backtop

Blog: Science NOAA Global Warming Data Challenged
Michael Asher (Blog) - June 18, 2007 11:15 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 165 comment(s) - last by GreenyMP.. on Jul 14 at 2:47 PM
Severe problems found in temperature monitoring network.

Earlier this year, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration reported 2006 as ”the warmest year on record" for the United States-- a statement the media trumpeted from coast to coast.  A few months later, the NOAA revised their figures, saying it was actually the second warmest on record.  Unsurprisingly, the correction drew little attention.

But just how accurate are these figures?  The NOAA generates them from a network of 1,221 simple weather stations, usually no more a thermometer inside a tiny wooden hut, most operated by volunteers, not scientists.  The network has been in operation since 1900, and provides the official baseline data for both the NOAA and global warming modelers.  To ensure accurate data, the sites are supposed to conform to several guidelines, such as minimum distance from other buildings, hot pavement, etc.

California meteorologist Anthony Watts began surveying these sites recently, to see just how well they're being maintained.   His site, surfacestations.org, has detailed a surprising number being operated in a manner guaranteed to compromise their data.  The problem is recent development, which has placed many sites next to direct or indirect sources of heat.

In a prime example, a site in Orland, CA (which meets good guidelines) has shown a pattern of declining temperatures for many years.  A few miles away, a station in Marysville has shown a rising pattern...but the station is now next to dark asphalt, and only a few feet from the exhaust vent of a commercial AC unit.  Another site is near a large barrel used for burning trash.  One site even had a light bulb burning inside the tiny enclosed hut, effectively warming the thermometer by several degrees.

Surfacestations.org has only surveyed 48 of the total sites, but problems abound.  Watts says this raises serious doubts about the accuracy of the network, the only source of long-term historical data for US temperature data.

The NOAA did not return a request for comments on the accuracy of their monitoring network.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I don't get it...
By oTAL (blog) on 6/18/2007 12:41:04 PM , Rating: 5
You know what... I don't get it!
Some time ago the general argument was that global warming wasn't happening. Then, when proof became too large to ignore, the argument changed to "It's not man made! There's nothing we can do!". I recall several articles in which you used this same argument: Yes, it's happening... but it's not our fault and there's nothing we can do about it!

Now suddenly you go back to "Maybe it's not even happening".

I'm all for critical thinking and I give both camps the benefit of the doubt (even though I lean more towards trusting the findings of one of them). I do find this article interesting and it is important to test the validity of scientific studies.

What I don't get is you (and others with similar attitude). Why do you want so badly to create doubt about global? Does it make you sleep better, feeling safer?

What do you believe is fact? You seem to change what you believe in... or rather believe in everything that points out flaws in man-made global warming...

Is the planet warming up or not? Do you consider the possibility that man-made global warming is happening or do you disregard any evidence pointing in that direction?
I'm honestly curious about that...




RE: I don't get it...
By BPB on 6/18/2007 12:51:38 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
What I don't get is you (and others with similar attitude). Why do you want so badly to create doubt about global? Does it make you sleep better, feeling safer?
I myself am no longer at all sure what I believe. but I wonder, wouldn't the question be just as provocative if it said: What I don't get is you (and others with similar attitude). Why do you want so badly to believe in global warming? Does it make you sleep better, feeling better or smarter than others? Are you making money off of it? Does it help you to hurt those with whom you disagree?


RE: I don't get it...
By Kefner on 6/18/2007 2:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the exact same thing when I read his post.


RE: I don't get it...
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 6/18/2007 8:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
As for Antarctic ice, here's a recent article from Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 8 (2006). It demonstrates an overall increase in Antarctic mass balance:

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/08427/EGU06-J...

Here's another, from Science, Nov 2005 (reprinted):

quote:
A Norwegian-led team used the ERS data to measure elevation changes in the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2003, finding recent growth in the interior sections estimated at around six centimetres per year during the study period

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/esa...

Another from Science:

quote:
Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308...

One from Nature last year, showing growth in the East Antarctic:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/050516...

An earlier one, showing similar growth in the West Antarctic:

quote:
The West Antarctic ice sheet has been retreating for several thousand years, so to look now and see that it is growing is staggering to me ," [Professor] Tulaczyk said.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/02013...

Another, this one back in 2002:

quote:
We find strong evidence for ice-sheet growth (+26.8 gigatons per year), in contrast to earlier estimates indicating a mass deficit (20.9 gigatons per year).

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/295...

I know that most of the links are dead by now, but I assure you that if you search enough in the Internet Time Machine (http://www.archive.org/web/web.php) you will find them .

The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,2...

Also this (courtesy of Masher):

quote:
We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or social change to come and bomb us back into the Stone Age , where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religions-- guilt free at last!
Environmentalist Stewart Brand, writing in the Whole Earth catalogue.

quote:
If environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human population back to sanity, it would probably be something like Aids. Aids has the potential to end industrialism , which is the main force behind the environmental crisis
from the Earth First newsletter.

quote:
"I'd wish [to be reincarnated as] a killer virus, to lower human population levels"
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, speaking as leader of the World Wildlife Fund.

quote:
We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down the existing dams, free shackled rivers, and return to wilderness tens and tens of millions of acres of settled land
Environmentalist David Foreman, founder of Earth First.

quote:
The planet has broken out with fever, and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves and our lifestyles.
Environmentalist Thomas Lovejoy, speaking as Asst. Secretary of the Smithsonian.

And how about one of the most famous environmentalists of all, Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist, and author of several books on forced deindustrialization of the US and other nations.

Here's a few of the scientists who don't believe in global warming alarmism:

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT.
Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president, National Academy of Sciences.
Dr. Richard Gray, Meteorologist, Colorado State Univ.
Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Astrophysicist, Danish Space Research Institute
Dr. Nir Shariv, Astrophysicist, Univ. of Jerusalem
Dr. V.K. Raina, Glaciologist, Geologic Soc. of India
Patrick Michaels, State Climatologist Virginia
David Legates, State Climatologist Delaware
Dr. George Taylor, State Climatologist Oregon (fired just last month by the Governor for failing to toe the party line)
Dr. Ian D. Clark, hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc, fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society
Dr. Christopher Essex, associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC.
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist.
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas
Dr. August H. Auer, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC ..
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and geophysics, Utrecht University; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, marine researcher, Geological Survey of Finland.
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.


RE: I don't get it...
By brandonmichael on 6/18/2007 8:19:43 PM , Rating: 4
ok, thats obnoxious. If I were to type out the name of every scientist who believes the data on global warming we could be here for weeks. The list is impressive, but you could have said "prominant environmentalists" like everyone else.

Just out of curiosity how did you compile your list?


RE: I don't get it...
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 6/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: I don't get it...
By Lightning III on 6/19/2007 12:09:09 PM , Rating: 3
missing the fine print don't beleive in ALARMISM not necessarily global Warming


RE: I don't get it...
By GreenyMP on 7/14/2007 2:47:01 PM , Rating: 2
I was hoping the polar ice caps would melt so that Megatron would finally be released.


RE: I don't get it...
By Performance Fanboi on 6/18/2007 12:53:05 PM , Rating: 2
You Know What? I don't get YOU! - Is there a single word in the article challenging the theory of global warming? You seem to have a problem with the fact that some of the data is being corrupted by poor practices - if the temperature trend was downwards making it appear as though global warming was not true would you still not care that the data is warped? Peoplee like you are a dime a dozen - you only believe the science that supports you and ignore all other indications.


RE: I don't get it...
By oTAL (blog) on 6/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: I don't get it...
By TheGreek on 6/20/2007 1:19:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Using a somewhat famous quote here on DT: Who pissed on your Cherios?

That in a nutshell is the sole function and purpose for MAsher and DT. It's not about facts, truth, objectivity, science, none of that. It's about argumentative sparring and one-upmanship with a weak veil of science wrapped around it.

I wonder how many people MAsher's "scientific" ancestors stoned when the first ideas that the earth wasn't flat started circulating.


RE: I don't get it...
By BMFPitt on 6/19/2007 12:14:42 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
You Know What? I don't get YOU! - Is there a single word in the article challenging the theory of global warming?
Click on MAsher's blog. Every article is about how global warming is fake. I would be fine with this if I got the sense that he cared whether what he was selling were true.


RE: I don't get it...
By TomZ on 6/19/2007 12:21:34 AM , Rating: 2
C'mon, get real - of course he believes this stuff is true. He has pretty clearly put forward his view that the scientific evidence supporting significant human-induced global warming is questionable at best, and more likely just plain wrong. And I am inclined to agree. When you dig into the subject at all, many of the "facts" upon which the whole global warming alarmist rhetoric is built upon melt away pretty quickly. There's no real substance - just a lot of people shouting loudly.


RE: I don't get it...
By BMFPitt on 6/19/2007 7:41:39 AM , Rating: 3
I find his writing style to be far too similar to Intelligent Design promoters. If he spent less time with the whole, "The environmentalists who just want us all to go back to the stone age are making it all up" angle, he might be more credible.


RE: I don't get it...
By TheGreek on 6/20/2007 1:10:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
He has pretty clearly put forward his view that the scientific evidence supporting significant human-induced global warming is questionable at best, and more likely just plain wrong

Well the main problem has always been the same for both sets of extremists. They are both convinced (the eco-fundamentalists and MAsher and his "believers") that they have all the science they need to come to a total conclusion. What MAsher always keeps in denial is that his methods or persuasion using "science" are just as limited to only the facts that he feels like promoting as the eco-freaks. The exact same tactics in reverse. Any scientific, intelligent, and thinking person would find such methods questionable at best. But no, like Rush Limbaugh he blows off anyone and everyone that dares question his conclusion and even goes so far as to make fun of them. As soon as some weakpoint can be found in opposing argument he punches a hole in it and claims victory. Note how many times he says "my point trumps your point", like one-upmanship is all that there is around here.

And it is.

quote:
There's no real substance - just a lot of people shouting loudly.

That's includes MAsher and his kind. His science is no more than the tip of the iceberg, just like all the people he makes fun of. Those that live in glass houses......


RE: I don't get it...
By TomZ on 6/20/2007 2:05:07 PM , Rating: 1
I think you're trying to turn this discussion into a "debate about the debate." I think that is just a cop out - a way of avoid talking about topics with substance.

Anyway, I think Asher's theme if there is one is that all the rheroric and alarmism surrounding the global warming scare is backed by science that is very iffy at best. I don't see anything anti-eco in his attitudes - I believe he is simply against the public being duped as they have in this instance and trying to counteract the misinformation with actual information.

If you have information that contradicts what has been discussed, please bring it forward. That would be much more interesting to discuss than a "debate about the debate." For example, do you have evidence that the NOAA temperature stations are actually accurate and well-maintained?

Finally, I would highly encourage you to download and watch that video that someone linked below. It's pretty eye-opening.


RE: I don't get it...
By TheGreek on 6/20/2007 2:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyway, I think Asher's theme if there is one is that all the rheroric and alarmism surrounding the global warming scare is backed by science that is very iffy at best.

I'm just noting similarities in style and content.

quote:
If you have information that contradicts what has been discussed, please bring it forward.

Read his past posts for that, just loaded with objectivity.


