say that the effect depends on location and that the artic continues to warm while other places are cooling. And they agree that warming will continue in the future but are uncertain when or at what rate.
I preferred to post the link and let others read it and not present a biased analysis of it.
When you say “no one argues that action should be delayed” you make a very vague statement.
Delayed by 1 year, 1 month, 1 day, 1 second?
What action? reducing CO2 emissions by how much? by what polcies? should we base action on climate models? what technologies should be funded the most? should we focus on incentives or penalties or both? should we shut down coal plants today or tomorrow or in 20 years? should we build nuclear storage facilities? should we not eat red meat? should we outlaw gasoline powered cars?
Should we act without cooperation from other countries? should we sign every international agrement? How many billions should the US pay the rest of the world? should we make promises or binding resolutions? what should the penalties be for noncompliance?
LikeLike
Moderation, did you find it interesting that none of the scientists claimed that warming has stopped, nor did any claim that it won’t continue? In Europe, the leading scientists who argue the stall in temperature rise is due to solar activity (or inactivity), say warming will begin again soon; those who argue the current plateauing is caused by cooling waters from the Pacific say warming will continue it’s upward climb less soon. No one argues action should be delayed.
Interesting article.
LikeLike
Two interesting articles can be found through this link:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
The articles are titled:
Part 1: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out
Part 2: The Difficulties of Predicting the Climate
That is all.
LikeLike
Ed said: “From the site run by weatherman John Coleman. I suppose that if I were embarrassed to list the source, I wouldn’t quote him at all — but if you’re not embarrassed to make the claims, just cut and paste the URL.”
Ed you have never been embarrassed to lie so when you are confronted with the truth I guess you get a little sheepish and want to discredit that information as best you can. You are an embarrassment Ed, but we understand since one must consider the source is you.
LikeLike
Gore’s been simply shameless with his lies. Remember how he keeps telling us, that the consensus is in, and that the 2,500 scientists at the IPCC have proved it? Well the fact is that the IPCC’s climate estimates were based on only 4 scientific papers, not on the consensus of 2,500 scientists. I don’t think any rational person can look at the two graphs above, and see the IPCC’s reports as anything other than what they are, a pack of lies.
LikeLike
Ed said: “If you wish to leave a URL and haven’t mastered the code for embedding, just cut and past the URL here.”
Oh Ed why make people scurry around when they can just read it right here on your website.
LikeLike
From the site run by weatherman John Coleman. I suppose that if I were embarrassed to list the source, I wouldn’t quote him at all — but if you’re not embarrassed to make the claims, just cut and paste the URL.
Meanwhile, scientists involved in researching global warming had a few things to say to Coleman’s more scientific comrades. The American Physical Society rejected a plea by a few dissidents to change the Society’s statement on warming and fighting it.
Read serious discussion here at Rabett Run:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/11/john-mashey-and-arthur-smith-were-right.html
LikeLike
Dear Readers,
If you wish to leave a URL and haven’t mastered the code for embedding, just cut and past the URL here.
(Are you paying attention, Hexmate?)
LikeLike
In his recent movie, former Vice President Al Gore, said: “If you look at the ten hottest years ever measured, they all occurred in the last fourteen years, and the hottest of all was 2005.”
The ten hottest years ever measured happened thousands of years ago and 2005 was not one of them. Gore must be using only temperature readings from the 125 year thermometer set, a very short time to look at when one is trying to understand Global Warming, but this period of time suits the environmentalists because it is a time in which temperatures happened to be wandering up. Alarmists refuse to look at the big picture because it shows what they refuse to believe. For the US, the recently revised NASA GISS Annual Mean temperatures show 6 of the 10 warmest years were from the 1920s to the 1950s and only 4 since 1990.
The big picture is that for the last eleven thousand years, Global Temperatures have been going sideways while wandering up and down between 54 and 60 degrees Fahrenheit. In this eleven thousand years there have been five up-spikes hotter than the year 2005. The current rise in temperature is merely a medium size upward movement; of more importance, is the current high spike in CO2 levels, which is the real Hockey Stick of Global Warming.
Renowned climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr. has used IPCC’s estimates of climate forcing to calculate the contribution of CO2 to recent climate change. Pielke makes very conservative (worst-case) assumptions in considering the impacts of greenhouse gases, black carbon, tropospheric ozone, and solar radiation. This analysis ignores land use changes, which have been demonstrated to affect climate in a significant way, and cosmic rays, which affect cloud cover and thus can lead to significant climate changes.
Pielke’s estimate is that CO2 is responsible for 28% (at most) of the human-caused changes. If natural variations do occur (and it’s very hard to argue that they do not) then this value decreases. But even if one assumes that the entire 0.6 deg C increase since 1900 is due to human effects, Pielke’s estimate would suggest a CO2 contribution of only 0.17 deg C.
Modern temperatures remain lower than other periods within the Holocene (since the last Ice Age). Geologists and paleoclimatologists believe that the warmest conditions in the Holocene occurred several thousand years before Christ, and that several such episodes occurred. The most recent warm period occurred in medieval times 800-1200 years ago. Richard A. Muller and Gordon J. MacDonald, “Chapter 1: Brief Introduction to the History of Climate” Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes 2000)
Climate has been stable for a long time but now is getting increasingly extreme.
Climate swings are nothing new. Between 800 and 1300 AD, much of the world was several degrees warmer than today. People grew wine grapes in England, figs in Germany, assorted crops in Greenland. Then came the Little Ice Age, and temperatures considerably colder than today persisted until the climate warmed again around 1900. The likely cause? Changes in the sun’s energy output, or perhaps the Earth’s orbit, say Harvard-Smithsonian scientists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon.
LikeLike
In a Time/CNN story by Michael Grunwald “Steven Chu, A Political Scientist” on Chu’s mission to China attempting to convince them to cooperate on emissions reductions in the December Copenhagen UN conference to discuss the next step after Kyoto (the Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank because they know our pain would be their gain).
Grunwald noted “When I asked Chu about the earth-is-cooling argument, he rolled his eyes and whipped out a chart showing that the 10 hottest years on record have all been in the past 12 years and that 1998 was the hottest. He mocked the skeptics who focus on that post-1998 blip while ignoring a century-long trend of rising temperatures: “See? It’s gone down! The earth must be cooling!” But then he got serious, almost plaintive: “You know, it’s totally irresponsible. You’re not supposed to make up the facts.””
I agree with the very last sentence. NOAA, NASA GISS and Hadley though are guilty of exactly that. They have created or enhanced man-made global warming by careless and possibly fraudulent methods. They started by dropping 80% of the world’s stations from their calculations, most rural, by not ensuring the instruments are not improperly sited (90% of the approximately 1000 surveyed and photographed by Anthony Watts volunteers do not meet the government’s own published standards), by not adjusting properly for the urbanization warming that has taken place as the world’s population rose for 1.6 to 6.7 billion people since 1900 (in the case of the US data, actually removing a very good urban adjustment), by employing and using instruments not really meant for precision temperature measurements or with warm biases, and most recently by eliminating ocean data sources like satellite or not using promising new sources like the Argo buoys because they are showing a cold ‘bias’ or cooling when the goal is to show warming in agreement with the models and their forecasts.
With the data they perform then a homogenization adjustment that blends the good with the bad (a little like the toxic assets in the mortgage crises). Though this may improve some of the bad data, it degrades the good data. This is a little like mixing pure spring water with sludge, the sludge is a little less disgusting, but the result is not potable.
Even the prior CCSP found that most of the warming is with the minimum temperatures in higher latitude cities and in winter, all classic characteristics of the urban heat island.
Dozens of peer review papers have been published and new ones appear monthly showing that the local factors like urbanization are responsible for an exaggeration of the warming longer term by 20 to 50% or even more.
LikeLike
12 Facts about Global Climate Change That You Won’t Read in the Popular Press
1 Temperatures have been cooling since 2002, even as carbon dioxide has continued to rise.
2 Carbon dioxide is a trace gas and by itself will produce little warming. Also, as CO2 increases, the incremental warming is less, as the effect is logarithmic so the more CO2, the less warming it produces.