RE: I don't get it...
By Ringold on 6/18/2007 1:17:44 PM , Rating: 4
It's my own opinion that masher is simply performing the critical thinking of the sort you say you're for. Nobody else is. The mainstream media isn't, and most geek-oriented media isn't either out of a natural liberal tendency that seems to exist amongst them. (I exclude [H], heheh, but they don't opine on such things) So what sort of posts do Mr. Asher seem to make? Those that take all those other slightly biased reports and shine a critical light on them.

Does global warming exist? Maybe it does, maybe it doesnt, but if it does, here's some evidence that shows our current-day data is possibly unreliable, meaning we may not accurately be able to detect its true magnitude. If there is, is it caused by man? He's covered that angle too.

Critical thinking requires a vigorous assault from all angles. For global warming that includes looking at data collection, as covered here, and the output of climate scientists research, which has been covered previously, both of which I imagine will continue to be reported on. I myself see no real flip-flopping on the part of Mr. Asher here but doing so would merely reflect an updated status of his opinion based on his ongoing education of the matter.

Asides from perhaps not enjoying the sensation caused by reading things that challenge preconceived notions, I'm not particularly sure what your objection really is. This one isn't truly all that different in substance or style than any of his past ones, the concept of all of them being (or at least what I derive out of them) "I don't know and these guys clearly don't either."


RE: I don't get it...
By oTAL (blog) on 6/18/2007 1:44:30 PM , Rating: 4
That was a great answer. I would rate it up if I could.
Still, I see such a certainty in some of his posts that it kind of defeats the purpose you're giving them. When I read the famous quote of driving the hummer but not stopping at McDonald's I see no doubts - only certainties.
I am all out for critical thinking and I don't think it is wrong to change one's opinion (if it's not too often =P). But I see little room for doubt in his statements and I find that, at least in my head, there was some contradiction here.
If there was a change in opinion, that would be ok, but I would rather have it openly stated.
If, as you say, it's more of the type "I don't know and these guys clearly don't either" then I think some room for doubt should be more evident on the articles...

I don't know... maybe it's just me... one thing I can tell you: When I'm sure I am never wrong (it will happen eventually - just hasn't happened yet). When I'm not sure I may strongly opine in one direction but I always leave room for doubt. The benefit of that attitude is that, when I'm sure, most people who know me just accept it and don't dispute it (they often do go and check it out so that they may rub it in my face if I'm wrong).

Anyway, thanks for your post.


RE: I don't get it...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/18/2007 2:08:42 PM , Rating: 3
> "When I read the famous quote of driving the hummer but not stopping at McDonald's I see no doubts - only certainties..."

That quote came from an earlier blog of mine (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5349) which referenced the conclusions of an official UN report. The logic chain behind it is, that if global warming is occurring and if its primarily caused by mankind and if its neccessary (or even desirable) to mitigate it, then one can do so better by reducing your meat intake rather than your gasoline consumption.

On this particular point, the science is well settled. We don't know the total effect of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere, but we do know the relative contributions of methane versus carbon dioxide. Regardless of what that total effect is, a Hummer-driving vegetarian has less impact on it than a Prius-driving burger lover.


RE: I don't get it...
By xsilver on 6/20/2007 12:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
do hummer driving vegetarians even exist?

isnt this issue also politically based as well? eg. the farming lobby groups are much stronger than the oil lobbies.

If you proposed that we reduce our consumption of meat by 25% by 2020 you'd probably be laughed out of parliament but proposing a reduction of 25% gas use and the public accept it. lol that figures.


RE: I don't get it...
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 9:25:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
isnt this issue also politically based as well? eg. the farming lobby groups are much stronger than the oil lobbies.


This begs the question, why do oil companies with record profits need government funds for drilling? Historic profits and corporate welfare at the same time, seems an odd combination.

quote:
If you proposed that we reduce our consumption of meat by 25% by 2020 you'd probably be laughed out of parliament but proposing a reduction of 25% gas use and the public accept it. lol that figures.

Do you see people wasting meat in the same magnitude as gas?

Doesn't your doctor suggest lowering meat consumption? Do you laugh at your doctor?


RE: I don't get it...
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 11:46:32 AM , Rating: 2
> why do oil companies with record profits need government funds for drilling?

They don't. We give them money if they drill where WE want them to, even if thats a spot they'd rather pass by. That helps us and them both.

Of course, I'm sure you'd rather just pass a law to force them to do exactly what you want. Or better yet, just seize the company for "the good of the people", right?


RE: I don't get it...
By TheGreek on 6/20/2007 1:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Critical thinking requires a vigorous assault from all angles.

And you see that MAsher articles? Or are they as one-sided extremist as his opposition? There's never been any middle ground around here, just plenty of anti-eco-freaks who agree with his alledged conclusions.


RE: I don't get it...
By TomZ on 6/20/2007 2:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. If you look at this thread, for example, you see people with a wide range of viewpoints. I don't see any general "anti-eco" attitude.

Anyway, for the record, I'm pro-science, which puts be on the devil's advocate side of the global warming issue. Global warming is about politics, not science. Pro-science is not anti-eco.


RE: I don't get it...
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 9:18:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I disagree. If you look at this thread, for example, you see people with a wide range of viewpoints. I don't see any general "anti-eco" attitude.

All you need do it click blog, than Michael Asher, and read his past blogs. This one piece of the puzzle won't give you the whole picture.

There's also no moderation here, such as even if there is a natural warming trend whether or not man is speeding it up and/or increasing it. Its as if both can't happen at the same time.

And you have Porkie claiming lower heating costs as a positive, as if nobody in the entire world uses or even heard of air conditioning. That's the kind of balanced attitude you'll find in the blogs and the threads, if you remain scientific enough to look for it. It's up to you.

Good luck in your search for the truth, you will certainly need it around here.


RE: I don't get it...
By porkpie on 6/21/2007 11:48:37 AM , Rating: 3
All you need to do is click on your name, and read your past postings. You continue to attack Asher, me, and anyone who disagrees with you. Instead of arguing facts and figures, you're rather just issue personal insults.

Some people call that ad hominem. Me, I just call it running scared.


RE: I don't get it...
By Moishe on 6/18/2007 1:18:43 PM , Rating: 4
I'm curious why the search for more knowledge is bad? Is knowledge bad? Is it bad if it proves global warming is true, if it proves that it's man made? What if it proves that global warming is not happening or that it is happening, but that it's just natural?

Fact is, I want to hear it all. If the NOAA stations are trustworthy I want to know, but if they're not, I want to know that as well so it can be fixed. Once it's fixed maybe then NOAA will revise their predictions (up or down) based on more accurate data.

I see nothing but good coming from more knowledge and I don't understand people who only want more knowledge as long as it is knowledge that supports their predetermined mindset.


RE: I don't get it...
By Oregonian2 on 6/19/2007 6:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm curious why the search for more knowledge is bad? Is knowledge bad? Is it bad if it proves global warming is true, if it proves that it's man made? What if it proves that global warming is not happening or that it is happening, but that it's just natural?


More knowledge is bad if it's against one's viewpoint. More knowledge is bad if it doesn't prove America and Americans at fault for something. Many Americans and most of the American media have a self-esteem problem. Unless we can prove ourself bad, preferably blaming the "other" political party, all is misery. Whether or not it's true doesn't matter. One can't be the hero fixing things unless a disaster problem is invented first. If the problem really is fiction, it becomes all the easier to become the smart hero later!

Sorry for the sarcasm, but unfortunately I think there's a strong thread of truth in it.


RE: I don't get it...
By TomZ on 6/19/2007 8:07:53 PM , Rating: 3
I couldn't agree more.

For example, to me it is seriously stupid to be giving global warming even a small fraction of our bandwidth, when other more serious and acute problems still go without any solution.

For example, what should be done about the AIDS epidemic, especially in Africa where it orphans a staggering proportion of the children?

What about rebuilding the damage in and around New Orleans from hurricane Katrina? Lots of promises there, and no real action. Practically nothing's been done.

How about the immigration problem, where you have 10-20 million illegal/undocumented people in our country? Where is the rule of law, and why can't our elected leaders make any kind of meaningful progress towards solving this problem?

What can we do to help work towards a meaningful peace solution in the Mideast? American policies there have failed time after time, and we are stuck in a "quagmire" of an occupation in Iraq.

So instead of focusing our attention on these types of real issues, we invent a big problem like "global warming" and get all worked up about our "carbon footprints" and about buying "carbon offsets" in order to make up for our outlandish lifestyles. We talk about how polar bears are going to become extinct, and how the coral reefs are being destroyed. All of this will little or no actual scientific basis behind it. Oh, please, give me a break!


RE: I don't get it...
By BMFPitt on 6/19/2007 11:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about the immigration problem, where you have 10-20 million illegal/undocumented people in our country? Where is the rule of law, and why can't our elected leaders make any kind of meaningful progress towards solving this problem?
Yeah, why is the media not covering this at all? And why hasn't Congress even discussed a bill?


RE: I don't get it...
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 9:28:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about the immigration problem, where you have 10-20 million illegal/undocumented people in our country? Where is the rule of law, and why can't our elected leaders make any kind of meaningful progress towards solving this problem?

How about a general trend, an estimate of how many per year over the last 50 years? Its not like all this started in this century.


RE: I don't get it...
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 12:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well, considering our last round of amnesty in the late 1980's (obviously a huge failure, BTW), I'd say probably the majority of today's illegals have just arrived in the past 15-20 years.

Anyway, what's the difference when it started? Our country has laws, and I'd like to see them enforced. I'm pro-immigration - pro- legal immigration, that is. There already exists a legal path to immigration that has been existed for centuries - let's make sure everyone uses that.


RE: I don't get it...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/18/2007 1:21:11 PM , Rating: 5
> "Why do you want so badly to create doubt about global?"

Good question. Because I believe in the truth, and there are serious doubts about anthropogenic global warming along climatologists. The current politicization of the climate debate is a very bad thing. Bad for the people, bad for the economy, and bad for the scientific method itself.

Even the most vociferious supporter of global warming-- the UN IPCC-- only concludes there is a 90% chance than man is contributing to "some" of the warming experienced. The media then translates this to "no doubt" that man is responsible for all the warming. It then goes further to state this is a looming catastrophe of biblical proportions, when all evidence is that it will be anything from a minor annoyance to something actually benefical to us.

Meanwhile, dozens of climatologists (many of which were originally on the IPCC's panel until they quit in disgust) vehemently disagree that man is causing any of this. Those scientists are rarely interviewed, they regularly receive death threats and worse from environmentalists, and at least two have lost their government positions...fired by politicians, bowing to public sentiment.

So while we debate economically-crippling multi trillion dollar solutions to a problem that may not even exist, children are dying in some places for want a 50-cent medical treatment, and entire nations are being told to ignore the incredible benefits of cheap energy. True scientists go unheard, while singers and actors who failed 8th grade math suddenly become experts in atmospheric science, and, while they spend millions jet-set around the globe, tell us we're "consuming" too much.

Am I offended and alarmed by all this? Yes. Do I sleep better at night after trying to counter it? Most certainly, I do.


RE: I don't get it...
By brandonmichael on 6/18/2007 3:10:05 PM , Rating: 4
"Even the most vociferious supporter of global warming-- the UN IPCC-- only concludes there is a 90% chance than man is contributing to "some" of the warming experienced."

Thats a really unsupportive figure... Because 90% is a convincing majority and that 10% could easily be made up of the members who would benefit greatly from unregulated fossil fuel usage.

"Meanwhile, dozens of climatologists (many of which were originally on the IPCC's panel until they quit in disgust) vehemently disagree that man is causing any of this."

Dozens does not an overwhelming majority make. It still makes more sense that these are scientists who were paid off by oil lobbyists to make dissenting statements. Ridiculous? It wasnt long ago that tobacco was paying doctors and scientists to misrepresent facts as well.

"So while we debate economically-crippling multi trillion dollar solutions to a problem that may not even exist, children are dying in some places for want a 50-cent medical treatment, and entire nations are being told to ignore the incredible benefits of cheap energy."

You are quick to use suffering as dis-incentive to change, but lets not forget that those same people were suffering long before the phrase "global warming" was ever uttered... I dont think helping the sick is really what this is all about (and I certainly have yet to hear your ideas on health care for those in want of 50 cent medical treatment.)

When it all comes down to it, it seems like the argument against global warming was really concocted by people who dont like the economic repercussions of changing our use of oil.
Until it becomes clear that this argument is not presented out of fear the US will lose its economic edge, it is hard to give it the credibility that it is presented with.


RE: I don't get it...
By greenchasch on 6/18/2007 3:17:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
that 10% could easily be made up of the members who would benefit greatly from unregulated fossil fuel usage.
Rofl, they didn't ask scientists to stick up their hands and vote. The figure means the majority have a 90% confidence level in the data. Meaning they believe there's a roughly 10% chance their conclusion may be wrong.

quote:
these are scientists who were paid off by oil lobbyists
For every scientist getting a grant from an oil company, there's two dozen getting one from Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or from an EU Green-Party influenced government. There's far more money these days in claiming the sky is falling than in being calm and rational.

quote:
it seems like the argument against global warming was concocted...
Thats not how science works. You don't have to prove something doesn't exist. You have to prove it does. The argument has to be made FOR global warming-- and so far, that argument has a lot of holes in it.


RE: I don't get it...
By brandonmichael on 6/18/2007 3:29:07 PM , Rating: 2


For every scientist getting a grant from an oil company, there's two dozen getting one from Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or from an EU Green-Party influenced government. There's far more money these days in claiming the sky is falling than in being calm and rational.

I've heard this argument allot and never seen any supporting data...


RE: I don't get it...
By porkpie on 6/18/2007 3:34:28 PM , Rating: 2
You've seen more of it as the "supporting data" claiming all the scientists who disagree are funded by oil companies. I can't count the number of times a prominent climatologist has been smeared as an "industry shill" just for voicing his opposition to global warming.


RE: I don't get it...
By brandonmichael on 6/18/2007 3:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
I can't count the number of times a prominent climatologist has been smeared as an "industry shill" just for voicing his opposition to global warming.

ok... well, you cant count very high then, because its far from an everyday occurrence.

I'm not trying to be flip, but I also think there are majority of "prominent" climatologists who think global warming is very real.


RE: I don't get it...
By porkpie on 6/18/2007 4:04:42 PM , Rating: 3
> "you cant count very high then, because its far from an everyday occurrence.

Are you joking? There are entire websites run by environmentalists that exist for no other reason than to try to discredit scientists who don't agree with their cause. And you will never find a single global warming thread (including this one and every other one on this site or any other) that doesn't include people throwing out the "funded by big oil" red herring. All always without a single shred of proof.


RE: I don't get it...
By brandonmichael on 6/18/2007 4:16:36 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe I wasn't being clear... I was saying it was far from an everyday occurrence that a prominent environmentalist disagrees with global warming.

The tobacco industry is still being sued for paying doctors to misrepresent information on cancer and tobacco. I agree that we are quick to jump to the assumption that big oil is funding dissenters... we're a pretty jaded population because we have been lied to so many times.


RE: I don't get it...
By ttowntom on 6/18/2007 4:19:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it was far from an everyday occurrence that a prominent environmentalist disagrees with global warming
This news story just out today:

"Climate Scientist Says Global Warming Doesn't Exist"

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,2...


RE: I don't get it...
By porkpie on 6/18/2007 4:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
> we're a pretty jaded population because we have been lied to so many times.

I'm jaded over being lied to about "global cooling" when I was in high school. Or being told that "acid rain" meant the end of every forest on the planet. Or being told that by the year 2000, we'd all be starving to death from mass famines everywhere.


RE: I don't get it...
By brandonmichael on 6/18/2007 5:01:23 PM , Rating: 1
Right, I got those lines too, but they are pretty harmless compared to the consequences of say the tobacco industry's lies. No one died of worry thinking acid rain was going to harm the rain forests... lots of people died because they believed that it was inconclusive that smoking caused cancer. Which do you think was the more harmful?

If one industry could protect its interests at such a high cost, why wouldn't the oil industry? The largest and most profitable industry in the world?

If you were so easily jaded by a few crazy rumblings about acid rain, why don't the out and out lies told by big corporations leave you with alittle distrust?


RE: I don't get it...
By porkpie on 6/18/2007 5:46:14 PM , Rating: 4
> No one died of worry thinking acid rain was going to harm the rain forests...

Millions of people-- maybe even tens of millions- died from malaria, because someone managed to convince us that DDT was causing eggshells to thin. Meanwhile, the few nations who didn't follow the US lead continued to use DDT. They didn't see the massive increases in malarial rates...and they didn't see any declines in bird populations either.

> why don't the out and out lies told by big corporations leave you with alittle distrust?

Who there cubbie! I'm not listening to big corporations. I'm listening those scientists who point out huge flaws in the global warming theories.


RE: I don't get it...
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 9:32:33 AM , Rating: 2
So explain why DDT hasn't made a huge comback with all this scientific data you're providing?

And why hasn't supply and demand worked to find a cure for malaria? There's certainly demand, isn't there?


RE: I don't get it...
By Ringold on 6/18/2007 6:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
I responded to your statements about the oil industry (Green Peace doesn't want you to know that the oil industry has huge investments in renewable energy, or that there's many utility companies that would profit from CO2 taxes, and nevermind the vast renewable energy sector that would cease to exist if GW paranoia cooled off) in a below post, but about acid rain..

I remember very distinctly hearing several times when I was young, I cant even remember how old I was, but I just "knew" that acid rain meant that by now almost all forests and swamps would be destroyed if drastic measures weren't taken. No such massive measures were taken and, lo and behold, Florida is covered in so much green it makes me sick of the color. Environmentalists, and their ties to the communist movements of yesteryear, overstretched and time proved that they were stirring the pot and essentially lied.

You attempt to obfuscate, however, by bringing up other companies lies. That's irrelevant. The point is that the environmentalist radicals have pushed a climate change agenda before on nothing much more than faith and lies. They couldn't achieve their political goals with politics, they switched to the climate and have shoved aside the people that truly care about nature for the sake of nature (such as one of the Green Peace founders, who can't stand the radicalism). They failed with their first attempt at mass paranoia, and now they're trying again. It's not enough just to believe their fairy tales yourself, but you have to spin doubt and uncertainty toward other unrelated parties (like tabacco) to try to defend them!

At any rate, I've picked up on much more subtle forms of propaganda than that, you'll have to try a lot harder. :) Trying to make the environmentalists credibility look better by comparing it to anybody elses credibility doesn't change the fact that the credibility still is dismal.


RE: I don't get it...
By brandonmichael on 6/18/2007 8:43:53 PM , Rating: 1
Alright, look. Your claims that I am spreading propaganda really dont carry allot of weight considering the fact that I hear you spout the most McCarthy-ist hateful inflammatory nonsense in a majority of your posts. There are the occasional few where you actually come across as a reasonable person (and I have to say I am very impressed by you in those moments,) but you mostly come across as an xenophobic hillbilly asshole.

I brought up the tobacco industry in response to someone saying they were jaded from the lies spun by environmentalist. I was saying that I was jaded from the lies told by large multinational corporations and that I take those lies far more seriously. It certainly doesnt seem like obfuscation in that context, perhaps you want to enlighten me...
Or just call me a "Commie" again.


RE: I don't get it...
By brandonmichael on 6/18/2007 8:46:23 PM , Rating: 3
I just read that post and it sounds horrible. My apologies Ringold.


RE: I don't get it...
By Ringold on 6/18/2007 10:45:45 PM , Rating: 2
That's alright. It's easy for everybody to get nasty on the good old intarweb. One of my best friends is a true-blue straight-ticket Democrat, we actually do get along pretty grand. I'll say something about politics, he'll shake his head. He'll say something and I'll shake mine. Then up with a round of beer and a round of Supreme Commander and all is fine.


RE: I don't get it...
By brandonmichael on 6/19/2007 4:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah... Its tough. You and Michael are two really powerful debaters and its easy to get hot when you get your ass handed to you.

And I reread your earlier post and about why Michael writes and I think I agree with you Ringold
At first I thought that Michael was merely writing his blog to be sensational and inflammatory, but having a few persuasive, informed contrary opinions has really forced me to examine this issue, which was a closed book for me... I had stopped questioning the conclusion before I had even started.
So I'm glad Masher blogs here and I'm glad you post here and that so many intelligent people are down in the trenches getting to the bottom of this issue...

Alright, huggy time is over. LETS GET IT ON!


RE: I don't get it...
By TheGreek on 6/20/2007 1:36:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Then up with a round of beer and a round of Supreme Commander and all is fine.

Is that the game where the Supreme Commander's strings are controlled by a draft dodger?


RE: I don't get it...
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 9:36:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Alright, look. Your claims that I am spreading propaganda really dont carry allot of weight considering the fact that I hear you spout the most McCarthy-ist hateful inflammatory nonsense in a majority of your posts.

Not this part, its quite well analyzed.


RE: I don't get it...
By porkpie on 6/18/2007 10:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
> you mostly come across as an xenophobic hillbilly asshole

When you sink to this level, you lose the debate instantly. Sorry pal.


RE: I don't get it...
By TheGreek on 6/20/2007 1:32:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
At any rate, I've picked up on much more subtle forms of propaganda than that, you'll have to try a lot harder. :) Trying to make the environmentalists credibility look better by comparing it to anybody elses credibility doesn't change the fact that the credibility still is dismal.

The same applies to MAsher.


RE: I don't get it...
By TheGreek on 6/20/2007 1:41:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
we're a pretty jaded population because we have been lied to so many times.

You mean it's got nothing to do with politicans waiting for more well funded lobbyists to ring their doorbell?

You learn something new everyday.


RE: I don't get it...
By Hawkido on 6/21/2007 2:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be a Doofus,

Just listen for a sec, Please.

During the early 80's, when everyone was worried about the Impending Ice Age (Enviral Scare Tactics, seem familiar?), where were the Oil funded scientists proclaiming "Thank God for the Big Oil Companies!!! They will save us from this icy hell!" Oh, there weren't any... Hrmm. Actually i believe industrialization was the villian then as well. The cards have been dealt envirmentalists look to the left and then to the right. That's funny, enviromentalists doen't see the sucker.

Politicians are using "unsubstantiated science" (also know as a grade school guess) to sway the masses. To buy the votes with fear. To urge the gullible to give their cash to them so they "can do what's right for the envirment"

The best thing you can do for the envirment is make use of it. Starvation is not only natural, it is extremely common in the natural wild. Enviromentalists want us to go back to the "Natural Past" where plagues and diseases kill 25% of the population, starvation holds a 20% attrition on all life. Predators claim 40% of the remaining. All in all Each life form will live just long enough to give birth to enough offspring that after all the death the population will remain the same. Life spans will not be much over 25 or 30 years.