3 CO2 has been totally uncorrelated with temperature over the last decade, and significantly negative since 2002.
4 CO2 is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring gas. Together with chlorophyll and sunlight, it is an essential ingredient in photosynthesis and is, accordingly, plant food.
5 Reconstruction of paleoclimatological CO2 concentrations demonstrates that carbon dioxide concentration today is near its lowest level since the Cambrian Era some 550 million years ago, when there was almost 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today without causing a “runaway greenhouse effect.”
6 Temperature changes lead, not lag, CO2 changes on all time scales. The oceans may play a key role, emitting carbon dioxide when they warm as carbonated beverages lose fizz as they warm and absorbing it as they cool.
7 Most of the warming in the climate models comes from the assumption that water vapor and precipitation increase as temperatures warm, a strong positive feedback. Water vapor is a far more important greenhouse gas than CO2. However, that assumption has been shown in observations and peerreviewed research to be wrong, and in fact water vapor and precipitation act as a negative feedback that reduces any small greenhouse warming from carbon dioxide.
8 Indeed, greenhouse models show the warming should be greatest at mid to high atmosphere levels in the tropics. But balloon and satellite observations show cooling there. The greenhouse signature or DNA does not match reality, and the greenhouse models thus must greatly overstate the warming – and in a court of law would have to be acquitted of any role in global warming
9 The sun has both direct and indirect effects on our climate. Solar activity changes on cycles of 11 years and longer. When the sun is more active it is brighter and a little hotter. More important though are the indirect effects. Ultraviolet radiation increases much more than the brightness and causes increased ozone production, which generates heat in the high atmosphere that works its way down, affecting the weather. Also, an active sun diffuses cosmic rays, which play an important role in nucleation of low clouds, resulting in fewer clouds. In all these ways the sun warms the planet more when it is active. An active sun in the 1930s and again near the end of the last century helped produce the observed warming periods. The current solar cycle is the longest in over 100 years, an unmistakable sign of a cooling sun that historical patterns suggest will stay so for decades.
10 The multidecadal cycles in the ocean correlate extremely well with the solar cycles and global temperatures. These are 60 to 70 year cycles that relate to natural variations in the largescale circulations. Warm oceans correlate with warm global temperatures. The Pacific started cooling in the late 1990s and it accelerated in the last year, and the Atlantic has cooled from its peak in 2004. This supports the observed global land temperature cooling, which is strongly correlated with ocean heat content. Newly deployed N.O.A.A. buoys confirm global ocean cooling.
11 Warmer ocean cycles are periods with diminished Arctic ice cover. When the oceans were warm in the 1930s to the 1950s, Arctic ice diminished and Greenland warmed. The recent ocean warming, especially in the 1980s to the early 2000s, is similar to what took place 70 years ago and the Arctic ice has reacted much the same way, with diminished summer ice extent.
12 Antarctic ice has been increasing and the extent last year was the greatest in the satellitemonitoring era. We are running ahead of last year’s record pace.
What will it take for the media to let go of their biases and begin doing their job, reporting the truth?
LikeLike
Ed said: “Please explain the context. Georgia Tech’s climate scientists worry that global warming is so severe that it will not be enough to merely control carbon emissions”
Come on Ed quit playing dumb… wait a minute! You aren’t playing dumb – you are dumb! The out of context statement stands – it is a valid comment so you better try something else Ed. You can’t buy any credibility Ed!
LikeLike
Ed said: “I’m sure this post will generate three or four more insults, none with any substantive information on anything.”
Here we go again. Ed you are the king of insults. Just because you get a little taste of your own medicine you want to complain. Get with it Ed you lack any credibility. Everything you espouse is based on speculation and innuendo. You can’t prove anything and are simply making false accusations.
LikeLike
Please explain the context. Georgia Tech’s climate scientists worry that global warming is so severe that it will not be enough to merely control carbon emissions — something the experts have been saying all along. Georgia Tech urges a major reforestation effort in urban areas. So, Georgia Tech’s people work in the consensus that warming is occurring and that it is human caused and a major problem. They propose an easy and not-really-expensive solution for part of the problem. What was the point of your post?
Well, you’re right about that. I phrased it more gently. So again I wonder, what was your point? Why do post horse pucky? Why not discuss instead?
I’m sure this post will generate three or four more insults, none with any substantive information on anything.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Look it up: There’s a difference between “gullibility” and “credibility.” You have the former, not the latter.”
I looked up liar Ed – and they had your picture right there as the example.
I also looked up the other two words – sorry Ed you have no credibility however you are very gullible.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Odder than hell: We have a couple of self-proclaimed skeptics in this thread, and they can’t seem to find any way to post any link or any source for their claims.”
Ed it looks like your rectal cranial inversion is taking it’s toll on your eyesight now. You better get that looked at because there are a lot more than a couple. Gee Ed you could have been a tunnel rat.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Did you hit “send” too soon? On one hand you claim there’s no need to worry about warming, then you offer someone who disagrees with your assessment offering methods to fight greenhouse gases. Surely you cannot agree with anything in that press release — it’s what the IPCC has been saying for some years. Al Gore talked about it in 1993, and again in his movie.
What gives?”
No Ed you just take things out of context to suit your purposes and your fraud. We have been watching you do this all along. It isn’t anything new for you.
LikeLike
Ed said: “You don’t name anyone who opposes, but when I point out that there are more who do not oppose, enough to establish a consensus, rather than just concede the point gracefully, you ask for names?”
Ed get real! This is horse pucky!
LikeLike
Ed said: “I don’t have rules against mooning here, but I may have to institute them. One of the more interesting questions: Does Hex know he’s mooning?”
Ed you have been mooning this website ever since you put it up. You have been bent over the entire time I have been coming here.
LikeLike
Look it up: There’s a difference between “gullibility” and “credibility.” You have the former, not the latter.
LikeLike
Hexmate, at least claiming a source though offering no citation or link, said Georgia Tech said:
Did you hit “send” too soon? On one hand you claim there’s no need to worry about warming, then you offer someone who disagrees with your assessment offering methods to fight greenhouse gases. Surely you cannot agree with anything in that press release — it’s what the IPCC has been saying for some years. Al Gore talked about it in 1993, and again in his movie.
What gives?
LikeLike
I noted that a petition of 700 random guys with some connection to science doesn’t rebut the consensus developed in 50 years of published research, as reflected in the contributions of the 15,000 scientists who participated in the IPCC report creation.
Hexmate responded:
You don’t name anyone who opposes, but when I point out that there are more who do not oppose, enough to establish a consensus, rather than just concede the point gracefully, you ask for names?
We’re talking the future of the planet. Schoolground bullying has no place in this discussion.
IPCC has met 31 times over the past 20 years, with all of their actions open to the public. It’s an almost unprecedented transparency, because the issue is so important.
No you’re resorting to whole cloth prevarication.
Hexmate, the guy who plagiarizes cheaters and never offers any citations or links, claims that I follow his lead?
I don’t have rules against mooning here, but I may have to institute them. One of the more interesting questions: Does Hex know he’s mooning?
LikeLike
From a Georgia Tech Press Release:
Reducing Greenhouse Gases May Not Be Enough to Slow Climate Change
Georgia Tech City and Regional Planning Professor Brian Stone publishes a paper in the December edition of Environmental Science and Technology that suggests policymakers need to address the influence of global deforestation and urbanization on climate change, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions.
According to Stone’s paper, as the international community meets in Copenhagen in December to develop a new framework for responding to climate change, policymakers need to give serious consideration to broadening the range of management strategies beyond greenhouse gas reductions alone.
“Across the U.S. as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases,” said Stone. “Most large U.S. cities, including Atlanta, are warming at more than twice the rate of the planet as a whole – a rate that is mostly attributable to land use change. As a result, emissions reduction programs – like the cap and trade program under consideration by the U.S. Congress – may not sufficiently slow climate change in large cities where most people live and where land use change is the dominant driver of warming.”
According to Stone’s research, slowing the rate of forest loss around the world, and regenerating forests where lost, could significantly slow the pace of global warming.