Sounds horrific to me. I think the enviromentalists watched dances with wolves too many times. That was fiction.

"We cannot sell the land, the land belongs to the Tribe."

BTW Tribe is another word for Corporation. Try this quote on for size:

"We cannot sell the land, the land belongs to the Corporation ."

Doesn't sound all leather-pants-cozy does it?


RE: I don't get it...
By Lightning III on 6/19/2007 1:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics

I guess this makes pork pie dung filled

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/


RE: I don't get it...
By porkpie on 6/19/2007 2:04:40 PM , Rating: 2
Not in any way, shape, or form. So, Exxon gave a few hundred grand to an advocacy group that believes that big givernment is a bad idea. Big deal. The group used the money to put out its newsletter and fund a few symposiums. You act like they were bribing politicians and paying scientists to falsify research.

Meanwhile in other news, environmental organizations, corporations which benefit from the global warming scares (ConAgra, anyone?) and even our own government continue to donate over ten thousands times as much each year to groups on the other side of the fence, and no one bats an eye.

I bet you don't see a problem with that either, do you?


RE: I don't get it...
By Lightning III on 6/19/2007 3:00:33 PM , Rating: 1
ARE YOU IN AUSTRALIA SOME WHERE

to say the US government is funding global warming advocacy groups is like saying monkey's are flying out my ass

its just not true

at least not with the current administration

the direct parallel is the big tobacco funded studies to say smoking doesn't cause cancer

a few hundred grand try millions to anyone who would support their position and to multiple groups not some guy in his basement with a mimeograph machine like you imply

when you Google conAgra all you get is their peanut butter recall

the word is funding groups not donating to if you fund it your paying for it

and how do you justify twisting limiting regulation for an industry to they are against big government

are you running things through a translation program or are you just using rose colored glasses

to support your position

no I do see a problem when any govt tries to spin science for their own ends

like the current administration has repeatedly attempted to do over and over again

the only time to my knowledge they have admitted they were wrong on anything at all is global warming

as far as i can tell

so the attack on logic shifts to is it man made or would it happen anyway

because the root is they want to maximize profits in the industrial sector and pollution controls hamper that

shrinking CEO bonuses something awful cutting into record profits

environmentalist's are the devil

lets demonize anyone who wants clean air & water and prefers green to concrete

as for living in cave or bombed back to the stone age give me a break that shit ain't gonna fly nor should you strain all three of those brain cells worrying about it

i lump them with the religious freaks who think steward of the earth mean use up as fast as physically possible after all the end of days is coming according to them and gods gonna want to know why we wasted his gift

but your definitely a kindred spirit of Mr Asher maybe you'll can hold hands and sing kumbayaa together


RE: I don't get it...
By porkpie on 6/19/2007 3:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
Google Archer Daniels Midland, and their funding of enviromentalists opposed to MTBE and for ethanol-based fuels. Sure enough, they got the ban they wanted...and their sales are soaring as a result.

In Exxon's case, you're still ignoring the point. What did this group do with the tiny grant they received? They used it to get information out. To spread the word. That's a right in our free society, and you should remember it. They didn't bribe anyone, they didn't stand in front of bulldozers, spike trees, mail death threats, or break in and trash an office, like so many environmental activists do. All they did is mail some newsletters, run a website, and invite some people to give speeches. Big whup. Why are you so scared of their point of view being heard?

You obviously have the attitude that anything a big company does is inherently evil, and must be instinctively blocked without thought. I won't change your attitude obviously, but you really should stop and take a break sometimes, and consider your own words. The corporation is an invention, and an extremely important one to modern society. Fact is, we could not function without them.

Try looking at any country that followed your point of view and banned evil corporations and took them over "for the good of the people". See what happened to their economy, their standard of living, and (eventually) their civil liberties. Its not a pretty picture.


RE: I don't get it...
By Lightning III on 6/19/2007 3:59:18 PM , Rating: 2
I hear you but were the pioneers here

there has to be balance something other than a corporate run state

they have proven time and time again profit is their god and they need a framework to work within to keep abuse down because nobody has deeper pockets than them and to much of the government is for sale in this country

the articles are 50/50 about MTBE wonderful in cars bad in the water table

and as for spiking trees and death threats please isolated case's

where is the bursting at the seems environmental prisoners

ooh they are reserved for the polluters aren't they

there 10 polluters for every activist in jail

you got your nuts too just like we do sanity is somewhere in the middle

the Archer Daniels corp is a good example it is the cornerstone of most green mutual funds


RE: I don't get it...
By Ringold on 6/18/2007 5:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've heard this argument allot and never seen any supporting data...


Easy to see when you've got the blinders on. Check the number of dollars poured in to climate science in, say, 1985 or even 1990, and compare that to the number today. Even in academics, money attracts researchers looking to make a living like moths to a flame just like government subsidies attract unprofitable businesses hoping to live off government cheese. The subsidies poured on "alternative energy" companies, additionally, have a HUGE, as in existential, stake in the success of global warming paranoia.

Speaking of companies, that's the other half the equation. Major utilities, major energy firms, and new startups around the world are making multi-billion dollar bets on energy scarcity combined with global warming paranoia and the likely CO2 caps or CO2 taxes that will go along with them. Whole sub-industries would crash and burn tomorrow if the worlds population began to seriously doubt a causal relationship between the activities of man and global climate change. These are companies like Evergreen Solar, Pacific Ethanol, and large divisions of BP and General Electric that stand to make billions in profit as CO2 restrictions go in to place, not to mention the likes of Shaw Group (nuclear power) or any of the smaller companies that provide parts or services to the bigger players.

In fact, one of the very few firms I can even think of that doesn't have a bet on the table that would profit from a gradually increasing level of global warming paranoia is Exxon Mobil, who sold off its solar panel business decades ago realizing it wasn't (at the time or now if not for subsidies) a profitable business.

Do you honestly think these billions of dollars don't influence where research money goes? There's just a lot more riding on the success of global warming than against it, simple as that. Not that a lot of people in business seem to believe in GW themselves but money is money and if they can make money off liberals they don't care in the least.


RE: I don't get it...
By BMFPitt on 6/19/2007 12:15:17 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The subsidies poured on "alternative energy" companies, additionally, have a HUGE, as in existential, stake in the success of global warming paranoia.
If global warming were thoroughly disproven tomorrow, I would still support technology that gets us off of oil to the extent possible. It's not getting any cheaper, and I'd love to be able to throw the House of Saud under the bus.


RE: I don't get it...
By Ringold on 6/19/2007 1:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely! No disagreement there. Energy security and global warming does go about it in two entirely different ways, however. One would have us drop as much fossil fuel usage as possible at the highest cost we can tolerate, the other would gladly ditch oil tomorrow -- for a mountain full of coal.

They can overlap, though; I'm glad some Dem's (Obama has backed off some) are warming to clean-coal tech.


RE: I don't get it...
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/19/2007 4:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
I had the opportunity about 3 months ago to get a few questions in to fellow Chicagoan Obama. I gave him a few questions regarding Kyoto, Zero-Emission Coal and Nuclear Power. He declined to comment on all of them. :(


RE: I don't get it...
By TomZ on 6/19/2007 6:18:30 PM , Rating: 2
A smart politician will commit to nothing, but ask you to support him anyway.

How could a Democratic presidential candidate not have any position on any of these topics?!? Unbelieveable.


RE: I don't get it...
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/20/2007 12:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure he has opinions on the topics -- I think he's just playing his cards close right now.


RE: I don't get it...
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 9:38:34 AM , Rating: 2
Well nobody wants to be burned as a witch.


RE: I don't get it...
By grenableu on 6/19/2007 11:19:02 AM , Rating: 2
You think the environmentalists just want us to "change our use of oil" a little bit? It goes way beyond that. Here's a news out just today. The Sierra Club is advocating "cohousing" to solve global warming. What is cohousing? It's a large apartment complex, where everyone shares a common kitchen and meals, shared laundry rooms and tvs, even shared childcare.

In other words, its a commune-- 2007 style.

http://senior-spectrum.com/news02_061907/


RE: I don't get it...
By Ringold on 6/19/2007 1:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like Soviet Russia and current-day China (for the city-dwelling underclass) to me.


RE: I don't get it...
By SeanMI on 6/18/2007 4:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
Woah woah woah...believe? BELIEVE? It doesn't matter what he believes. The ONLY thing that matters is the scientific evidence. I would expect any reasonable person to change their reports regarding what they "believe" when presented with new information (fact or otherwise). If he wasn't objective he would have maintained a constant "belief" regardless of the evidence presented.

Having said that, I personally don't think anyone can be completely objective. In the back of his mind I think he mostly has a problem with the alarmists who rant and rave we'll be dead in a decade. This has led to articles that primarly refute or otherwise diminish the overly apocalyptic nature of said alarmists attitudes.


RE: I don't get it...
Who Cares?
By Terberculosis on 6/18/2007 1:00:41 PM , Rating: 3
Ocean Temperatures were at least 12 degrees warmer in the early Miocene, less than 15 million years ago. We didn't have two permanent ice caps until about 5 million years ago, What does it matter? There are no negative effects from global warming. Why argue about it. If it is happening, it will be good for us, if it isn't then it isn't happening. Grow up and argue about something worthwhile, like the next season of American Idol.




RE: Who Cares?
By Ringold on 6/18/2007 1:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
There would be *some* downside to true global warming, clearly. But given the relatively small impact on global GDP growth that even the alarmist IPCC politicians kick out.. it's not exactly the end of the world. I'd wager nationalizing WalMart would in fact have a larger long-term negative impact on global GDP growth than would unrestrained global warming based on IPCC's figures, given all the estimated consumer price inflation WalMart has proven to of shaven off US CPI figures over the last decade.


RE: Who Cares?
By porkpie on 6/18/2007 1:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that warming means longer growing seasons, lower energy use from heating, less crop losses from cold snaps and freezes, and many other pluses. There's also the very real possibility that it means fewer storms and less violent weather. Global warming could actually wind up a plus to global GDP growth.


RE: Who Cares?
By TheGreek on 6/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Who Cares?
By TomZ on 6/20/2007 2:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well, considering what is being discussed is extrapolating a trend into the future and contemplating what could happen, what kind of scientific evidence would you expect?

I think what was stated is pretty logical. What part do you have a problem with exactly?


RE: Who Cares?
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 9:41:48 AM , Rating: 2
If an unscientific conclusion can't count on one side of the discussion it certainly can't count on the other side. You can't have 2 sets of rules and have a reasonable discussion.


RE: Who Cares?
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 2:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
With the GW debate, extrapolation is fine, once you are able to show some link between CO2 and global warming. Then based on that, you can rightfully extrapolate that higher CO2 may lead to more global warming. And the problem is that the basic relationship is not established based on scientific data.

Also, I think some basic things are being challenged, like warmer temperatures leading to a longer growing season. Not exactly controversial, is it? We have plenty of history to look back on to support this.


RE: Who Cares?
By Rovemelt on 6/18/2007 2:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
It matters because the rate of temperature change is fast enough that it will kill off a lot of species and habitat that humans depend on. If temperatures rise 12 degrees, the bulk of Greenland will be melted and southern Florida will be under water along with many other heavily populated areas around the planet. This would be devastating to the economy.

Heat deaths around the globe will rise (much like the recent european summer when thousands of elderly died due to heat exhaustion from a heat wave.) Although these predictions are prone to error, some show the central US falling to drought (there is drought out west right now, but it's not necessarily linked to global climate change).

Yes, millions of years ago the atmosphere was different. At one point, it had much, much higher CO2 levels. But the planet would also have been uninhabitable to humans.

Hey, the planet will still be here if we cook it and life will continue. However, it probably won't be a fun thing to live through.


RE: Who Cares?
By porkpie on 6/18/2007 2:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
> Heat deaths around the globe will rise...

Many more people die from cold and cold-related illnesses than from heat. And "global warming" means the coldest parts of the planets warm up the most-- the tropics are not warming at all. If global warming is happening, it means LESS deaths from temperature extremes. Not more.

> If temperatures rise 12 degrees.

The IPCC is predicting a 1 to 3 degree rise over the next 100 years.

> Greenland will be melted

Greenland is melting at 0.25% per century, the same rate its been doing for at least the past 300 years.

> At one point, it had much, much higher CO2 levels. But the planet would also have been uninhabitable to humans.

Are you joking with this? CO2 levels were once at 3000ppm (almost ten times the current level). But CO2 only becomes dangerous at above 300,000 ppm -- a HUNDRED times higher than that.


RE: Who Cares?
By Rovemelt on 6/18/2007 4:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
The IPCC is not the ultimate scientific consensus on global warming. You mention in another post that it's heavily manipulated by politicians. A 1 to 3 degree rise is the conservative scientific consensus, not what is likely to happen. It's going to be greater. I've read enough literature to see that a 1 to 3 degree rise is probably what we will get if we completely halt our CO2 emissions within the next 5 years. Not going to happen, especially if people like yourself stay sealed in a denial bubble.

Greenland:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0811-06.ht...

I know CO2 level wouldn't be directly killing people until the levels are much higher. That's not what i was writing about. I was writing about how CO2 levels change the climate, which directly affects humans, and in a negative way.

A rapid change in our climate would affect most of the species on the planet. Many THAT WE DEPEND UPON would die off as they are unable to adapt to relatively RAPID changes in temperatures. Corals die due to higher temperatures, trees become susceptible to invasive insects and diseases and die off, animals die off as habitat changes. The warmer temperatures not only bring heat death but diseases like malaria spread.


RE: Who Cares?
By porkpie on 6/18/2007 5:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
> The IPCC is not the ultimate scientific consensus on global warming

That doesn't stop CNN and the NY Times from pretending they are though. The point is that the IPCC report is very alarmist, so much so in fact that many scientists have refused to work with them.

> A 1 to 3 degree rise is the conservative scientific consensus, not what is likely to happen

Untrue again. The "conservative" scientists are the ones predicting that the current warming is temporary, and that in 100 years, we're as likely to be back cooling again.

> A rapid change in our climate would affect most of the species on the planet

There is zero evidence that this current climate change is worse than any of the hundreds of others in the earth's past. In each of them, some species died off...others flourished, and new species were created. Its a natural process. And one we're silly to think we should try to stop.


RE: Who Cares?
By Rovemelt on 6/18/2007 5:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
Here is a report and a link to the article suggesting the IPCC is way underestimating what is likely to happen:

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_chang...

At the bottom is the link to the actual publication from PNAS.

I know some scientists disagree. They are in the clear minority. I understand why someone would want to deny that something terrible is about to happen. It's human nature to deny reality when something catastrophic might happen.

There have been many other climate catastrophes in the world's past. They trigger mass extinction events. You're right in that new species would come about and life would probably go on. Understand, however, that while this change is happening humans would suffer along with all the other species as they die off. I just see it as kinda unnecessary and selfish (to future generations) to just continue with our 'business as usual' CO2 emissions when we can easily change our habits. We didn't produce nearly the same amount of CO2 per person 100 years ago. Life went on back then for our great-great-grandparents. It is selfish and lazy to not change the way we use energy!

Given the potential magnitude of environmental change, why are people willing to even take the risk of 'business as usual?' I don't understand why people are clinging onto that last 10%. I guess they are the same people left with junk bonds when they didn't want to believe the report that said their favorite company was about to go under.

We can't stop/control everything on the planet. Of course, a comet could hit the planet and make our climate crisis a non-issue. But it's not that difficult to make the changes to prevent global warming and all these negative things from happening. Estimates suggest a few percent of global GDP now (invested in new technology/power plants) can prevent the huge impact to human health and GDP that a worst-case global warming event would have.


RE: Who Cares?
By porkpie on 6/18/2007 5:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
> It's human nature to deny reality when something catastrophic might happen.

Its even more human nature to preach the sky is falling. For all of recorded history, people have been predicting apocalypses of one sort or another, apocalypses which never come to pass.

> At the bottom is the link to the actual publication from PNAS.

Lol, did you even read that link? It doesn't support at all what this environmental reporter put in the article. It deals with simple carbon accounting of emissions. It doesn't "prove" that global warming is getting worse at all, it just proves we're generating more CO2.

> It is selfish and lazy to not change the way we use energy!

And that is why so many people are pushing the global-warming agenda. Its a religion of self-denial. It doesn't even matter whether its true or not.


RE: Who Cares?
By Rovemelt on 6/18/2007 7:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
I know the PNAS article is only about CO2 emissions being higher than estimates. The IPCC report predictions are based on CO2 emissions being lower than they actually are. Which means the temperature jump will most likely be GREATER than the IPCC suggests. Not proof, but enough evidence to convince the majority of scientists on the planet.

quote:
Its even more human nature to preach the sky is falling. For all of recorded history, people have been predicting apocalypses of one sort or another, apocalypses which never come to pass.


I honestly don't think this is the end of human life on earth. It's the start of a struggle. We have the power to make a painful event in human history less painful. Or, we can stay in denial and make it very painful for ourselves and future generations.

What i don't understand is why some people are so resistant to change. We can even create job growth from investing in technology and methods that address global warming. Oil will not last forever anyway.


RE: Who Cares?
By TomZ on 6/18/2007 9:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What i don't understand is why some people are so resistant to change. We can even create job growth from investing in technology and methods that address global warming. Oil will not last forever anyway.

What I don't understand is why you would advocate change based on completely bogus assumptions like the cause of global warming being related to human-generated CO2. Based on your "theory," how do you explain the fact that CO2 rise lags temperature rise, and that instead temperature rise correlates well to solar activity? Are you going to tell us next that humans have caused increased solar activity?

Why should we change our economy and our way of life based on a pile of half-truths and lies? Why would we switch to less efficient energy production compared to the efficiency the market will find on its own? Why should we hinder the technological and social development of developing nations/continents in the name of "saving the planet"? Why should we deprive developing nations the "luxury" of a civilized life like those of us in the Americas, Europe, and parts of Aisa enjoy?

Change the subject if you like (your statement about oil reserves), but those of us thinking clearly about this topic are not going to follow you down those other paths. Bait-and-switch is a common tactic that we're accustomed to.

Really, what you want is to tell us how to live our lives, and to convince us that humans are bad and have spoiled the world. I don't buy it - it's all BS.


RE: Who Cares?
By Ringold on 6/18/2007 6:16:38 PM , Rating: 2
God knows where you get your numbers, but some of the worst case scenarios where we do absolutely nothing to stop the march of global warming as the IPCC sees it would mean a reduction of something like 14% of GDP by 2200, with a per-capita GDP at that time of around $85,000, compared to whatever it is now, $1500 or so. On the flip side, if we invested a bit along the way and slowed it down moderately, based on IPCC projections on the impact of GDP growth, we'd be around something like $90,000 per capita GDP globally.

Not that those GDP figures were actually in IPCC reports. The impacts to growth were and it took some American university economists to extrapolate those figures themselves based on the IPCC data. In other words the global warming cheerleaders data suggests it just plain wont matter much in the long run -- our great, great grandkids are all still going to be godawful wealthy in terms of standard of living as compared to us, just as we are compared to those in the Middle Ages. They just may have to do without Miami, I suppose, but... not a big loss, IMHO. And if they arent godawful rich, well then, blame the great communist uprising of 2153, or whatever, but it wont be global warming.


RE: Who Cares?
By InsaneGain on 6/18/2007 2:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
Then why is coral around the world bleaching and dieing off? The fact that earth was warmer in the past and life was flourishing leads me think that within reason, there is no such things as an ideal, pristine environment. Life simply adapts to whatever the current conditions are. During the adaptation period, life is stressed and population drops. I still think we are witnessing a man-made "anthropogenic" extinction event in the oceans but its more to do with irresponsible overfishing.


RE: Who Cares?
By porkpie on 6/18/2007 2:53:51 PM , Rating: 2
From the Australian Institute of Marine Science:

quote:
The first and second global GCRMN/Reef Check surveys showed that most of the world’s reef corals are in good to excellent condition.
It goes on to stress that the primary problems affecting those coral reefs which are threatened are due to factors like overfishing, sediment runoff, and coastal development.

http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/coral-bleach...


RE: Who Cares?
By Rovemelt on 6/18/2007 5:41:33 PM , Rating: 2
And that was data from 1998...since then:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN06...

and

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1117-corals.html

Yes, in just 10 years it's gotten significantly worse. You're linking old data.


RE: Who Cares?
By porkpie on 6/18/2007 5:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
I post a scientific article, you post a Reuters environmental report and another from an environmental news site. Oh well...I should expect nothing better.

Here's another scientific source. Let me quote:

quote:
In 1998, 16% of the world's coral reefs suffered severe bleaching from an unusually strong El Nino event...About 40% of the reefs affected by this bleaching event are already showing signs of recovery...

So only 16% suffered ill effects 10 years ago, and nearly half of those are already recovering...despite us continuing to drive SUVs since then.

Not quite the doom and gloom you claim, eh?

http://www.duke.edu/web/nicholas/bio217/jrc25/stat...


RE: Who Cares?
By Rovemelt on 6/18/2007 6:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
Hey thanks for the help! From the scientific source you provide:

quote:
Coral Reefs have already suffered greatly from human-induced impacts, including global climate change. The Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network produced a status report in 2004 that concluded that 20% of the world's reefs have already been effectively destroyed beyond recovery. Another 24% are at risk of imminent collapse (Wilkinson 2004).


and right where you clipped your quote:

quote:
However, if El Nino and bleaching events of this magnitude start to occur more frequently, as is expected to happen as part of global climate change, then these reefs will not be able to recover.


Doesn't sound so great to me and it's consistent with the links I provide.

The report you provide does not paint a pretty picture for the future health of coral reefs.

BTW, you did not link earlier to a primary scientific paper. Nor did I (with exception to the PNAS article in another post.) Most people don't have access to primary scientific articles (I do because of where I work), so they have to link summary articles.


RE: Who Cares?
By TomZ on 6/18/2007 7:38:26 PM , Rating: 3
In my mind, the great concern that the scientific community had in the 1970s concerning the predicted ice ago puts all this "global warming" BS into perspective.

Climate models are wrong more often than right.

Politicians and the news media have lots to gain financially by manufacturing a crisis, and so they amplify and distort the message.

Scientists earn their livings doing research that supports the "right" conclusions - the conclusions put forward by their sponsors.

Environmentalists realize that the threat of extreme impacts motivates the "mindless masses" to support their causes (and send in their donations).

Big businesses are smart enough to find ways to make big money whatever way the fads take them.

Ordinary people want to believe there is an insolvable emminent crisis of global proportions to avoid having to solve the real problems in the world and in their lives. Such is human nature.