“Treaty negotiators should formally recognize land use change as a key driver of warming,” said Stone. “The role of land use in global warming is the most important climate-related story that has not been widely covered in the media.”
Stone recommends slowing what he terms the “green loss effect” through the planting of millions of trees in urbanized areas and through the protection and regeneration of global forests outside of urbanized regions. Forested areas provide the combined benefits of directly cooling the atmosphere and of absorbing greenhouse gases, leading to additional cooling. Green architecture in cities, including green roofs and more highly reflective construction materials, would further contribute to a slowing of warming rates. Stone envisions local and state governments taking the lead in addressing the land use drivers of climate change, while the federal government takes the lead in implementing carbon reduction initiatives, like cap and trade programs.
“As we look to address the climate change issue from a land use perspective, there is a huge opportunity for local and state governments,” said Stone. “Presently, local government capacity is largely unharnessed in climate management structures under consideration by the U.S. Congress. Yet local governments possess extensive powers to manage the land use activities in both the urban and rural areas.”
LikeLike
Ed said: “One more post where Hexmate plagiarizes the work of others, and tries to hide it by providing no link to the original source.”
Ed this is becoming a very lame excuse for you to use – like a broken record. You really need to work on coming up with something more creative. I have credibility Ed – you do not.
LikeLike
Ed said: “In short, it’s a sucker-bait report designed to snare the gullible, almost completely lacking in science.”
Ed the only thing sucking at this website is you. That is why we continue to hear that giant sucking sound from your location.
LikeLike
Ed said: “That report was written by one Senate staffer. It had no input from any science panel of any repute.”
Yeah Ed we know. Then we have you writing this crap – one misguided maggot. So what is the difference Ed – we have you and then a Senate staffer. You need to make up better stuff Ed.
LikeLike
Ed said: “If it were accurate, the 700 names do not rebut in any way the consensus developed by the more than 15,000 professionals who contributed to the IPCC’s summary reports, which are official reports of the IPCC and the governments that cooperate in it, and are written by scientists.”
Really Ed? What are their names? Better yet there are more than 15,000 professionals who have debunked the IPCC report and the number grows larger every day. What makes you think the 700 don’t refute that consensus? You have no proof; you didn’t offer any factual data, just hearsay. Nice try Ed but your pants and hanging around your ankles again Ed.
LikeLike
That report was written by one Senate staffer. It had no input from any science panel of any repute. It featured a list of names of scientists claimed to oppose the idea of global warming, many of whom have asked to be taken off the list because they do not disagree with any part of the science that concludes humans cause a significant portion of global warming.
Finally, the “report” was not an action of the committee in any way, nor was it an action of the minority of the committee.
In short, it’s a sucker-bait report designed to snare the gullible, almost completely lacking in science.
If it were accurate, the 700 names do not rebut in any way the consensus developed by the more than 15,000 professionals who contributed to the IPCC’s summary reports, which are official reports of the IPCC and the governments that cooperate in it, and are written by scientists.
15,000 outnumbers 700 any day.
One more post where Hexmate plagiarizes the work of others, and tries to hide it by providing no link to the original source.
LikeLike
Yes there is some consensus. Scientists generally agree on the evidence (measurements) that indicate climate change. They generally agree that humans have an impact. But they do not generally agree on the significance of the change or future implications. And they generally do not agree on the magnitude of the human impact.
Gore says things like “the debate is over” and “catastrophic change in a decade”, and infers that he is stating a consensus.
I see once again that Ed jumps on the semantics without offering any commentary on things that I state explicit interest in hearing.
LikeLike
Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe
challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.
This new 2009 255-page U.S. Senate Minority Report — updated from 2007’s
groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called
global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent
international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have
now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 300 (and
growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007.
The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52)
who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
LikeLike
“Consensus” is not the same thing as “unanimity.”
It would be false to say there is a significant portion of scientists who are expert in the relevant areas who deny warming, or who deny that human-caused air pollution is a significant factor in the warming.
It’s like talking to Humpty Dumpty, but you cannot claim that words mean what your whim wishes them to mean. In that way, we master the facts rather than letting ourselves be suckered by our own biases and gullibility.
It is accurate to say there is consensus on warming. It is accurate to say there is consensus on human causation’s contribution.
LikeLike
It is a lie to suggest that there is a scientific consensus on AGW. Call the skeptics any offensive name that you will, but that does not breed a consensus.
According to Hansen’s analysis, we could be:
1) past the tipping point with only a few decades before catastrophic climate change occurs.
or
2) 50 years from the tipping point with another 200 years or so before dramatic climate change.
or anywhere in between.
I just wish that Ed would acknowledge the uncertainty that is intrinsic in the science. Even better I wish that he could unconditionally acknowledge this fact. Or better yet, he should give an honest analysis of the implications (global government, scientific funding, exploding regulation, ethics, etc.) of unquestionably accepting the Gore hypothesis. He also does little to offer practical solutions that are in tune with his theories.
This would make him appear more objective, and less driven by a political agenda. But I suppose that the objective of this blog is to reach for the low hanging fruit.
LikeLike
Ed said: “It takes a helluva lotta gall to plagiarize, and then to lie about it when you’re caught red-handed.
Right now, Hex, you could tell me the sky is blue, and I can’t believe you.”
Funny Ed but you could tell me you are real and I wouldn’t believe you. That’s because you are a fraud. Sorry Ed but the truth hurts doesn’t it. Keep sucking up your freedom those of us who served paid a heavy price for it.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Odder than hell: We have a couple of self-proclaimed skeptics in this thread, and they can’t seem to find any way to post any link or any source for their claims”
Funny when the pot calls the kettle black isn’t it Ed? You still haven’t proven a thing other than what if… Just another notch in favor of your maggot status Ed.
LikeLike
Ed said: “You have repeatedly plagiarized the work of others in this thread, posting material that is not yours, without any hint that someone else wrote it, without any attribution to the original source.”
Nice try Ed but you failed again! You like to spin more than a top without and facts or data. Could be why you are dizzy Ed.
LikeLike
Right. Got a references for any of that? The satellite record, by the way, was found to be in error — it was skewing temperatures to the cool side. You’ve accounted for that already, of course. Have you?
And then assuming you’ve got a reference, can you explain how temperatures staying at about the same level as 1998, the second hottest year ever recorded, suggests cooling? “Not quite as hot as hell” isn’t the same thing as heaven.
LikeLike
Odder than hell: We have a couple of self-proclaimed skeptics in this thread, and they can’t seem to find any way to post any link or any source for their claims.
LikeLike
It takes a helluva lotta gall to plagiarize, and then to lie about it when you’re caught red-handed.
Right now, Hex, you could tell me the sky is blue, and I can’t believe you.
LikeLike
Hexmate said:
You have repeatedly plagiarized the work of others in this thread, posting material that is not yours, without any hint that someone else wrote it, without any attribution to the original source.
The cake-taker was when you plagiarized the company that writes and sells phony term-papers to college students: Plagiarizing a commercial-grade cheater.
Here’s the original paper. Here’s where the author advertises his cheating business.
Here’s the post where Hexmate plagiarizes the professional cheater.
You asked once why I grant no credence to your bizarre claim that all polar bears can swim 200 miles? One, because every time I check one of your claims I find you failed to read the piece; and two, you don’t offer any way to corroborate your bizarre claims. We know you’re not a polar bear researcher. We know you’re not the sheriff of the town where you claim the bear was shot.
Why does the idea of footnotes completely elude you, to the point of making your posts obnoxiously boorish?
LikeLike
By that standard we should disband the Red Cross. No sense teaching lifeguarding, since water is necessary for life. It’s natural, too, which means, by your standard I suppose, that it can’t be a “pollutant” if in the lungs and stomach of a drowning victim. (Check here, see if you can figure out what’s wrong with banning DHMO.)
By a standard that says any gas that is also present naturally cannot called polluting, nothing could ever be labeled an air pollutant, except DDT particles.
Please, spend some time studying acid rain, aerosols, and air pollution in general.
For good measure, take a look at EPA’s proposal for controlling greenhouse gases.
Read what I wrote, not what you think you know. If you find error in what I wrote, point it out. Don’t spin what I write for political reasons and pretend to be using science, and pretend not to be spinning.