The situation we see today has more to do with that than the average temperature seen on thermometers. It's best accept that our climate is always in a state of change and get used to that, and let this "global warming" thing blow over (just like the "ice age" did) and get on with our lives.


RE: Who Cares?
By porkpie on 6/18/2007 10:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
> Doesn't sound so great to me and it's consistent with the links I provide.

Err, no. You claimed the reefs were being "cooked". Right now. Already in terrible shape.

My source says only a few (16%) were in trouble, and almost half of those are now recovering. It goes on to postulate that, if global warming really does make El Nino events worse, that the reefs may THEN start suffering. But thats a prediction, and not a current state.

You don't seem to know the diffference between the two, though.


RE: Who Cares?
By Lightning III on 6/19/2007 8:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
check the El Nino data before you run off at the mouth


RE: Who Cares?
By TomZ on 6/19/2007 10:17:32 PM , Rating: 2
Please bring data or research to the discussion - instead of just simply insulting - it would be much more interesting.

You might also want to consider capitalization, punctuation, and complete coherent sentences. That adds to the discussion as well. :o)


The debate is over...
By Rovemelt on 6/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: The debate is over...
By porkpie on 6/18/2007 2:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
> it's turning out to be WORSE than we thought just 5 years ago.

Wrong. The 4th IPCC report scaled DOWN their estimate of maximum temperature increase and sea level rise from what it predicted in the third report.

> thousands of professional scientists have poured over this data.

Another misleading factoid. There aren't "thousands" of climatologists on the entire planet. Most of the scientists involved on the IPCC report were biologists or specialists in other fields, who addressed very small parts ( such as 'what would be the effects of a 2 degree rise on the bird population of Western Siberia'). Only a handful of scientists had ANY say in the final report, and even their conclusions were rewritten by politicians before being released.

>Did you know that most of the coral reefs around the planet are dead or dying?

Wrong again. There was a partial dieoff of several coral reefs in 1998, attributed to El Nino conditions. Most have recovered fully or partially since then.

Saying our coral reefs are being "cooked" is blithering nonsense.


RE: The debate is over...
By Rovemelt on 6/18/2007 4:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
Some coral reef health info:

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1117-corals.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN06...

Everything I've read suggests the health of our coral reefs are in serious decline and yes they are being cooked (reefs are very temperature sensitive).

I didn't question the fact that politicians are re-writing the UN climate reports. I agree that they scaled down the estimate. They did so because it's politically favorable for them to do so. The scientific consensus suggests the temperature change will be GREATER than what the last UN report suggests. The UN report has brought the issue to our attention, but it should not be taken as the ultimate report o climate change.


RE: The debate is over...
By Ringold on 6/18/2007 6:34:00 PM , Rating: 1
I don't care to wade in to the knee-deep BS already in the thread, but about coral reefs..

If they're already getting "cooked", I've got to raise the "WTF?" flag and question their very right to even exist due to natural selection. What would they do if, as so happens every million blue moons, a valcano starts pouring millions of tons of greenhouse gases in to the atmosphere and temperatures spiked? What if, similarly, a valcano went bust, and sent global temperatures crashing for decades or for centuries, along with the serious reduction in sunlight that reaches them? What if an underwater valcano exploded and raised the pH level? And even worse, what would happen if a whole tectonic plate really started moving and caused such events to become daily ones in geologic and evolutionary terms?

If the answer is that every time temperature swings coral reefs face extinction then I either have to question whether they're really that sensitive (if they are, how have they survived, or are they almost a brand new ecosystem?) or, if they are that sensitive, then quite honestly if we don't end up destroying them nature will itself.

That's got nothing to do with global warming, that's just the way nature's pendulum swings.


RE: The debate is over...
By Rovemelt on 6/18/2007 6:52:23 PM , Rating: 2
We can't control volcanoes or asteroids, we can control the bulk of our CO2 emissions. If one of the very unlikely events you mention happened, it could wipe out humanity. We can't control those unlikely events, but we can control our own behavior.

You're right...over millions of years coral reefs have come and gone as their environment changes--although I don't know when the last time in world history coral reefs suffered worldwide. However, life would be more difficult without them as they harbor so many different life forms and help protect our shores from storm surges, etc. They are part of the ecosystem that feeds the fish humans eat. They have real value.


RE: The debate is over...
By TomZ on 6/18/2007 7:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but we can control our own behavior

You can control your own behavior, and I can control mine. But this has no bearing on "global warming" since the earth is mostly warming on its own, with us perhaps helping a tiny bit. It is pure hubris to think that we can control the environment to the extent that you think we can. The fact of the matter is that the planet is going to sometimes heat up, sometimes cool, and there's nothing we can do to control it.


RE: The debate is over...
By eloquentloser on 6/19/2007 8:50:36 AM , Rating: 2
I am continually surprised, not by the credulity of people in general, but by the lack of discussion regarding the solutions to any alleged global warming.

Where is the evidence that ploughing under the concrete jungle and living in caves will buy us time or lives, let alone reverse the trend entirely? - not to mention that India and China seem unlikely to relinquish their newly minted economic credentials any time soon, as amenable to the gentle susurrations of GreenPeace as they may be.

They'll just build some levees and establish a moon colony.

Perhaps a unique response to the uniquely American desire to do something.

:)


RE: The debate is over...
By Terberculosis on 6/19/2007 4:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
Fish farms are a far more efficient means of growing the fish humans want to eat.

Global warming will equalize temperature gradients across the planet, making weather systems far less violent.

Water in more northern latitudes will warm to a point where it can easily support coral reefs so we will have to go to Greenland to snorkel rather than australia.

Looks like we dont really need to worry about the reefs after all.


RE: The debate is over...
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 9:49:00 AM , Rating: 2
Weren't man's predictions, and the reality that they didn't come true, the basis against man-made global warming? Now you use the same technique for your argument, and all of a sudden it's OK?

What's wrong with this picture?


RE: The debate is over...
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 2:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
The global warming trend is not really the subject of the debate - the link from human produced CO2 causing global warming is the problem.


RE: The debate is over...
By BMFPitt on 6/19/2007 12:17:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only a handful of scientists had ANY say in the final report, and even their conclusions were rewritten by politicians before being released.
And the politicians all edited it to downplay the effects. You should be ignoring that fact if you want your team to win.


RE: The debate is over...
By TomZ on 6/19/2007 12:23:26 AM , Rating: 2
That all depends on how far off the "facts" were in the first place.


RE: The debate is over...
By BMFPitt on 6/19/2007 7:12:12 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, obviously the scientists were way off base until the politicians came in and fixed it for them.

I'll listen to other credible scientists disagreeing with a group of scientists, not politicians changing a report to suit their needs.


RE: The debate is over...
By porkpie on 6/19/2007 10:32:44 AM , Rating: 2
The only scientists I've heard of who have spoken out on this accuse the political team of rewriting their conclusions to be more frightening, not less, and that the "summary for policymakers" (the only part of the report the media ever refeferences) isn't supported by the data.


RE: The debate is over...
By Lightning III on 6/19/2007 10:40:23 AM , Rating: 2
thats because your looking at the UN version and he's talking about current administration earlier approach to managing climate change


RE: The debate is over...
By TomZ on 6/19/2007 11:13:11 AM , Rating: 2
Kyoto and climate change is probably the only thing that the Bush Administration really got right. I could initially not really understand their stance on Kyoto, but now that I see the trainwreck that it is, it becomes pretty clear.


RE: The debate is over...
By Lightning III on 6/19/2007 12:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
look something that we agree on Kyoto is a blunt instrument that doesn't take into account the up and coming polluters (China & India)

what's good for the goose is good for the gander

hey they also gave us the new adjective rovian


RE: The debate is over...
By TomZ on 6/19/2007 1:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
Kyoto is not just blunt; it is stupid. It tries to manage CO2 emissions before any evidence of causality between CO2 to global temperature is proved. What kind of responsible policymaking is that?

In fact, more and more data that comes out seems to show that temperature rise leads CO2 rise, which doesn't exactly support causality in the way that so many people have asserted.


RE: The debate is over...
By Lightning III on 6/19/2007 8:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
hey didn't porka pie or masher say the exact oppisite earlier

that although co2 is still on the rise the warming trend is slowing

that's when I iterjected the Danish climatologist smog shield red herring how pollution is actually responsible for slow down

weren't you at the masherite meeting


RE: The debate is over...
By TomZ on 6/19/2007 10:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
Where do you see evidence of increased global air pollution, or studies showing causality to a "slow down" of warming temperatures?


RE: The debate is over...
By TheGreek on 6/21/2007 9:50:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where do you see evidence of increased global air pollution, or studies showing causality to a "slow down" of warming temperatures?

Can scientists even agree as to how long it would take for such a study?


Once again a misleading headline.
By OxBow on 6/18/2007 1:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
The question of whether our surface temperature reading system is suffering from poor administration doesn't lead to the jump that Global Warming isn't happening. While these readings do provide some of the data on climate change, they only contribute a very small piece to the enormous puzzle of Global Warming.

If you look at the data from only this system, you would not see a statiscally significant warming trend. In fact, if you mapped it out you would at best see a middling average. A thermometer in a box is going to be accurate at best to around 1 degree F. Given that each microenvironment these are sitting in will show at least a 2-3 degree variation for any given day from year to year, the standard deviation greatly exceeds the rate of temperature increase over the century the sample covers.

It's not a bad thing to record such information, but it's actual utility is more for economic and agricultural historians and actuaries than climatologists.

The evidence for Global Warming lies in that the hypothetical effects of the greenhouse effect are now observable. Warming seas, artic melting, etc. are the solid projections of what would happen, and these changes are visible and accelerating. More volatile localised measurements don't really come into the global equation.

I think that this system of collecting data should be improved. However, that is primarily because I am an agricultural historian and prefer that the data I use be more accurate. To claim that the measurements aren't as accurate as they should be and so global warming doesn't exist is pure, spurious spin.




By greenchasch on 6/18/2007 1:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Warming seas, artic melting, etc. are the solid projections of what would happen"
The Arctic has been melting and sea levels rising for at least the past 7,000 years. And the earth has been much warmer (and colder) in the past than now.

The argument for global warming is based heavily on the rate of warming. If temperature data is being corrupted urban sprawl, that removes one of the major arguments supporting it.


RE: Once again a misleading headline.
By masher2 (blog) on 6/18/2007 2:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
> "While these readings do provide some of the data on climate change, they only contribute a very small piece to the enormous puzzle of Global Warming..."

You have the science backwards on this. Anthropogenic global warming was a theory created to explain a fact-- that global mean temperatures were showing a slight rising trend. When it was discovered that CO2 levels were also rising and that past temperature spikes in the Earth's history seemed to occur about the same time, the theory was born. Observed Fact + Correlation + Causative Hypothesis (CO2 does absorb a middling amount of the infrared band) = Theory.

That was the state of the science through most of the 1990s. Today though, the warming trend doesn't seem to be correlating very well with continuing CO2 rises (the trend seems to be slowing, not accelerating as the theory would predict), the past temperature spikes actually seem to all have begun a few hundred years before CO2 began to rise (indicating that increased temperature may be contributing to the atmospheric changes, not vice versa). Furthermore, there now exist several alternatives to explain climate changes, such as Maunder-type solar cycles affecting cloud formation. Finally, though GCM computer simulations have become even more refined and accurate, they still continue to persistently diverge from the actual climate data, and they remain chronically unable to explain any of the past climactic change events.