LikeLike
Ed said: “And you got a license to plagiarize and tell half-truths from this? I’m not sure I understand your reasoning. You served in a combat zone, so you can say anything you please, and no one may contradict you?
If you had science, show it. If you had an argument, you’d make it.
You have neither.
Ed you got that all wrong. You see I’m not plagiarizing anything. The information I presented is public knowledge and is available to anyone, but you don’t like it because it contradicts your phony argument so you call it half-truths to try and diffuse it. You can’t understand anything Ed because you are tainted and a knower as Senge would characterize you. Yes Ed I served in a combat zone to protect your behind so you could shoot your mouth off, but along with shooting your mouth off Ed you will be held accountable for your comments. It is obvious Ed that you don’t like that. Too bad! Obviously if anyone contradicts you it draws your ire so you shouldn’t be surprised when you receive the same in return. I have presented the facts Ed so maybe you better come up with a different argument.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Then stop yammering about it. I took that oath you took four times. I regard it as a sacred oath, still. You do great dishonor to veterans of combat to hurl insult and claim righteousness where it doesn’t exist.
If you’ve got a defense for lying about Rachel Carson and DDT, make it. So far you’ve not made it.”
I’m not yammering Ed just pointing out the facts. Ed you shouldn’t lie like that. Wannabes like you are a dime a dozen Ed. The only oath you ever took Ed was to publish this crap you are putting out. I have provided plenty of data Ed but you won’t accept it. You want to try to distract the discussion from those facts by saying it is plagiarized, when it isn’t, or you denounce it because you cannot respond to it. It is your way of deflecting the facts as evidenced by your reponses and pointed out by several others in their posts. At least it is recognized you are a fraud Ed by more than just me. Keep up the good work Ed you continue earn your maggot status.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Gee, Hexmate, you’ve got fans. See the immediately previous post on “quality information.” Note the source.”
Hee hee, that’s more than you have Ed!
LikeLike
Nick said: “have fun swallowing, Hex, because I don’t think you’re going to be able to conjure up much of a counterargument to any of these: SO really..it’s time you, Hex, and your fellow jokers shut up. You don’t know what you’re talking about. All you’re really doing is exercising a childish hissy fit because you don’t like Al Gore and the Democrats.”
Nick this is nothing more than some drivel you conjured up that is an oversimplification of a complex issue without any data or facts to support it. You managed to comingle it with everything you could think of that might support your theory but provide no meaningful explanation to go with it. The 99.99999% figure is really a scream since it has nothing to support it and has obviously been pulled out of some dark tunnel you have. You should try again Nick but this time use some data and facts that you want everyone else but yourself to subscribe to. Your double standard bit you in the behind this time Nick. Al who and Dem whats? Aren’t they both asses?
LikeLike
I am also amazed at the level of vitriol people like the purveyor of this site pour onto any other view that challenges there own.
Spinning words like a politician, making it seem as though Gore has never said the things that he implies all the time. Everything with Gore is If.
And I love how you dance around the fact that I place c02 in its rightful place as a “pollutant”. I.E. that its not a pollutant but instead is a natural gas.
Without it, life on Earth ceases.
AGW is the biggest none problem in the history of our world, and it does wonderful things for those who wish to distract from real environmental issues. What better than to hoodwink the people into thinking the very breath they exhale needs to be regulated and taxed.
You, Ed, can call people names and spray bile all over the very real work of statisticians, geologists, astro physicists and climatoligists alike who disagree with you, but you’ll never convince those of us who have noticed our blankets no longer leaving our beds in the summer that warming is happening.
Eggplant, Okra, Peppers, Tomatoes (especially tomatoes)along with cash crops have been ruinous for two years running, or very difficult to grow because of the record cold temperatures.
Over 3,000 cold weather records were set in July alone in the continental United States. Earliest snow falls on record in Austria, Spain, and many other places this year. Incredible snow storms in the winter in Peru and across south America. Global cooling has set in and the satellite record shows it.
You should check out the work of Piers Corbyn, or do you think hes a hack too, Ed? his forecasts have been accurate 90 percent of the time, calling hurricanes and storm activity months in advance. His winter forecasts are accurate enough that I plan my spring plantings around them.
AGW is dead in the water. We need to listen to the scientists who are actually calling weather patterns accurately, rather tan government agencies who routinely call for scorching summers that never materialize.
LikeLike
The one thing warmists miss over and over again, you included Ed is that there is no warming.
The satellite record, the ultimate authority, is quite clear. No warming since 1998, and cooling since 2003. The later part of 2007, 2008 and 2009 have been colder worldwide by far.
And the arctic has regained ice cover the last 3 years running even as this winter saw Antarctic ice cover reach its furthest extent yet.
How do your models deal with these troubling facts?
LikeLike
You should not recklessly engage in matters of logic becuase it is not your strong suit.
But instead of speaking to the wall, allow me to take Dr. Hansen’s analysis at face value and assume that his projections and analysis is very accurate. This should allow the conversation to move past certain road blocks which will not be resolved considering the lack of time that can be dedicated to a less hypothetical debate.
Hansen states that the tolerable long term CO2 limit is in the range of 300-500 ppm and we currently sit at 385 ppm. He suggests a “safe” target of 350 ppm or less. The current rate of increase is 2 ppm/year.
He defines the tipping point as the concentration that will lead to radical climate change if “long mantained.” And he admits that other factors make it difficult to predict how long is too long. So when one speaks of the tipping point, one refers to a concentration that cannot be indefinitely maintained without radical changes to the climate.
He uses paleoclimate history to correlate ocean levels to CO2 levels and concludes that the equilibrium condition for 385 ppm is several meters higher than current ocean levels, which may take centuries or perhaps only decades to acheive.
(I find there to be a few weaknesses surrounding this analysis, but I will avoid discussing them for the benefit of this exercise)
He says that other factors such as El Nino, ocean behavoir, and solar activity appear to be interrupting global warming which may provide more time to meet the CO2 challenge but are not long term effects that will not change equilibrium conditions.
I think that I have provided a fairly accurate description of Hansen’s position in the paper that Ed provided.
I also contend that Hansen is not far from my general position on the matter – our current activity is not sustainable but the timing and magnitude of changes is far from known. The timing is especially important for me. It also appears to be the most uncertain factor.
Hansen refers to phasing out all non-CO2 capturing coal plants in the next 25 years. I have often seen adds that declare that there is no such thing as “clean coal.” Hansen seems to disagree with this claim. It is also inconsistent with the claims that building new coal plants will “bankrupt them” because of a price on the emission of CO2. I find a large gap between Hansen’s position on coal and the public perception. I am not aware of the price of “CO2 capturing” but if it can be made affordable, coal still appears to be a viable option. It does not seem wise to increase the cost to force them into capturing technology which itself is currently expensive.
Hansen speaks of policies that must be stopped but offers little in the way of acheiving the desired results, atleast in this article.
It would appear to me that nuclear power is the most appropriate bridge between CO2 producing power and renewable sources. Considering the 25 year window, there should be plenty of time to build reactors in this country. Cost is not a factor when we consider the larger picture. Nuclear power is very clean to operate and is fully developed and capable of meeting our needs. However, current policy decisions suggest that nuclear power is being discarded instead of embraced. The reasons for this appear to more political than anything else.
The broader view of Hansen’s position is that a worldwide effort to reduce CO2 emissions must be acheived. The US is the largest contributor of CO2 in the world but China and India are projected to account for 80% of new emissions. Unfortuantely, I do not beleive that such worldwide cooperation is acheivable in the near future (next 25 years) and Hansen’s predictions will be tested on a much longer timescale than he and others desire.
LikeLike
Which means, simply, time grows short. Early calculations assumed no tipping points until we doubled CO2, at about 450 ppm. Over the past 20 years, however, climate shifts have run much faster than anyone anticipated. Glacier National Park is nearly clear of glaciers. 48 species of birds in the continental U.S. have moved north of traditional nesting grounds, to cooler areas. Insurance rates for all the states along coastal areas are much higher because the storm damage is much higher than had been predicted. Rain belts are moving more quickly (more starvation in the Sahel), and generally warming proceeds much faster than even the conservative estimates of the IPCC.
Models didn’t predict warming would occur so fast.
The models have been considerably underestimating the speed of warming.
In context, that’s really funny for you to say. You offer political groups like the Heartland Institute for your evidence, expounding in areas in which they have no expertise. This paper is written by experts with much experience, in a distinguished peer-review journal.
You don’t like that the science denies the political points? That’s not political. That’s what happens when the science is straight.
It was a joke on the seven circles of hell. Denialism damages a sense of humor, I see.
I’m limited for time, too. When you make a half-hearted attempt to answer, when you use political sources to answer a science question, I’m much less likely to pay it any attention.
As to the argument that Spain’s cap-and-trade policy is a disaster, I can’t find any corroboration of Spain’s experience either way, outside of political commentary. You’ve offered no source of any substance on the issue.
When I pointed this out to you, you said:
it’s not a question of logic. National Review Online is not science, nor economics. Heartland isn’t science nor economics. Both sources have acknowledged skews to the right.
Plus, they have no analysis. They have anecdotal claims that look cookie-cutter, like they came out of the Republican National Committee press information room, faxed to candidates who can be counted on to use the charges faithfully and never question them.
Just like when I used to write for them. They were almost always dishonest, so I stopped. (If one of our guys got a hole-in-one in golf, they’d report he shot a zero.
This movie starts out with false information pushed as propaganda against Rachel Carson. You’ve got quite a challenge to establish that their other information is unbiased and correct. You’ve not come close.
LikeLike
I bet you wish I would run along. That would be convenient for you.
Perhaps you would like to pretend that I am a child that likes to play games. But the scientific version of the article is exactly what I was looking for. I have co-authored a few articles in peer reviewed journals during my time at college. I am no stranger to scientific langauge and data. Your appreciation of my education and reasoning is seriously deficient.
You say I wont “like who did the work” when the fact is that you are the one who values the cover over the content. Do not project your insecurities onto me.
I will take some time to read the technical side of the article. But at a first glance I notice that it states,
“The time available to reduce the human-made forcing is uncertain, because models of the global system and critical components such as ice sheets are inadequate.”
and
“Climate models have many deficiencies in their abilities to simulate climate change”
It also seems to have an unusual political tone for a scientific article. I will do my best to dissect the scientific aspect of the article, and perhaps I will seek the opinion of my professors who specialize in atmospheric phenomena.
I will take some time before reaching conclusions.
Also, Ed, before I run along to the swing set, I want to remind you that when I type many things and you choose to respond to only a few things (or in this case you supply 1 source when I asked for 4, and have no response to my ohter points concerning your logic or fear mongering, you dont mention the link to the Spanish professor) then I tend to beleive that you do not have certain answers, and that you struggle to acknowledge your own mistakes, and that you would rather ignore than concede.
LikeLike
Moderation, you run along. Mikhail Bulgakov and I are having a discussion here in the First Circle of Hell; we’re discussing this paper:
Physics > Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics
Title: Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? (The article says 350 ppm CO2)
It has the answers you seek, but you won’t like who did the work.
Almost English version, here.
LikeLike
Ed,
I am still waiting on those sources that I mentioned in my post on [November 6, 2009 at 11:56 am].
Hurry, the sixth circle of hell is approaching!
LikeLike
It is an adequate and elegant refutation of the claim that CO2 cannot possibly be a pollutant because it is perfectly harmless.
While you’re pondering the issue, a wise person with some wiles in chemistry would note that large concentrations of CO2 kill with a different mechanism than do the small concentrations of CO2 that act as greenhouse gases.
But if you’re willing to defend those who are so foolish as you now see to claim CO2 cannot possibly harm, we know that you’re not basing any of your claims against warming and in favor of CO2 in fact; we may wonder whether you can tell fact from wish.
CO2 decreasing? Have you looked at the data for the past 200 years? Not a greenhouse gas? Have you ever studied greenhouses, or gases — or any physics at all?
LikeLike
Thank the Republican Conferences for promulgating it. Your side, the deniers, like “climate change” because they can make foolhardy arguments, like, “climate is always changing.”
Odd that you can see through that tactic, but haven’t figured out the other attacks to prey on gullibility.
LikeLike
What is a pollutant, in your defining? How does CO2 not qualify, when SO2 and NOx do?
Have you ever heard of ozone?
That would be wonderful. Got any evidence of any significant decline? No one else has detected anything more than a minor variation, no end to the 200 hundred-year trend of increasing CO2.
Catalytic converters amount to a tax, too. They work wonderfully. The ban on tetraethyl lead in gasoline was a sort of a tax, too — but it raised our national collective IQ measurably. I fear sometimes it hasn’t gotten to every neighborhood, though, like when people deny warming, deny rising CO2 levels, or claim that CO2 can’t be a pollutant because it’s “natural” or for some even more silly reason.
In economics, what is taxed decreases; what is subsidized, increases. Sounds to me as if a tax on CO2 is a good idea, economically, to clean up CO2 pollution. Got a better idea that doesn’t involve making the U.S. a nation of surrender monkeys?
You sound like the auto manufacturers in 1969. They said there was no way to improve fuel efficiency in autos, and no way anyone could ever control SO2 and NOx emissions from autos — and they argued that SO2 improved crop yields in otherwise alkaline soils, like the deserts of Utah, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Texas.
Of course, no one farmed those lands, significantly. Where crops were grown they were alkaline-tolerant, and SO2 ruined them. And SO2 ruined forests across the rest of the nation.
See Santayana’s words of wisdom at the top of the right column. We’ve heard people claim great human-made calamity was not a problem before. They were wrong then, too.
LikeLike
Climate Change is also a wonderfully Orwellian term. Alarmists love to talk about it.
However, its a misnomer. Climate changes always. The only thing stable about the climate is change. Ask a farmer, they know the weather far better than white coats sitting in offices reading digital temeprature read outs from monitoring stations that have all been shown to have heat bias’.
Blaming man for climate change is a wonderfully useful tool to promote an agenda that will line the pockets of those pushing it.
And, as long as theirs storms, freak rains, tornatoes, hurricances, etc., (all things which have happened since the world began) They’ll be able to say “See? Humankind did that. Lets tax/regulate/ and destroy the hopes of billions of people.
Before you folks call me an oil baron or some such logic, I am actually currently a hands on organic farmer who doesn’t even own a tractor. We use human power over machine power everywhere we can, and we are working to get a whole community off grid, utilizing alternative energy.
I believe in living responsibly, but AGW theory is junk science of the lowest order.
I was once as you are Ed. Then I woke up. I’m not in denial, nor am I afraid to face my fears. Ive seen both plarities of belief, and the real science does not support AGW.
That is, the data, the numbers, have shown time and time again that its wrong.
LikeLike
Moderation: Co2 can kill everybody, everything, everywhere…..
So can oxygen, spaghetti, sun light, and a hundred thousand other things.
The argument that co2 kills, citing the death cloud as a valid argument defending the AGW position is hilarious. Of course it can kill. That doesn’t make it a pollutant. If it does than almost everything else on earth should be regulated too.
Though I dont wish to get into a huge debate here, Al Gore does indeed promote the idea that sea levels will rise and kill us all. Hell, he even claims that Arctic winters will be ice free in 100 years. What a laugh, all because of us and our tiny contribution to atmospheric c02.
I would ask Ed what he thinks of the fact the the level of increase in atmospheric co2 has actually decreased in recent years even though we burn more fossil fuels than ever.
And every cap and trade scheme Ive seen IS A TAX on Carbon.
I can’t believe people like this still exist out here. AGW is a joke, and will soon be thrown to the midden heap of rejected science, and thank Providence for that.
LikeLike
Nick,
let me provide some clarity if not counter arguments to some of your points.
(1) and (2) are valid statements but are not described with very much context. For instance, you say “pollution” and according to Ed you should include CO2 in this category. I’m not sure how CO2 (and some other atmospheric pollutants) cause people to be sick and less productive. If you consider any city or town, you will see that productivity ranges greatly among individuals who are exposed to similar amounts of pollution. Actaully, some of the most polluted cities are the most productive because pollution is often a biproduct of being productive.