RE: Once again a misleading headline.
By Lightning III on 6/18/2007 8:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
Bah
what about the theory that the reason the warming trend is slowing but the co2 is still rising is because of the growing amount of carbon and pollution being ejected into our atmosphere by coal fired power plants(one a week is coming online in China). Creating a smog sheild of sorts in the upper ozone.

To bad it's still killing air quality and creating acid Rain.

Oh well I guess the only way to do it will be Atomic Steam Plants to male clouds and keep us in the shade with water molcules binding with carbon to scrub the air and make it breathable

maybe its not the end of big engineering after all Mr Asher

or at least your romanticized version of it

like the uranium Mill run by the atomic energy commission in the 60's and 70's
wanna live there where they encouraged the local population to use ore tailings for fill dirt on their properties and for sand for their kids sand boxes where the cancer rate is 300% higher than in similar small towns

I bet they wish they had a billion dollar enviromental impact study ( sorry drifting off topic )

anyway if you don't work for oil too bad you realy remind me of the guy from the thank you for smoking movie.

maybe the coal lobby could use your connsiderable talents

go head use the ultimate Trump card Rush Limbaugh said it was a hoax and you know he never lies


RE: Once again a misleading headline.
By Ringold on 6/18/2007 10:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
First off, that was an awesome movie!

Second of all, I love how pollution first causes global warming but if the correlation starts to look weak and weakening then pollution is causing global cooling that'll soon turn right back to global warming if we aren't careful and cut emissions back to levels that really did cause global warming.

Third, which would be preferred? An almost unique in America story of a cancer problem out of an industry where we get fuel from our own ground and from our allies like Australia, or coal, where more people have probably died in the last couple years than in the entire history of nuclear energy?

Speaking of the coal lobby, the Democrats themselves seem to be new big supporters of coal, following the lead of Republicans in that regard (though they support it for different reasons -- one for energy security, the other because it can be made clean). Going to attack them too?


By BMFPitt on 6/19/2007 12:15:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Speaking of the coal lobby, the Democrats themselves seem to be new big supporters of coal, following the lead of Republicans in that regard (though they support it for different reasons -- one for energy security, the other because it can be made clean). Going to attack them too?
Why bother attacking the Democrats? Just give them a loaded gun and they'll shoot themselves in the foot.


RE: Once again a misleading headline.
By Lightning III on 6/19/2007 10:35:55 AM , Rating: 1
hey I'm not attacking anyone

how's my favorite economist today

no I thought I was giving Mr Asher something new to write about

a new development so to say the real reason climate models don't really work.

They are to complex with to many factors from undersea volcano's to that big honking hole in the ozone that occasionally swings itself over southern South America.

who knows how many factors would have to be fed in to a room full of Cray supercomputers to crate an accurate model.

and who can see into the future or when Krakatoa will blow its top and dim the sun and plunge the world into a 10 to 20 year drought and subsequent famine.

All I can say is look at the history of Mr Ashers post's he's the global warming is a myth poster boy(i guess poster boy can have a new meaning now days ).

and you as an economist should realize that the economic impact of being green as possible is not only minimum it often spawns other industries and jobs

unless your over invested in the oil industries don't worry I think it's still a safe bet although their greed and record profits going along with record subsides and tax breaks will cause a backlash soon enough.

and as for the sky is falling enviro scare tactic hey we learned from the best
(they will follow us home as if our soldier's dribbled bread crumbs out their asses or something)

or you better check the jump seat next to you on your C141 starlifter.

the reason is, in the development world we have to win every time

your side only has to win once and the aquifer,open space,species,preserve or some little bit of remaining paradise is gone its not going to spring back through the asphalt and bulldozers

I do think the community is starting to realize nothing is as green as Atomic energy

and the money spent to reduce greenhouse gases may be better spent on greener technologies first with a transition to period

I do believe the real best way lies in the middle somewhere but look at the history of his post's he damn sure ain't any where near fair and balanced.

nope I have to give him the It's a myth poster boy award

although nobody brings out the flamers like Mr Asher

I do believe he ranks number 1 on the blog side of this site

];P>

as far as I'm concerned the responsibility for poor data collecting is ultimately the responsibility of the current administration.

as for attacking any politicians bleh its overdone their all Whores for cash and support


RE: Once again a misleading headline.
By TomZ on 6/19/2007 11:07:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
and you as an economist should realize that the economic impact of being green as possible is not only minimum it often spawns other industries and jobs

Most of the time, the "green" movement creates economic inefficiency. For example, most of the recycling done in the US is economically inefficient, and so we pay higher taxes, fees, etc. for new jobs, infrastructure, and overhead to sort trash. True, this does create jobs, but they are stupid jobs because they shouldn't be necessary. It's kind of like paying somebody to dig a ditch and then paying him to fill it up again. Sure, that's a job, but what's the point.

Also, you write a lot vague criticism of Asher, but you don't challenge any of his posts directly. Where are the "myths" as you say? Please counter his assertions with facts of your own. That's an effective debate - just but calling someone a "myth poster boy award" just makes you look like an idiot.


RE: Once again a misleading headline.
By Lightning III on 6/19/2007 12:06:47 PM , Rating: 2
please

really the rohs requirement for the EU hurt the tech hardware industry so bad it could go under anytime now from getting the lead out huh

okay lets look

of 15 posts by Mr Asher 3 are not global warming or environmentalist bashing

if thats not a personal ax to grind what is

a propagandist is a propagandist

a person who only looks and post's conclusion's that support his preconceived point of view

is nothing but that

and I guess if it supports your point of view he's a genius

who's an idiot now

your example trash sorting

mine the rohs program

I don't believe in the so called carbon tax proposal's

I do believe in an impact tax though

if you were charged by weight for your garbage pick up even you would start to recycle

I guess they will have to privatize it like Texas did with chip(children's health care insurance program) to make it efficient

what a fiasco that was

alright pick one any one for a direct challenge

like you said what's the point the blind still can't see

and reality is somewhere in the middle


RE: Once again a misleading headline.
By porkpie on 6/19/2007 12:16:12 PM , Rating: 2
> if thats not a personal ax to grind what is

You're still trying to attack the bearer of the message, not the message itself.

CNN and other media groups have plenty of environmental reporters, who report 100% of their stories on a single topic. You don't seem to mind when they do it. Why, because those reporters agree with your point of view? Its even worse in their case, because a blog is allowed to contain an opinion. News stories are supposed to be neutral.


By Lightning III on 6/19/2007 1:08:33 PM , Rating: 2

Perhaps you are right about the opinion = Blog

but if thats

what it is

I blog that my opinion is that he is a big fat idiot

and it might be that as an environmentalist and a liberal that I perceive 13 of 15 blogs as personal attacks

he swings a pretty broad paint brush around using those terms

maybe he needs to have his own anti environment blog elsewhere I don't get the tech tie in at all

and as far as the message goes

NOAA is part of the government so the issue is did they cut funding when their conclusion's didn't match their political masters or not

the brass tacks is

it went from the hottest year on record to the second hottest on record did he mention the degree's of difference between the two no he did not only that nobody reported it or actually more likely page 5 vs the front page

well this is the Idol Generation what does it take to hold their attention for more than 5 minutes

i guess its alarmism

I'm sure Mr Asher moved with all the rest from it doesn't exist to okay it does but it's not man made

but then I maybe wrong ( although you will never hear him concede that )

he preaches absolute certainty from his pulpit


RE: Once again a misleading headline.
By TomZ on 6/19/2007 1:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
Please explain how RoHS has led to any greater economic efficiency...

I'm not saying that RoHS is good or bad - I own an electronics company so I'm pretty damn familiar with it - but I don't see how anyone could argue that RoHS has done anything positive economically except to create some short-term windfall profits for certain companies specializing in RoHS compliance. For almost everything else, it has just raised the overhead (cost) in producing electronics. RoHS is, in the short term, basically an environmental "tax" that has been added to all electronic products to cover the cost of the changeover.


RE: Once again a misleading headline.
By Ringold on 6/19/2007 1:44:42 PM , Rating: 2
I can't read his posts any more for I fear loosing my ability to construct full and complete sentences myself, but since you brought it up and he said economists should know something..

Almost all "green" policies are in fact trade offs; a loss of efficiency in return for some other social goal, like.. removing lead from electronic components, or something of that sort. The statement that jobs and industries are created is a correct one but those jobs and industries, like TomZ suggested, are the very physical manifestation of inefficiency; if not for the regulation that created them, they would instead be likely gainfully employed elsewhere at firms that could've much bettered afforded to advance their original core business or technology instead of siphoning time and valuable financial and intelelctual resources to whatever it is in question.

I wont say *all* policy invariably leads to long term loss of growth, some things are clearly good to keep an eye on (FDA, CDC, other agencies) but I feel safe in saying a lot of such policy does. A Pareto improvement isn't something anybody often expects to be the result of ANYTHING the government does.


By Ringold on 6/19/2007 1:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
Real fast case in point on efficiency:

The FairTax, the flat consumption tax + the prebate, would completely eliminate the income tax specialist.

People have asked the fair question of what would accountants think of this? Wouldn't it destroy their livelyhood?

Much to the surprise of some, professional accounting associations are in favor of the FairTax as they say they could be put to much better use as a group of professions doing other things (not an accountant so no idea what myself) rather than dealing with peoples, and corporations, tax returns.

Not to mention the billions of dollar spent every year on tax compliance, plus the economic value of all the man hours dedicated to it.. Saying environmental policies create jobs is therefore not much different than saying our monstrosity of a tax code creates jobs and pointing at the IRS as evidence.


By Lightning III on 6/19/2007 3:42:20 PM , Rating: 2

Hey I started using firefox for the spelling issue per your suggestion

and now you want punctuation too

but then I won't be king of the run on sentence anymore

alright dammit I moving Vance Mcdonald over you as my favorite economist

talk about frothing at the mouth

ooh you left off weaning us off foreign oil

i cry bull crap on almost all green policies

the real aim of green is to reuduce or reuse waste products

how is that less efficient when it comes to non renewable resources

we do such a poor job of it some day in the future we will be mining our own landfills for resources

your right converting to green is inefficient start with the mindset from the ground up and the inefficiency is greatly reduced


RE: Once again a misleading headline.
By TheGreek on 6/20/2007 2:24:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Almost all "green" policies are in fact trade offs; a loss of efficiency in return for some other social goal, like.. removing lead from electronic components, or something of that sort

Car manufacturers obtain lower emissions through more complete combustion, which results in more power and/or mileage.

You call it a tradeoff because you choose to ignore cleanup costs, and that's if cleanup is even possible. That's just so scientific.


RE: Once again a misleading headline.
By TomZ on 6/20/2007 2:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Car manufacturers obtain lower emissions through more complete combustion, which results in more power and/or mileage.

That's an oversimplification. Actually, running at stoich is only one part of the stategy and has been done for many years, but it only goes so far in reducing emissions. The rest has to be done with rare element catalysts, which is a tradeoff again because of the environmental impact of mining, manufacturing, and disposing, plus extra cost and extra weight added to the vehicle (which again reduces efficiency).

You say there's no tradeoff because you only look at part of the problem/solution.