(3) I would contend that the Soviet Unions economic and political policies (socialism, state control, military spending) had more to do with their economic condition than their environmental policies. The same can be said for the US policies of capitalism and the free market. It is misleading (and wrong) to say that our environmental policies are what made our economy superior.
Plus it is not so clear to suggest that increasing pollution regulation will increase our manufacturing capability. Some would argue the opposite since manufacturers often produce pollution and will likely experience increased costs under certain regulations.
(4) Two points to make hear. First, I guess you wont mind taing your bike to work, or re-using your bath water, or not using heat or ac, or minimizing all of your energy consumption, etc. because all of these things would be consistent with your position.
Second, you state that global warming has prevented the state of Minnesota from being shutdown by snowfall a couple of days per year. That may or may not be the case, however I dont see this as such a negative thing. And if you consider your previous statement or economic productivity, you have to admit that global warming has made the state more productive, atleast in this one instance.
(5) Yes most scientists agree that the climate is changing. But just as important is that fact that “Experts disagree, however, on the timing, magnitude and patterns of future climate changes.” This is a very important distinction.
Also, I wouldnt label it a conspiracy, but I will suggest that forcing the US to pay trillons of dollars to other countries because of our CO2 production certaintly creates an incentive for these countires to promote ideas that facilitate the acquisition of our money.
(6) This is a valid statement, but instead of “lessening our dependence on oil” it would be more accurate to say “lessening our dependence on foreign oil.” It is unfortunate that those who complain about our dependence on the middle east for oil also complain about the idea of drilling for our own oil on our own land.
(7) same as #6, Environmentalists continue to make oil exploration in this country very difficult. And they often delay the discovery and extraction of oil that we do harvest. In this way, they are perpetuating our dependence on foriegn oil and aiding the profit of people like Bin Laden.
LikeLike
have fun swallowing, Hex, because I don’t think you’re going to be able to conjure up much of a counterargument to any of these:
1: pollution makes people sick. When people are sick they are less economically productive. Furthermore, sick people cost more. They are a bigger drain on the economy than healthy people.
2: Yes, installing cleaners to deal with pollution is a short term expense…but it long term saves money. A factory that doesn’t put out as much pollution also has to spend less on dealing with the pollution they used to put out.
3: Tightening the pollution requirements in this country..producing clean technology would reinvigorate the manufacturing base in this country. It would also reinvigorate and strengthen the economy. If you want to argue otherwise then explain how come the Soviet Union, who was extremely lax in the area of environmental protection, never came to close to having an economy as strong as ours?
4: If you want to argue that we shouldn’t worry about pollution and climate change, which is the more accurate term than “global warming” then I’m sure you won’t mind living next to or on a heavily polluted site, right? Then you can have fun trying to explain why Minnesota’s snow fall average is below the norm. There used to be at least one or two days every year where the snow in my state was so bad that the entire state shut down. That hasn’t happened since I was in college. That would be 15 years ago now.
5: 99.99999% of the world’s scientists agree that climate change is real. Not only is the opposition arguing from ignorance they are also arguing that there is a vast world wide conspiracy going on. Which is realistically and statistically impossible.
6: National Security. If we lessened or outright got rid of our dependence on oil we wouldn’t have to import it from countries and areas of the world that don’t like us. In short, we could tell the Middle East, for example, to go **** itself.
7: We wouldn’t be giving money to the terrorists that attacked us on 9-11. You know…Osama bin Laden. Quite a lot of the funding he gets, that other terrorist organizations get, is from oil. We are paying the people that are trying to kill us.
SO really..it’s time you, Hex, and your fellow jokers shut up. You don’t know what you’re talking about. All you’re really doing is exercising a childish hissy fit because you don’t like Al Gore and the Democrats.
LikeLike
Gee, Hexmate, you’ve got fans. See the immediately previous post on “quality information.” Note the source.
LikeLike
It’s great to see good information being shared.
LikeLike
Ed says “Good studies show that runaway greenhouse effect starts at 350 ppm CO2. The temperature in 2050 could be just a couple of degrees warmer, or if the near-worst-case scenarios break and we lose a major sink like the Amazon forest or Congo forest, it could be five degrees warmer.”
Source these “good studies” please. (Notice how polite I am!)
Ed says, “So let’s state it scientifically: We may gain just one more degree Fahrenheit by 2050, which means a cost in damages and mitigation of several trillions of dollar…again depending partly on how rain patterns shift.”
Again I do not see a source.
Also I wonder if your projection takes into account any sort of gain from global warming. For instance if Greenland becomes more habitable – I would imagine this is not factored into your source.
Ed says, “Or we may just have grossly reduced crops, greatly increased insect and weed pests, and wells and aquifers going dry, but not dry yet. In that case, it will be only three or four times as large and as bad as the Dust Bowl”
Again I would like a source that can demonstrates an effect that is 3 or 4 times as large and as bad as the dust bowl. And again, if we have reduced crops in some locations will they increase in others? Or are you stating both increases and decreases with a net decrease?
Ed says, “No, I can’t guarantee Lawrence, Kansas, will be under 50 feet of sand. It may be only three feet.”
Again I will need a source on this that demonstrates how Lawrence, Kansas will be consumed by sand. Is this a prediction for 2050? What will happen if we stop CO2 emissions completely, 1 inch of sand? You seem to be slipping into speculation, to say the least.
Ed says, “I also think that your choice, between the sixth circle of hell and the seventh circle, presents two bad options.”
This is fear mongering, plain and simple.
What circle of hell do we currently inhabit?
Ed says, “The forecast is clear.”
According to what source.
BTW, what will be the wheather in Maryland on Sunday afternoon? temperature? clouds? wind? I was going to goto the park before the world ends.
Ed says, “Why hell at all, if we can prevent it?”
Is this the scientific term or just more fear mongering?
Ed’s source says, “Experts disagree, however, on the timing, magnitude and patterns of future climate changes.”
Oh, look it is a source. I thought they became extinct due to global climate change. Now I wonder where I have seen this stated before….I remember, I wrote this on Ed’s blog.
Ed says, “We know a lot more about every part of the system today than we knew 30 years ago when the climate guys got it right. I am unwilling to say more knowledge only confuses us. That’s not what scientists say.”
Which climate guys predicted a decrease in temperatures over the last decade over 30 years ago? A source for this would be nice. I recently attended a seminar on the current state of GCMs (did I mention this already?) and I am aware of our current level of understanding. And since technology has an exponential rate of return we can expect to know a lot more in 30 more years…exponentially more, which will make our current understanding appear to be poor.
Ed says, “I think it’s important to note that, so far as I can find, only hard-core anti-science and anti-clean-environment guys cite Spain as instructive”
This is a consistent error on Ed’s part that he fails to grasp. What comes first, the chicken or the egg? You label someone as hardcore anti-clean and therefore there analysis is driven by their position. But it just as valid to suggest that their position is driven by their analysis. In fact by Ed’s reasoning no one should listen to him because he is “hardcore clean” and obviously bias. (This is a statement of logic.)
Considering what I just wrote, it is ironic that Ed would start off his comment with “as far as I can find.” Not surprisingly, as far as Ed can find, only bias sources disagree with him and only onjective ones support him. This is an annoying problem when trying to have a discussion with him, and not something I think he will ever comprehend.
Ed say, “(see the Congressional Research Service report on H.R. 2454, for example — while no ringing endorsement, neither does it support a claim that Spain’s system is analogous, nor even instructive”
While I will not completely discredit the CRS, I will suggest that being the “most objective” doesnt even imply that they are accurate. Considering the present political climate, I seem to be less trusting of congressional reports than Ed.
But more to the point, did Ed read that entire report? Because I sure didnt. But I did search “spain” and “spanish” strings and couldnt find anything. Ed, please direct me to where they dont consider it analagous to Spanish policies.
But my point about Spain is based on experts from…Spain who do see analogies and are confused by the support for cap and trade in this country.
Check out this link (you too Ed):
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/category/press-releases/
It contains a bunch of different articles from different perspectives such as this one from a Spanish professor.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/09/24/spanish-prof-to-congress-avoid-spains-failed-experiment-with-green-jobs/
Ed says,”If your portrayal of Spain’s experience is correct, our experience with cap-and-trade in the U.S. is that it works like a charm.”
Not to be too logical here, but how does “our experience” follow from “my potrayal.” (If A, then B.) ?
Ed says, “I think it’s immoral to do nothing at all”
Surprise! Ed is a liberal. Atleast that is what I hear liberals say all the time. It is another logical error.
To say “it is immoral to do nothing” in no way implies that “it is moral to do something”
Let me break this down because I know Ed’s head hurts right know.
Suppose Ed sees two students fighting in his class. I would assert that it is immoral for him to do nothing. Suppose he walks over to them and spits on them. He didnt do nothing. But he didnt act morally either. In fact, saying “it is immoral to do nothing” doesnt even imply that doing nothing is the worse thing you can do.
It is very frustrating to hear liberals repeat this statement all of the time and pretend or believe that it justifies “something.”
And if Ed was aware of my position (which he admitted he is not) he would realize that the “best” action is what I am interested in. In no way do I imply that “nothing” is the best course.
LikeLike
Then stop yammering about it. I took that oath you took four times. I regard it as a sacred oath, still. You do great dishonor to veterans of combat to hurl insult and claim righteousness where it doesn’t exist.
If you’ve got a defense for lying about Rachel Carson and DDT, make it. So far you’ve not made it.
LikeLike
And you got a license to plagiarize and tell half-truths from this? I’m not sure I understand your reasoning. You served in a combat zone, so you can say anything you please, and no one may contradict you?
If you had science, show it. If you had an argument, you’d make it.
You have neither.
LikeLike
To right a wrong doesn’t require a leftist or a rightist. It requires common sense.
Lets just be dead honest with ourselves, Mr Gore has made more money scaring people into believing in global warming, than any other ecological science approach ever has. While cancer produces tons of money for scam organizations and grants that often fail to emphasize cancer is considerably a dietary ailment, and fully list possible causes.
All beside the point, but important to note the greed that took over some of these organizations.
Now they can make cancer grant fund quality taxes regarding co2 emissions. Holy crap ecoscience used to cower at requesting grant increases, they had nothing people we’re worried about, until this.
Your only link to c02 causing greenhouse gases, is really that photosynthesis utilizes c02 for cell growth.
The more trees you have the more moisture drawn from the ground, and let into the air seasonally, but at the very same time, you get more oxygen.
I don’t see how green plants and more oxygen are horrible things when considering the smaller scope humanity plays overall, but I do believe there are better approaches to solving the problems then taxing taxing taxing people.
Simply google GWreview_oism300.pdf, its not a bad explanation.
Now I would like to note however that this form of taxing is incredibly dangerous, as it panders to companies already working in advanced science sectors and does not positively entice existing energy businesses into proper transitional solutions. (if you think taxing is incentive, truth be told, its not the best one)
In reality we’ll simply be relying more on foreign sources of oil that don’t sign into this ridiculous carbon cap and trade policy.
So quickly we forget the UN oil for food scandal.
But all this is fine and dandy for us to watch happen because it’s our politicians retarded @#%s on the line here, or is it, when they finally manage to privatize our law enforcement and jails like Arizona is trying with all of the misplaced taxing, and the lawyers will get paid more putting you in jail, and consolidated corporations will make a banking profit when you get ‘time off’ for ‘hard labor’ building state owned solar energy systems, farming biomass, or cleaning ditches.
Eh, if science weren’t a monopolized by state funds, we probably wouldn’t be in this mess, and if the we had proper support and transparency structures for small businesses, instead of cutting them down and choking them with fees and taxes, our economy would probably be fine, assuming corps and banks didn’t run our government. Thanks for picking the same people when you said the same people wouldn’t work mr pres.
No no, we should be VERY careful examining the sciences that support policy that concurrently benefit some politicans.
Healthcare, ecoscience, energy solutions, grant funding, if someones getting paid more after a policy, it’s in our best interest to make sure THEY have it RIGHT.
LikeLike
Ed said: “Which war did you serve in, Hex? It was no more honorable than those who served in peacetime, nor more honorable than those who saved your life. When faced with your current misdeeds, you claim a mantle of heroism for deeds in the past as you denigrate others. Anyone who reads scriptures and the stories of David understands that heroism in in the act, and not in the person.”
Excellent job Ed! That was spoken like a true maggot. You are living up to your title of parasite with great zeal Ed. Ed I served 542 days, 3 hours, and 12 minutes, in a combat zone, something you wouldn’t understand. You can’t comprehend this Ed as evidenced by your commentary and it further affirms that freedom has a flavor only those who have fought for it will ever know. Never take anyone’s service to their country lightly no matter whether it was in war or peace time, it demonstrates a complete lack of respect for the sacrifice that person made. You should be ashamed Ed! If you had any sense of credibility Ed you would know that those of us who served are not heroes. We regard those who made the ultimate sacrifice as the heroes and we honor them every day. We just did our job Ed. You haven’t earned the right to judge any of us especially me Ed, so I will disregard your comments as it only demonstrates your ignorance along with your pompous behavior. You are rather liberal with your quoting of the scriptures, but you obviously do not adhere or believe in them as evidenced by your perpetuating this scam. You should consider yourself fortunate to be able to portend this farce because of the sacrifices we veterans made so that you could shoot your mouth off.
.
LikeLike
Ed said: “As to hollow words: Facts count for something. “Facts are stubborn things,” Reagan was fond of quoting (he attributed it to John Adams). Your past service, if it was, does not justify current calumny, nor current claims that step into the Bizarro world. If you had any facts to back you up, you’d be talking about them.”
Yes Ed facts are stubborn things and you cannot seem to come up with any. Slander Ed? You are the king of slander Ed. Ed this has nothing to do with my service, which is factual, and your comment obviously confirms your lack of service. I presented the facts Ed buy you deny them each time
LikeLike
Ed said: “You genuinely don’t think CO2 functions as a greenhouse gas?
Wow! How many bridges do you own?”
Ed you should read what the experts say so you would know the answer to that question.
I don’t own any bridges Ed but I’m sure you do.
LikeLike
Ed said: “I’m not surprised that you can neither explain what your point was. I doubt you ever had one.
Don’t you at least blush when you steal the work of others, though?”
Ed this is common knowledge that maybe you should go read. There is no theft taking place that’s just your usual cop out statement when you can’t retort. You can certainly lay claim to the same fact that you have no point Ed as you continue to demonstrate with this farce you created.
LikeLike
Ed said: “The ultimate defense from a guy who plagiarizes a site that sells college papers to cheaters, who claims against chemistry and physics that CO2 doesn’t absorb energy at the frequencies it does, and who has been sucked in by hoaxes spun by people he idolizes.
Hex, you oughta sit back and let people who really know carry the ball for you.”
Gee Ed this sounds just like you! The ultimate defense from a guy who idolizes Al Gore who spins hoaxes along with a supporting cast of frauds like yourself, who makes wild claims based on data they have made up to suck people into a scam. You trying to say it takes one to know one Ed? Watch out for that claymore Ed – I don’t want you to trip over it.
Ed you should sit back and relax because you are heating up the planet with all that hot air you are spewing out.
LikeLike
Good studies show that runaway greenhouse effect starts at 350 ppm CO2. The temperature in 2050 could be just a couple of degrees warmer, or if the near-worst-case scenarios break and we lose a major sink like the Amazon forest or Congo forest, it could be five degrees warmer. Two degrees will probably trigger the collapse of Greenland’s ice mantle (there are signs it has already begun and we may be too late to stop it).
So let’s state it scientifically: We may gain just one more degree Fahrenheit by 2050, which means a cost in damages and mitigation of several trillions of dollars, probable depopulation of the lowlands of Bengla Desh, collapse of a few major fisheries, and collapse of major grain producing regions — again depending partly on how rain patterns shift.
Can we say for certain Kansas will look like the mid-Sahara? No. Maybe it will look like central Arizona instead.
You think sacrificing Kansas isn’t a big deal? Have you talked to anyone from Kansas about this? Have you spoken to anyone who eats bread?
Or we may just have grossly reduced crops, greatly increased insect and weed pests, and wells and aquifers going dry, but not dry yet. In that case, it will be only three or four times as large and as bad as the Dust Bowl, which nearly knocked this nation out in 1937 and 1938, though greatly affecting only about five states.
I kinda like things the way they are, and I’m willing to fight to keep Kansas from turning into the Sahara.
The air pollution scientists were right about what happened if we controlled particulates and aerosols, but didn’t control greenhouse gases. I regret that you are unfamiliar with the predictions. They said that the trend toward warming would accelerate. They appear to have been absolutely correct.
I also think that your choice, between the sixth circle of hell and the seventh circle, presents two bad options. We can prevent a lot of damage if we act now. It will be much more difficult and much more expensive to mitigate any damage if we do not act now. Why hell at all, if we can prevent it?
Pay now for reducing pollution at lower cost and higher effect, or wait for the disaster and pay more money for less bang. That’s our choice.
No, I can’t guarantee Lawrence, Kansas, will be under 50 feet of sand. It may be only three feet.
I think gambling with our children like that is irresponsible.
We know a lot more about every part of the system today than we knew 30 years ago when the climate guys got it right. I am unwilling to say more knowledge only confuses us. That’s not what scientists say.
The forecast is clear. We might get a miracle, another Pinatubo-size eruption that staves off warming for three or four years, or a dramatic decrease in sunspot activity that may or may not be the cause of a decline in the rate of warming.
I don’t think it’s wise to gamble the entire planet for short-term political gains for conservatives.
As the rabidly non-partisan but accurate Congressional Research Service explains, we’re debating over degrees of disaster, not whether disaster will occur:
Moderation said:
If your portrayal of Spain’s experience is correct, our experience with cap-and-trade in the U.S. is that it works like a charm. I am unwilling to say our success doesn’t count as experience because Spain couldn’t make it work. I think it’s important to note that, so far as I can find, only hard-core anti-science and anti-clean-environment guys cite Spain as instructive (see the Congressional Research Service report on H.R. 2454, for example — while no ringing endorsement, neither does it support a claim that Spain’s system is analogous, nor even instructive; nor does it support a claim that the plans won’t work). CRS is the most accurate source for any legislative action I’ve ever known, and I have no reason to think they’ve grown less careful or less accurate in the last 25 years.
Compared to what cost per year if Gore is only partly right? Collapse of one or two major fisheries is more significant than $100/year. We’re already paying about $1,000 per year added costs in insurance alone here in Texas for global warming. $100 a year sounds cheap. Ten times that amount, $1,000 a year, sounds like a fair trade to me.
So let’s assume the costs of cleaning the air are underestimated by 90%: We’ll break even.
Costs of doing nothing are much greater than the costs you complain about. You think someone else will pay them for you?
One part of the global community, with 5% of the world’s population, using 25% of the world’s energy and putting out at times in the recent past 50% of the greenhouse gases — yes, we have dumped on the rest of the world for 100 years, and it’s time we own up to our global responsibilities in these regards.
Surgery and chemo that probably will extend quality life, or nothing and ask for a miracle that has never happened and no one claims is likely to happen.
That’s not really a choice, and I can’t figure out why people keep praying for miracles that don’t happen, when we can act now and get rid of a lot of the cancer. We may not effect a complete cure, but I think it’s immoral to do nothing at all.
LikeLike
I would like to know answers to questions like,
Assuming all other factors stay constant, what will be the gloabl temperature in 2050 if CO2 emissions stay at their current level? What will be the temperature in 2050 if man-made CO2 emissions were zero?
From what I have seen, no one can accurately make thess predictions. In fact it is a very complicated question. And in this light, it seems dishonest when people (Gore) suggest that “global catastrophe” could arrive in 10 years without “radical and immediate” action. This is why he is accused of “fear mongering.” It is true that anything “could” accur in 10 years, but to suggest that he is speaking for the entire scientific community is absurd.
So I think it is appropriate for me to draw similarities between the misleading statements on both sides.
It is honrable of you, Ed, to raise awareness of current environmental trends. These are important pieces of the puzzle. But we must keep in mind that the complexity of the system is unprecedented. So we must be extra careful when making factual claims about cause and effect.
And since the forecast is unclear, it is entirely rational to assume that the best course of action for our country (and others) is also unclear. Once again, to suggest otherwise would be dishonest.
Anyone who argues that cap and trade is the right thing to do but has no understanding of the Spanish experience, is expressing an ill-informed view. Even the EPAs recognition of a $100/year increase in electricity costs is significant, and could possibly underestimate the true cost. Plus the potential loss of jobs during a period of very high unemployment is concerning.
Plus we must recognize that we are but one partner in the global community, and our actions may have only a small effect on gloabl conditions. Acheiving gloabl cooperation while respecting individual sovereignty is a delicate balance.
So while some may declare a clear and moral path forward, I remain skeptical.
LikeLike
You may be right. I have trouble keeping track of who posts on what — this ain’t my full time paycheck by any stretch.
These yahoos who produced the movie, and who tell such shining and stinking whoppers about DDT and Rachel Carson and others, contest global warming on several grounds, including the foolish (to me) claim that CO2 can’t be a pollutant because it’s natural. My point on pollution is that pollution is too much of a substance in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Our exhaling trace amounts of CO2 isn’t pollution, not until you get close to 30 people in a small room. In those circumstances, CO2 poisoning has been known to set in.
Is that pollution by EPA’s figuring? I don’t think so.
So if you wish to contest warming, do it on some rational basis. But don’t blame EPA, since they have a solid definition and a better plan to control greenhouse gases, and don’t make foolish claims like ‘CO2 can’t be harmful because it’s natural.’ Arsenic, sulfuric acid, and botulism are natural, too.
LikeLike
My stance on CO2 has never changed. I always said it was a green house gas and that the level was the issue. I elaborated on this point in more than one post.
I dont expect Ed to know this becuase he has failed to understand anything that I have said. I can appreciate his point of view, but disagree with it. However, he is not open-minded and cannot understand how anyone could reasonably disagree with him.
I refuse to continue to reiterate what I have already repeated just because Ed is too lazy or ignorant to understand where I am coming from.
And of course Ed would focus on the defintion of “pollutant” and not on the uncertainty associated with CO2 levels and climate conditions.
By Ed’s reasoning, he pollutes everytime he takes a breath or everytime a polar bear breaths we could say they are polluting.
When I first joined this thread, I felt that Ed was knowledgable and reasonable on the issue and could contribute to my understanding. But know I see how stubborn and close-minded he really is. Furthermore, he fails to show his opposition the personal repsect that they deserve and has disgraced his own blog with childish behavoir.
Hexamte – I have done research for the army and have family who are fighting in Iraq. I would never equate my contribution to those who volunteer to risk their lives so that we can live with peace and freedom at home. It is naive to say that the sacrifice of someone who packs parachutes is comparable to the person who uses the parachute to jump out of a plane and into a war zone.
LikeLike
I said: Is that something you’re claiming, Hexmate Munchausen, or more plagiarism of somebody’s work you can’t explain and don’t understand?
Hexmate offered no defense. He offered no link to suggest which of several dozen sites he swiped it from. He offered not a shred of argument to suggest he knows what it means. He offered no apology for stealing the work of others, even shoddy work.
Instead, he tries to dodge the issue:
I’m not surprised that you can neither explain what your point was. I doubt you ever had one.
Don’t you at least blush when you steal the work of others, though?
As to hollow words: Facts count for something. “Facts are stubborn things,” Reagan was fond of quoting (he attributed it to John Adams). Your past service, if it was, does not justify current calumny, nor current claims that step into the Bizarro world. If you had any facts to back you up, you’d be talking about them. Which war did you serve in, Hex? It was no more honorable than those who served in peacetime, nor more honorable than those who saved your life. When faced with your current misdeeds, you claim a mantle of heroism for deeds in the past as you denigrate others. Anyone who reads scriptures and the stories of David understands that heroism in in the act, and not in the person.
LikeLike