RE: Once again a misleading headline.
By Lightning III on 6/19/2007 3:26:01 PM , Rating: 2

no I'm saying getting the lead out has not driven any nvidia or ati board partners out of business keeping lead out of our landfills here and in europe also keeps it out of the water table

If you need a historical reference the Minoan civilization disappeared because of lead poisoning it was their utensils

well the rohs video cards cost the same as the ones with out the rohs emblem on them so were is the greater economic efficency in polluting our water table when they eventually end up in our landfills


By porkpie on 6/19/2007 3:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
> getting the lead out has not driven any nvidia or ati board partners out of business

No, but its caused higher costs to the buying public and resulted in many hundreds of thousands of electronic items to prematurely fail from bad solder joints, items which then wound up in landfills and have to be replaced, resulting in more costs and and more wasted resources and energy.

As for 'keeping lead out of our water', where do you think we get lead from anyway? From rocks in the ground...the same ground that water flows naturally through.

The issue is the concentration. The amount of lead from electronics in a landfill is tiny. The amount that would leech into water is far smaller still. You get a thousand times as much from natural sources.

Obviously making cooking pans out of solid lead is a bad idea, but the lead in electronics ban is just plain silliness.


An interesting little read
By BPB on 6/18/2007 2:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
When Greenland was "Green"

Or Eric the Red v. Nancy the Green, as one reader put it.

It is too bad that Nancy Pelosi did not travel out to Greenland with Eric the Red in 983-986, when the climate was much warmer and Greenland was so named because of its lush meadows and fertile fields — before a new ice age began that over centuries made it seem more like Whiteland. Too bad Pelosi didn't see climate change THEN. People then were glad to see the last days of Global Warming, and dreaded the winters and white-outs to come The Apocalypse Then was the Coming Ice Age.

Look it up in an encyclopedia. Here is what Laura Niver at the American Enterprise Institute found:

"How did a glacier-covered island get the name Greenland? In Norse legends written in the 12th century and later, it is told that Eric the Red explored the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland in a.d. 983-986 and gave the country its name because people would be more likely to go there if it had an attractive name. Greenland was warmer in the tenth century than it is now. There were many islands teeming with birds off its western coast; the sea was excellent for fishing; and the coast of Greenland itself had many fjords where anchorage was good. At the head of the fjords there were enormous meadows full of grass, willows, junipers, birch, and wild berries. Thus Greenland actually deserved its name. Another attraction of Greenland was that Iceland and northwestern Europe, including England, had a grievous year of famine in 976, and people were hungry for food as well as land."




RE: An interesting little read
By Lightning III on 6/18/2007 8:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
Really

Isn't taught in schools that greenland was the marketing name to get settlers to emigrate from sweden and norway.

where's the scientific data that it was really green

you know love canal sounds like romantic place to live

how else would you get poeple to live ontop of a toxic dump


RE: An interesting little read
By BPB on 6/18/2007 10:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
From Britannica Concise Encyclopedia information about Greenland
quote:
Greenlandic Green·land'ic (-lan'dik) adj.

WORD HISTORY How did a glacier-covered island get the name Greenland? In Norse legends written in the 12th century and later, it is told that Eric the Red explored the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland in A.D. 983-986 and gave the country its name because people would be more likely to go there if it had an attractive name. Greenland was warmer in the tenth century than it is now. There were many islands teeming with birds off its western coast; the sea was excellent for fishing; and the coast of Greenland itself had many fjords where anchorage was good. At the head of the fjords there were enormous meadows full of grass, willows, junipers, birch, and wild berries. Thus Greenland actually deserved its name. Another attraction of Greenland was that Iceland and northwestern Europe, including England, had a grievous year of famine in 976, and people were hungry for food as well as land.


I think we can agree this is not some far right website from which I got this.


RE: An interesting little read
By Builder on 6/18/2007 11:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really

Isn't taught in schools that greenland was the marketing name to get settlers to emigrate from sweden and norway.

where's the scientific data that it was really green

you know love canal sounds like romantic place to live

how else would you get poeple to live ontop of a toxic dump
Can't he easily say the same? Where's your scientific data? The legend about Eric the Red didn't appear until the 12th century. But, Mr. Red founded Greenland in the 10th century. That's 200 or more years for the legend to start and grow. And from what? Were the folks back then carrying around Intel Core 2 Duo based notebooks to keep track of everything? Show us your hard evidience that this legend is more than a myth.

I googled all this and found no more evidence for the Eric the Red story than this. There's nothing between the 10th and 12th centuries to prove it. Believe it or not, legends do sometimes take on the smell of truth, even when they are not. I recently saw an amazing BBC documentary called The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition. Turns out historians now say it's largely a myth created by anti-Catholic protestants. To be sure there was a Spanish Inquisition, but it was not at all what Americans believe it to have been. Yet tell that to the average American and they'll tell you you're nuts. Still, there it is, in a BBC documentary of all places. The Spanish Inquisition started hundreds of years after Mr. Red founded Greenland. So if that myth could take hold, why not a myth about Greenland's name?


RE: An interesting little read
By porkpie on 6/18/2007 11:30:20 PM , Rating: 2
The Medieval Climate Optimum is a well-established scientific fact. There is FAR more to support it than the legend of Eric the Red.

Google it for a few thousand references. The planet was warmer then than it is now.


RE: An interesting little read
By Lightning III on 6/19/2007 8:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Medieval Climate Optimum


are we talking KRAKATOA again

they have done the tree ring research there was a diming of the sun and an serious climate changes going on

it might be why they called it the dark ages

they say it might be what wiped out the mayan's as well


RE: An interesting little read
By TomZ on 6/19/2007 10:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
are we talking KRAKATOA again

No, the two are separate things. The Medieval Warm Period was from about the tenth century to the fourteenth century. The documented climate changes due to Krakatoa were in the 1880s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa

For someone who so agressively posts here on this subject, you really should spend at least a couple of minutes researching before you post.


I don't get it
By ua300 on 6/18/2007 7:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
RE: I don't get it
By ua300 on 6/18/2007 8:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
http://nw0.info/?p=Documentaries/The%20Great%20Glo...

The video is pretty interesting. You need to right click and "save target as" to download. It is a very fast server. I downloaded the 950mb in 45 min at around 350kb/sec.


RE: I don't get it
By Ringold on 6/18/2007 10:58:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's gettin' pounded now! 70kb/s. I wasn't going to DL it, but it's a much higher quality copy than the one I already had.. It was a good watch.


Does it matter?
By Spivonious on 6/19/2007 1:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think humans are contributing much to global warming, but if fear of this gets people to be more energy-efficient and investigate alternatives to oil, then it's all for the better.




RE: Does it matter?
By TomZ on 6/19/2007 1:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
So you're okay with spooking people into action with global warming FUD in order to motivate them to cut oil consumption? I see that as a bait-and-switch game of deception - the typical MO of many environmental types (not saying you personally!).

If we want to reduce oil consumption for other reasons, e.g., increasing our energy security, I'm all for that. But we have to be open and honest about the real reasons and not pile onto the global warming debate, especially since there is a good chance it turns out to be "the boy who cried wolf" again, as in the past with the ice age that was predicted in the 1970s.

In the end, the market should be left to sort out the energy situation. If the price of imported energy goes too high or fluctates too much for people, then it will create higher demand for cheaper, more stable domestic energy sources. Problem solves itself.


RE: Does it matter?
By Spivonious on 6/19/2007 1:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
If bait-and-switch didn't work, there wouldn't be a name for it ;)

I don't associate myself with the environmentalist crowd, but I'm a firm believer in thinking globally and acting locally. I recycle what I can, turn out the lights in the rooms I'm not in, etc. All I'm saying is that if someone is convinced that driving their SUV is directly "killing" the planet, and then decides to ride their bicycle instead it's win for everyone.


Doesn't matter either way!
By AlmostExAMD on 6/19/2007 5:22:03 AM , Rating: 2
Wether global warming is real or not, Just be prepared to go fight wars over clean drinking water in the future rather than oil!

My own belief on the global warming subject is this, Even if it is a natural process it is far better to clean up our impact that we have on the environment, Rather than sit back and do nothing, Cause in the end it's the next generation(your kids) that will suffer from some sort of health problem from air pollution.




RE: Doesn't matter either way!
By Ringold on 6/19/2007 1:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wether global warming is real or not, Just be prepared to go fight wars over clean drinking water in the future rather than oil!


I'll be much better able to afford it after an initial position in PHO, now replaced by CGW. :D

I'll add stocks later once I find some good ones.. but for now.. Bring on the water shortages!

And the nuclear power plants that can desilante water, too (SGR ftw).


RE: Doesn't matter either way!
By TheGreek on 6/20/2007 1:45:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'll add stocks later once I find some good ones.. but for now.. Bring on the water shortages!

Guess I'm nominating the carpetbagger for humanitarian of the year.


Experts
By General Disturbance on 6/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Experts
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 3:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
CO2 is not pollution, any more than H2O or O2 is.

If the ocean level is going to increase by 1" and put Florida underwater as you suggest, it is going to happen irrespective of human activities.

What we can control, however, is our decisions to adapt to an environment that is continually changing. This has been proved over thousands of years of human history.

You can call those who disagree with you "morons" if you want, but it doesn't add any credibility to your views.


RE: Experts
By General Disturbance on 6/21/2007 4:58:24 PM , Rating: 1
what wonderful examples of expert reasoning.


RE: Experts
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 5:49:43 PM , Rating: 1
How would you say it compares to

Does it make sense to try and shit less, if we have to shit? Is it better to have less offensive shit odor, or more offensive shit odor?

???

LOL


RE: Experts
By General Disturbance on 6/21/2007 11:22:57 PM , Rating: 1
exactly LOL! haha! rofl!

bang

LOL


The Prime Example?
By Athlex on 6/20/2007 4:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
For what it's worth, Orland's temperature station is probably not a very representative spot to use. In addition ot orchards and field/vine crops, the Sacramento Valley (aka California's rice bowl) is loaded with heavily irrigated rice paddies, which may be artificially reducing the temperatures recorded there. There's also less development in that part of CA compared to other parts of the state, like Marysville. (I used to live nearby)

A UCM study (http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/... also suggests that irrigation in the Central Valley may be helping maintain temps and that loss of farmland and agriculture are causing temperatures to rise.

Another 2¢...




RE: The Prime Example?
By Athlex on 6/20/2007 4:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
edit: URL got messed up with trailing ")"
http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/...


By robywire on 6/18/2007 2:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
The article highlights how "man made" global warming really is. It points out that the phenomenon of "man made global warming" is actually "man made" itself. There may be sufficient evidence to say that global warming is taking place, but the bit about it being made made is "man made". Error upon error upon assumption upon fantastic models of future weather that can't predict tomorrows weather, and we have "man made" global warming.




I can fix all of this right now
By arazok on 6/18/2007 6:03:16 PM , Rating: 2
I just read "The Secret", and I think I have this problem licked....if you all follow my lead we can shut down this debate right now.

I'm picturing myself solving global warming. I'm thinking of myself hugging a tree....




By MadDogMorgan on 6/19/2007 5:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
Recommended: http://www.dailytech.com/Global+Warming+on+Mars++a...

For an interesting read on the subject, check out Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" novel. Not a great story, as stories go, but is filled with actual references to data and mis-used data. To my surprise, it turns out that Michael Crichton is highly educated and a logical thinker. I had assumed he was just another hollywood movie producer and a book writer. Check out the short BIO you will find on Amazon when you look up State of Fear. He's an amazing guy. Also, there are plenty of interesting scientific references in the Bibliography of the book.




Best dilbert ever
By barclay on 6/19/2007 10:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki