During an interview on CNN’s “No Bias, No Bull” program on Tuesday, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman expressed his confidence in President-Elect Obama’s “vision” for environmental policy and urged that the future executive be given “means...that are as radical as its ends” to carry out this policy: “...[I]t’s great to say we’re going to have green jobs and green homes and green-collared jobs to re-insulate people’s homes, install solar panels. Those jobs won’t get taken up unless you change building codes around the country. So...I think, the challenge for President-elect Obama will be to have the standards, regulations, the means that are as radical as its ends so we can really achieve those ends.”
Host Campbell Brown devoted two segments to her interview of Friedman. During the second segment, Brown brought up “Obama’s attempt to take on the enormous environmental challenges facing the country and the world.” She first asked the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist if the president-elect’s plan for creating green jobs was “visionary” enough and if he has “the leadership ability to get this done.”
Friedman began his answer by gushing over Obama and then continued by giving his “radical” proposal:
BROWN: You know, our president-elect, Obama, has proposed what amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars of spending on public works to create new jobs, and some of them [are] green jobs, exactly what your new book says America needs. This is part of what he and Al Gore discussed just today. Do you think, what we know of his plan -- do you think it’s visionary enough? Do you think he’s got the leadership ability to get this done?
FRIEDMAN: I do. I think he definitely has the vision. I’ve been really impressed with what he’s been laying out. I’m totally in sync with all those ideas. I think the real challenge for him at this time is to have means, okay, that are as radical as its ends. That is, you know, it’s great to say we’re going to have green jobs and green homes and green-collared jobs to re-insulate people’s homes, install solar panels. Those jobs won’t get taken up unless you change building codes around the country. Let’s say to home builders, you want to build this home, it’s got to be at these higher efficiency standards. Those technologies won’t be taken up. So, Campbell, I think, the challenge for President-elect Obama will be to have the standards, regulations, the means that are as radical as its ends so we can really achieve those ends.
Brown then followed-up by asking what would “convince people that will cut through this impasse we’ve had on this issue [the environment] for so long.” Friedman replied by emphasizing that “the next great global industry is going to be energy technology -- clean power, clean water, clean energy. It simply has to be -- otherwise, we’re not going to survive as a planet. I know that for sure, Campbell.” After expressing his hope that the leader of this “next great global industry” would be U.S., he repeated his earlier point, that Obama will “ have to pull the country and Congress along to give him all the enabling taxes, standards, and regulations to bring that about.”
Earlier, during the first segment of the interview, Friedman repeated his longstanding call for higher gasoline taxes:
BROWN: You know, high gas prices killing people over the summer, but now oil is back below $45 a barrel, gas prices the lowest they have been since 2004, and this goes, I think, certainly in conjunction with what you’re talking about. You think that that’s actually bad news, that what everybody, not just the car companies, what we all need is a bit of a motivator, and it would actually be good for us if the prices were a lot higher right now.
FRIEDMAN: Well, and why do European countries have, you know, cars with better average mileage -- smaller cars? Because they have had very high gasoline taxes. So, they innovated around that. Detroit, all these years, you know, fought higher gas prices, created a universe where they could only make money-selling SUVs. And now, you know, when the price went up, they weren’t prepared, basically, with the cars people want. Now, the price will go down -- they will sit back and say, you know, we can relax now, and continue to make, you know, bigger cars, and
you surely know in a world that is ‘hot, flat, and crowded’ -- basically, more and more demand for oil -- in time, that price is going to go back up. They’ll be in the same place. So, what is the point? The point is, unless we have a gasoline tax that brings gasoline, on average, to around $4 a gallon -- that’s when we saw real change of behavior -- you're not going to get a change of behavior.BROWN: But would you say, even at this moment, when people are hurting as badly as they are, that this is the moment that Obama, once he takes office, should increase taxes on oil and gas?
FRIEDMAN: Well, what I’m saying is this -- yes, you should increase the gasoline tax, but it should be revenue-neutral. It should be combined with a reduction equal in payroll taxes, so that the total hurt to people is zero. But you are encouraging companies to hire workers and to people to work by lowering payroll taxes and you are discouraging them to buy gas-guzzling vehicles by raising gasoline taxes. There’s lots of ways to do this.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Comments Policy
News is what CNN says it is
December 10, 2008 - 16:31 ET by Rihar"CNN’s “No Bias, No Bull” "
I haven't heard of a less aptly named title of a show since "Naked Lunch".
When a liberal speaks, the truth is busy elsewhere.
Charlatans Selling Hysteria to Neurotics
December 10, 2008 - 16:51 ET by allanfI nominate Tom Friedman (on the 75th anniversary of the end of Prohibition) to an honrary membership in the Womens Christian Temperance Union.
Warming scam
December 10, 2008 - 17:04 ET by political mavenhttp://epw.senate.go...
Anti-scientific Propagandists on the Morano blog
December 10, 2008 - 23:02 ET by Giles WinterbourneMight want to check the C.V.'s of the often mis-quoted proferred sources.
See Also: http://www.thisisrea...
"The Reality Coalition is a
December 10, 2008 - 23:21 ET by RESTLESS 1"The Reality Coalition is a project of the Alliance for Climate Protection, Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the League of Conservation Voters,
and tells the truth about coal today — it isn't clean. We are
challenging the coal industry to come clean — in its advertising and in
its operations. You can learn more about the reality of "clean" coal here or take action and help stop misleading coal campaigns."
Yup. Know agenda with that link giles. </sarc>
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Huh, maybe 'no agenda'?
December 11, 2008 - 00:58 ET by Giles WinterbourneMore the polar opposite to Morano's agenda......Focusing on what is right for America, its people, the world's environment, health, economy......
Note also, cited data from published resources, citing actual research. http://action.thisis...
"Coal. While you might have heard the phrase 'clean coal' during the
presidential campaign, it's actually an oxymoron. Wishful thinking.
Coal does not burn cleanly and it's hugely expensive to make it burn
that way."
http://solveclimate....
"Even if you’ve followed the ballooning costs of the clean coal project
FutureGen over the past few years, the news out this week that the Bush
Administration has basically cut its support for the project is still a
shocker. The DOE issued a press release saying the project had been “restructured” but the Wall Street Journal gives it the space it deserves, calling it “a major policy reversal,” that could “kill the project by shifting most of the cost to an industry consortium.”"
http://earth2tech.co...
"Clean-burning coal. The phrase quickened pulses in coal
country when President Bush uttered it during his fall campaign, and it's
getting renewed attention now in his energy plan.
But for all the talk, clean-burning coal will likely remain an oxymoron for
years to come. The utility industry, which uses coal to generate 52% of its
electricity, faces formidable political, economic and technological obstacles to
getting "clean."" http://www.mindfully...
http://bravenewfilms...
"So far, there are no power plants in
existence that sequester the CO2. It would be an expensive process and
the costs would have to be passed on to the customers, mostly utility
rate payers. The Federal Government had a project called FutureGen
run out of the Dept of Energy. Federal funding of that project was
killed because it was costing too much money (needed for the Bush Wars)."
http://cagreening.bl...
"Focusing on what is right
December 11, 2008 - 01:22 ET by NL207"Focusing on what is right for America, its people, the world's environment, health, economy"
Who the hell are you to make such determinations? We have seen others in history with notions like the above about their country. They had names like Napoleon, Caesar, Alexander, Lenin, Stalin, Temujin and Attila. What did any of them bring but tyranny?
Ah, Godwin's Law
December 11, 2008 - 01:34 ET by Giles WinterbourneAnd
Washington, Publius, Henry, Madison, Adams, Lincoln, FDR........
FDR was a disaster and caused the great depression
December 11, 2008 - 03:07 ET by PopularTechFDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate (UCLA)
How FDR Made the Depression Worse (Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
The Mythology of Roosevelt and the New Deal (Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
How FDR's New Deal Harmed Millions of Poor People (Jim Powell, Historian)
Should We Try Another New Deal? (Jim Powell, Historian)
Tough Questions for Defenders of the New Deal (Jim Powell, Historian)
Why Did FDR's New Deal Harm Blacks? (Jim Powell, Historian)
The New Deal Debunked (Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
The New Deal Debunked (again) (Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
Three Myths of the Great Depression (Burton W. Folsom, Ph.D. Professor of History)
The Truth about FDR (Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Ph.D. History)
Books:
FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Jim Powell, 2003)
New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America (Burton W. Folsom, 2008)
Salvos Against the New Deal (Garet Garrett, 2002)
The Roosevelt Myth (John T. Flynn, 2007)
Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939 (Wolfgang Schivelbusch, 2006)
Papers:
How FDR Prolonged the Great Depression (PDF) (Jim Powell, Historian)
The Government and the Great Depression (PDF) (Chris Edwards, M.A. Economics)
Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumed after the War (PDF) (Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
good ol' Mises
December 11, 2008 - 09:06 ET by Giles WinterbourneForgot to dispute Washington, Madison, et al. ...
Interesting, yet another conservative meme being parroted....
And the same level of 'quality research' that passes for inactivist thought in the actual topic at hand........
Giles is confused, Conservative? Not - try Libertarian and UCLA
December 11, 2008 - 09:57 ET by PopularTechAll the sources are Libertarian. Mises? You forgot the Cato Institute, The Independent Institute, The Foundation for Economic Education and UCLA.
Unlike you they have real Ph.D's in Economics and History.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
That would be OR
December 12, 2008 - 03:49 ET by Giles Winterbourne... real Ph.D's in Economics OR History. There, Fixed it for you.
And even that is inaccurate. 'They' implies all. Of the ones I checked, most showed NO advanced degrees.
Like we've said, 'quality of research' , 'quality of resources'... You're known by the company you keep.
And, 'there you go again' with the WAGs.
Giles still cannot read
December 12, 2008 - 14:11 ET by PopularTechRobert Higgs, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Ph.D. Professor of Economics
Burton W. Folsom, Ph.D. Professor of History
Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Ph.D. History
But what else is new.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
And of the rest?
December 13, 2008 - 00:04 ET by Giles WinterbourneWhich ones have C.V.s, mention of any degree. Or degrees?
And have you actually read the critiques of your esteemed writers?
Sorta like that problem with using weather for climate, local for global, cherry-picking starting or ending dates, vague use of terms, ignoring datasets that don't support assertions, quoting knowingly mistaken data...
For a single example, visit your local library for "Three-and-a-Half Million U.S. Employees Have Been Mislaid: Or, an Explanation of Unemployment, 1934-1941” Darby - Journal of Political Economy 1976
Really, try reading the resources sometime; not just copying tropes that fit your world view.
Giles are you intentionally dishonest? Or just a Socialist?
December 13, 2008 - 10:32 ET by PopularTechAre you serious Giles? Are you intentionally being intellectually dishonest? The most prominent ones I listed, the rest have degrees in History or Economics. Here is another:
Burton W. Folsom, Ph.D. Professor of History
Yes Giles I spend all my time reading rants about what I already read.
Giles you are economically clueless, counting make-work government relief jobs as reduced unemployment could only come from a socialist.
Please spare me that you have read that paper you just googled that BTW. LMAO!
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Repeat --
December 13, 2008 - 12:22 ET by Giles WinterbourneAnd where are the C.V.s of the other 5?
Your statement was they all had Ph.D.s in Econ and History.
Try researching sometime, pretty easy to grasp the fundamentals. Usually starts around third grade. One problem with real researching though; you need to read the stuff on all sides of the issue, not just the stuff pointed out to you by others of the same POV. So, yes - easy enough to go visit a uni library.
And I see you're back to the toss insults rather than respond. Good technique, well used by your clique.
Giles continues to lie
December 13, 2008 - 18:10 ET by PopularTechGiles, I never said they all have Ph.Ds. but feel free to ignore those that do.
Reading misinformation does not make you more informed, it makes you misinformed. I've read the mainstrean economically illiterate position which is not supported by the facts.
Giles if you knew how to research you wouldn't still be arguing. All the information is there now go learn how to read and read it.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Quoting your earlier post
December 13, 2008 - 22:55 ET by Giles Winterbourne"Unlike you they have real Ph.D's in Economics and History."
That is doesn't fit your world view, does not make information 'misinformation'.
God, next you're going to be claiming you can spell better, write more coherently, have published more widely....
So, again (and especially since you're now claiming to have better research skills), where are the C.V.s of those other five?
Even when you quote you fail Giles
December 14, 2008 - 08:48 ET by PopularTechNotice I do not include the word ALL. But your failure at reading comprehension does not surprise me.
No such thing as my world view Giles, economics only works one way.
Go look up their CVs if you are so interested Giles, I am not here to do the work for you. None of which changes the ones that I listed that have real Ph.Ds and are professors in economics and history. You have nothing as usual Giles, just a life of misinformation and ignorance.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
don't get pissy
December 17, 2008 - 00:02 ET by Giles Winterbourneas a reaction to your own poor writing.
'...they have real Ph.D's in Economics and History." 9:57
'They' refers to your list of resources. If you didn't mean all of them, then 'some' would need to be in the sentence.
Since you didn't put it in, and can't provide proof of degrees, then you are misstating their level of expertise and lying about your resources.
And you want us to trust your research?
Really?
Better not to assume
December 17, 2008 - 23:19 ET by PopularTechYou have no idea who therefore you should not assume and instead deduct from what was written - the ones with PhDs were clear.
I clearly provided their degrees where applicable - all of their information regarding this is available online, go look it up.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Your social science is as
December 12, 2008 - 01:42 ET by NL207Your social science is as flawed as your climate science.
Not Godwin's Law. Look again carefully. The requisite reference is missing, but you are too superficial to notice.
Henry... I assume you mean Patrick Henry. I am sure he would be most enthused over your plans to regulate all fossil fuel consumptoin on this planet in the name of the greater good as defined by yourself and some collection of left wing hacks passing themselves off as scientists, were he living today. This is the man who said, "Give me Liberty or give me death!" I guess liberty doers not need to extend to driving the automobile of one's own choice. Henry also said, "“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests" Regulation of carbon is domination of life.
Madison once said, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny" I am certain he would approve of bureaucrats regulating all energy production in the world.
Henry and Madison would reject your position. I will posit that I can show all your other references excepting FDR would be predisposed to condemn the left's plan to regulate carbon as well on the grounds that it is oppressive and tyrannical..
Since Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
December 11, 2008 - 03:05 ET by PopularTechThis is not a problem. Now only insane eco-nazis would want to destroy 52% of the U.S. electrical generation capacity that is both cost effective and reliable.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
None of that proves anything
December 11, 2008 - 12:50 ET by RESTLESS 1Other than agenda. Where I live, there are two coal plants in operation, one with 1/4 mile of where I grew up. It always seemed pretty clean to me. No health problems. I never had to clean soot from the driveway, windows, car, etc...
"Over the next few years CPS will spend more than $200 million on environmental controls for the facility and another $400 million to upgrade emissions controls on its other coal-fired power plants. The Spruce 2 environmental controls include a wet gas desulfurization scrubber, selective catalytic reduction unit, and a fabric filter baghouse.
The last hurdle to build the plant was overcome when the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality approved the plant’s permit in 2006. Environmental groups fighting the plant dropped their opposition after CPS agreed to step up its conservation and renewable energy goals. CPS Energy has agreed to raise its target for energy efficiency and conservation to 771 MW by 2020 and for renewable energy capacity to equal 20% of peak demand, also by 2020."
Whether coal is the cleanest burning fuel or not is irrelevant. CO2 is NOT a pollutant, nor is it a major driver, (or minor one from what I can tell) of climate change. Even if it was, mans contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere are about .03% of all emissions. If every animal on earth died off tomorrow, the global temperature would not be affected one bit. Your arguments are old and tired. The new packaging changed nothing.
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
What's your focus?
December 18, 2008 - 20:03 ET by CobraMan"Focusing on what is right for America, its people, the world's environment, health, economy."
So, tell me, what are YOU doing to help? Have you shut off your own electricity at least 4 hours a day, in order to reduect demand and save the planet? Have you stopped driving, at all, since all forms of driving requires CO2 producing energy sources? Have you started recycling your waste-water, in order to reduce the strain on the planet for all the waste-water processing?
Have you done anything at all, except for use electricity to power lead, cobalt, and other hazardous material containing computer equipment, copper laden internet connects, and various wasteful and earth harming technology in order to post, ad nausea, the need for us all to DO SOMETHING to save the planet before it's too late?
Are you actually doing ANYTHING to reduce your "carbon footprint," or are you willing to let the government, and Our Savior, Barrack Obama, do all this for you?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
913 lbs/year each - U.S. average 20,750
December 19, 2008 - 02:07 ET by Giles Winterbournehttp://www.epa.gov/c...
2,738 pounds of CO2 per year
62,250 pounds is about average in the United States for a household of three people over a year.
913 pounds of CO2 per year per household member
(average emissions per person in the United States are 20,750 pounds per year)
We're probably a bit lower than that - ~80% of our food purchases come from less than 100 miles away so we have a lower carbon output in transport.
Bike commute ~80%, grocery shopping by bike ~90% .
House we're building this spring has graywater, composting toilets, trombe wall, approx 70% of material from deconstructed houses.
So, how about you?
Giles
December 21, 2008 - 01:28 ET by RESTLESS 1Good for you. I'm all for recycling and clean air, but you still begin from the false assumption that CO2 is a driver of global warming.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
My Eyes! This Train Wreck!
December 21, 2008 - 09:05 ET by Giles WinterbourneThis is getting painful, about as painful as watching a Hovind vid.But if you persist in showing your ignorance of science....
thorough debunking
Since CO2 is the focus of your dementia and delusions :
greenhouse-gas-driven warming. The precedents are there, as are the
dire warnings."
scientists can and have detected a human "fingerprint." What they have
found via the isotope signatures can be thought of as "old" carbon,
which could only come from fossil fuel deposits, combined with "young"
oxygen, as is found in the air all around us. So present day combustion
of fossilized hydrocarbon deposits (natural gas, coal, and oil) is
definitely the source of the CO2 currently accumulating -- just as common sense tells us."
errant few with denialist tunnel vision are working to constrain any
unified effort to change. And that spells doom.
They may no longer deny, they may only want to delay. That delay will
kill us, the delay means tipping points are passed and runaway global
warming cannot be stopped, no matter how strong the human will and
effort. And a destabilized climate will continue to wreak havoc, and
the predicted increase in temperature (11 degrees C ) can extinguish
most animal life at sea level. With less heat increase, perhaps we have
better survival chances."
anthropogenic and natural (solar, volcanic) forcings. This is less
susceptible to rearrangements, and so should be less arbitrary and has
been preferred for more formal detection and attribution studies (for
instance, Stott
et al, 2000)"
in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels
were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no
carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic
rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a
dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of
fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of
carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954.
After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by
releasing large amounts of carbon-14."
relatively weak greenhouse gas is more than compensated for by concentration in the atmosphere"
IPCC, limit the scope of their consideration to the year 2100. By
setting up the problem in this way, the calculation of a safe CO2 emission goes up by about 40%, because it takes about a century for the climate to fully respond to rising CO2. If CO2
emission continues up to the year 2100, then the warming in the year
2100 would only be about 60% of the "committed warming" from the CO2 concentration in 2100. This calculation seems rather callous, almost sneaky, given the inevitability of warming once the CO2
is released. I suspect that many in the community are not aware of this
sneaky implication of restricting our attention to a relatively short
time horizon."
created largely by the burning of fossil fuels, are now much higher,
and increasing at a much faster rate, than at any time in the last
600,000 years. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the
increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and
probably most of the warming over the last 50 years."
coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as
well as by natural processes like plant growth. Atmospheric levels of
water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by
people;rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the
atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor
is part of an amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2
warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in
turn traps more heat and accelerates warming. Scientists know this
because of satellite measurements documenting a rise in water vapor
concentrations as the globe has warmed."
problem in 6 easy steps
For further reading:Also see
come up with a stupid idea, and then defend it against all evidence to
the contrary."
Giles .. QUIT POSTING OLD OLD OLD TIRED BORING LINKS
December 21, 2008 - 18:04 ET by upcountrywaterHERES THE DEAL PopTech, started posting NEW LINKS..
Your turn, dazzle us, post brand new AGW stuff.. You know 110 F in Bali today, or some such.
FREEDOM
(D)
2006 weather reports
December 21, 2008 - 22:24 ET by Giles WinterbourneWell, you might want to remind PT that 3rd graders know the difference between weather and climate.
Beyond those points, the rest is the same random sampling of anti-scientific propaganda that parades around here for supporting an ideologically driven POV that isn't supported by any current science or policy makers.
Even the most uncritical mind should be able to notice that they are newspaper articles. Not in any science publication.
And one would wonder why a 2006 or 7 weather report is considered:
Giles, So snowing in Baghdad, is anti-scientific propaganda?
December 23, 2008 - 12:00 ET by upcountrywaterBig chunks of science is all about gathering data.
You are right about one thing, the policy makers want AGW so they can TAX us...and it's going to take many years of what we are getting this winter (and winter 2007), to shake them lose from this tax grab.To swap to a new tax grab.
12-23-2008 S** word, Just some DATA for ya..
FREEDOM
(D)
perhaps you meant
December 23, 2008 - 16:50 ET by Giles Winterbourne"shake them loose"?
But, maybe if I type really slowly you can follow along:
Weather isn't climate. (3rd grade science)
Local isn't Global (K level Social Studies)
Collecting data isn't the same as picking the statistics that favor your opinion and ignoring those that don't.
See:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://news.national...
The rest of your babble? There isn't a logical path to follow : '...policy makers want AGW so they can TAX us...' Though there may be some psych notes that would explain it.
→ Thanks, Giles
December 23, 2008 - 16:58 ET by Cool ArrowSince it's so cold here, I guess we can assume Austrailia is suffering from the worst drought in its history with record temperatures withering the wallabes.
It is still "Global Warming" isn't it? I'd hate it if you jumped over to the "Climate Change" bandwagon. That would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?
giles , Yea and the sun has stopped effecting climate in 1975
December 23, 2008 - 17:41 ET by upcountrywaterThat arrogant comment is from one of your links.
CAN NOT RUN AND HIDE FROM A MILLION MILE DIAMETER FIRE BALL.. S** word.
Ok giles, start cherry picking data that supports your CLIMATE CRISIS..
Again all i care about is the DATA...you have NONE, JUST your linked OPINIONs.
FREEDOM
(D)
Actually
December 23, 2008 - 21:46 ET by Giles Winterbourne"The evidence, quite honestly, among the scientific community that
recent warming is predominantly driven by greenhouse gases is actually
overwhelming. There's more debate in the public arena. The impression
is often given there is a big scientific debate going on between
scientists but I'm afraid it's not, it's a major consensus of
greenhouse gas and a few mavericks on the outside. But mavericks are
good, scepticism is fine. Somebody said about the program you're
talking about, 'Scepticism is fine, falsification is a completely
different thing'." http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1974497.htm (yeah, doing a PT, citing a news source instead of the full science - maybe this is easier for everyone to follow)
"So, even if it works, does Svensmark’s mechanism give any support to George Bush’s attitude that the current global warming is not caused by human activity? Not at all! The observed correlations between the Sun’s behaviour and the Earth’s climate have completely failed since the 1970s. In the past 30 or 40 years the Earth’s temperature has gone up much more rapidly than you would expect from the Sun – indeed there is strong evidence that since 1985 all the changes in the Sun have been in the opposite direction to that required to warm the Earth." www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk/...
"the correlation between the solar activity proxy and Altai
temperature is NOT significant anymore for the last 150 years. In this
time the increase in the CO2 concentrations is significantly correlated
with our temperature." In discussion on Inhofe's misrepresentation of the study's findings. http://climateprogre...
So, I don't know what you mean by 'arrogance' unless you're working off that well debunked 'man is too puny to effect climate' trope.
→ Outlaw water wells
December 23, 2008 - 21:51 ET by Cool ArrowShouldn't we stop pumping water from the Ogalala Aquifer immediately? It's proven that this source is not recharging nearly as quickly as it's being depleted.
I'm just worried that all this water has to go somewhere, and what if it goes into the Oceans, causing their levels to rise that much faster?
Of course we'd have to quit growing corn for both ethanol and food.
Cool.... Please, don't
December 23, 2008 - 21:59 ET by Clear thinkerCool....
Please, don't talk too loudly about the law and water wells, it may catch on.
Here in N.C. our dumb-ass representavies actually floated the idea of putting meters on people's private water wells. Here's their stupid logic... during times of drought, the government would know who to fine for using too much water. We stupid masses caught on to this waaay to fast for them. We immediately realized they would start to tax our water useage at the first mention of drought. Which we know by experience happens around here every single summer. We also know that once the government taxes something, it will be taxed forever.
I Love Sarah’s Alaska
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
→ Sorry Clear
December 23, 2008 - 22:03 ET by Cool ArrowI was just thinking of our fragile ecosystem.
When I think of hurting my beloved planet I get all butthurt.
bwahahaha!
don't get me started clear
December 23, 2008 - 22:09 ET by porpoiseboycalif legislature passed ab885 which will force expensive test of installed septic systems to make sure we aren't polluting the water. but the science used is "closed"....meaning it is based on soil conditions that only exist in some parts of the state. so every 5yrs i will have to pay some "licensed idiot" to prove i'm not poisoning my own well water, which is nearly impossible based on the soil conditions that exist in the part of the state where i live. can you say "tax the ruralites"? the end to all this is for arnold to be able to steal more of the water from my part of the state to water the parts of the state that are over populated. can't they just move to MN? lots of water there...and al franken.
Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason" Ben Franklin
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
The Sun Controls the Earth's Climate Giles
December 23, 2008 - 21:53 ET by PopularTechAnd always has:
The Sun controls the Earth's climate
Unstoppable Solar Cycles (Video) (10min)
The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (The Danish National Space Center)
"Over the past 20 years the solar cycle remains fully apparent in variations both of tropospheric air temperature and of ocean subsurface water temperature.
When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record. For whatever reason, it is a poor guide to Sun-driven physical processes that are still plainly persistent in the climate system.
One cannot distinguish between the effects of anthropogenic gases such as carbon dioxide and of natural greenhouse gases. For example, increased evaporation means that infrared radiation from water vapor, by far the most important greenhouse gas, will tend to provide positive feedback for any global warming, ... In any case, the most recent global temperature trend is close to zero.
The continuing rapid increase in carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 10-15 years has apparently been unable to overrule the °attening of the temperature trend as a result of the Sun settling at a high, but no longer increasing, level of magnetic activity. Contrary to the argument of Lockwood and FrÄohlich, the Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change."
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Giles
December 22, 2008 - 02:05 ET by RESTLESS 1The problem here is you have your correlation backwards.
CO2 trends FOLLOW temperature trends. It also seems that as temps rise, followed by CO2, plant life rises as well, generating greater demand for atmospheric CO2. This means that as temps rise, and the biosphere thrives, it becomes harder to produce CO2 rise. In other words, greater temp anomolies are needed to generate the same CO2 anomolies.
CO2 is not the driver for temp rise, certainly not the manmade variety.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
approximately 20 datasets
December 22, 2008 - 11:43 ET by Giles WinterbourneOne writer, no credentials. Can't even spellcheck before 'publication'.
But that's hardly the worst of it:
The fallacy of his argument has already been covered.
But that's hardly the worst of it:
No list of data sources -
But that's hardly the worst of it:
"...thus took approximately 20 datasets from this graph:"
The data came from a jpeg?
But that's hardly the worst of it:
No references?
But that's hardly the worst of it:
Anyone else able to replicate the results?
A few sites debunking the anti-scientific propagandists:
climate change (PDF)
thorough debunking
Basic Science
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html
Basic science. I like that
December 22, 2008 - 15:24 ET by RESTLESS 1Always like being treated like an idiot. Anyway, You and Hansen are WRONG!!!! BASIC science and physics dictates that as CO2 concentrations rise, temperature flattens.
It is cooler now than it has been for most of the past 600 million years. In fact, 315 million years or so ago was the only time that temp and CO2 levels were both as low as present day at the same time.
As you can see here, caluculating past CO2 levels can be an arduous task at best, but, most if not all calculations show that CO2 levels were much higher over the course of the past 600 million years than they are now.
I can see no more than a minimal at best effect of CO2 on global temperature, either way.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
You forgot to mention
December 23, 2008 - 01:49 ET by Giles Winterbournethat along with Hansen and I, every scientific organization in the world would also be on that 'wrong' list.
Which puts a different spin on your 'basic science'. Sorry, but trying to stick your round peg of misinformation into a square hole of well extablished science just doesn't work. Try not using your ideological hammer.
Giles
December 23, 2008 - 17:24 ET by RESTLESS 1'...Hansen and I, every scientific organization in the world would also be on that 'wrong' list.'
Glad to finally see you admit it. :)
Simply put, the graphs don't lie.
And while you"re bitching about local vs. global, care to relate how CO2 levels are collected? Namely where the collection stations are located?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
And the graphs are
December 23, 2008 - 21:22 ET by Giles Winterbournewhere?
Do you mean the ones made from collecting datasets from graphs? Or the ones using only one of four datasets?
The major problem with your 'wrong list', is that the reliable, repeatable science is there; your preferred resources? Not so much.
real simple gw....the stats don't lie
December 23, 2008 - 21:32 ET by porpoiseboyand the graphs as presented by you gorophytes actually speak against agw. you see, while c02 & ocean temps SEEM to be related..and they probably in fact are..the rise in sea temps PRECEDES the rise in co2 levels ever so slightly. which simply put means sea temps affect co2 levels and not the opposite as put out by you agw gorophytes. why make it any more complicated than that? it isn't.
"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason" Ben Franklin
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
where?
December 23, 2008 - 22:11 ET by Giles Winterbournewould your cites be?
The major problem is that the reliable,
repeatable science is there; your preferred resources? Not so much.
really?
December 23, 2008 - 22:17 ET by porpoiseboyhttp://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html
i hesitated posting anything...because it is clear that no matter how much evidence is posted you will poo-poo it away in a desperate attempt to not have to admit to yourself that at least in this opinion you are not only wrong, but an idiot for hanging on past the point of reason.
cheers
"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason" Ben Franklin
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
Not only that Porpoise
December 23, 2008 - 22:28 ET by RESTLESS 1but the truth is that CO2 is a minimal driver of GW at BEST. The human contribution is not even worth mentioning.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Actualy Giles
December 23, 2008 - 22:25 ET by RESTLESS 1Most of the graphs come from your buddies. I would have thought thatyou would be able to figure that out.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Huh, no, not really
December 24, 2008 - 01:51 ET by Giles WinterbourneThe Flat ice core 'paper' doesn't cite the graphics beyond '..Hans Errens illustration showing the yearly growth in CO2..' with no atribution of where the data came from nor any other specifics.
Actually, it doesn't have any work cited, so god knows where any of it came from.
Resource Evaluation
Try it sometime.
I'm not going copy/paste for you
December 24, 2008 - 02:00 ET by RESTLESS 1the graphs are well known. Surprised you haven't seen them.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Got nuthin.....
December 24, 2008 - 02:09 ET by Giles WinterbourneCan't cite 'the graphs'
Rather make an insult
Can't even restate the argument that is supposedly supported by 'the graphs'
Got nuthin, or too lazy, or can't find them,
Really?
December 24, 2008 - 03:39 ET by RESTLESS 1The graphs state simply that only at one other time in the last 600 million years has CO2 and temp been at levels seen now (could have sworn I pointed this out to you above), and that CO2 measurements can't be trusted because they are either taken from Mauna Loa, (an active volcano), or from ice cores taken from or near the sea, (known as CO2 sinks).
If you can't see this, then you are the lazy one. After all, YOU are the one with the fancy degree, right?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically tking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
BTW Giles
December 24, 2008 - 03:54 ET by RESTLESS 1Double, deleted
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
BTW Giles
December 24, 2008 - 03:52 ET by RESTLESS 1Where's the insult? Not that you don't deserve it. I've only seen you insulting. You certainly aren't speaking from science. Your links are bogus and not relevant.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
approximately 20 datasets
December 22, 2008 - 11:44 ET by Giles WinterbourneOne writer, no credentials. Can't even spellcheck before 'publication'.
But that's hardly the worst of it:
The fallacy of his argument has already been covered.
But that's hardly the worst of it:
No list of data sources -
But that's hardly the worst of it:
"...thus took approximately 20 datasets from this graph:"
The data came from a jpeg?
But that's hardly the worst of it:
No references?
But that's hardly the worst of it:
Anyone else able to replicate the results?
A few sites debunking the anti-scientific propagandists:
climate change (PDF)
thorough debunking
Basic Science
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html
CO2 has always lagged Temperatures Giles
December 23, 2008 - 22:01 ET by PopularTechIce core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
(Science, Vol. 283. no. 5408, pp. 1712 - 1714, 12 March 1999)
- Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck
High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide
concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ±
400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.
Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming
(Science, September 27, 2007)
- Lowell Stott, Axel Timmermann, Robert Thunell
Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2C between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand
years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical
surface ocean warming by ~1000 years.
The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka
(Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 583-589, February 2001)
- Manfred Mudelsee
Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind
atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3±1.0 ka
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
(Science 14, Vol. 299. no. 5613, March 2003)
- Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang, Volodya Y. Lipenkov
The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2
increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and
preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Myth #.......
December 24, 2008 - 01:59 ET by Giles Winterbournehttp://www.realclima...
http://www.skeptical...
The CO2 Lag from the eco-shill site and the cartoonist
December 24, 2008 - 02:05 ET by PopularTechI love this quote which is the biggest pile of bullshit I have ever read in my life:
"All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2." - RC
LMAO! Giles the RC post was one of the first I read on the issue and it still makes me crack up today, talk about great humor.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Hmmm, they seem to use some pretty good resources.....
December 11, 2008 - 01:09 ET by Giles WinterbourneBurning coal is a leading source of global warming pollution.
"GHG Emissions and Sinks 1990–2006,” US EPA 2008
Burning coal is the dirtiest way we produce electricity. “Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States,” US DOE 2000.; “GHG Emissions and Sinks 1990-2006,” US EPA 2008
There are no homes in America powered by "clean" coal
Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme CO2 Capture and Storage Database; Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies Program at MIT, CO2 Capture and Storage Project Database
CO2 emissions from US coal-based electricity are greater than emissions from all the cars and trucks in America.
“GHG Emissions and Sinks 1990-2006,” US EPA 2008
The
coal industry is spending millions advertising "clean" coal, but not a
single "clean" coal power plant exists in the US today.
“Big Coal Campaigning to Keep Its Industry on Candidates' Minds,”
Wall Street Journal, Oct. 20, 2008 (link);
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme CO2 Capture and Storage Database (link);
Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies Program at MIT, CO2 Capture and Storage Project Database (link)
http://action.thisis...
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
December 11, 2008 - 03:07 ET by PopularTechSo this is irrelevant.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Giles just argues for the sake of argument.
December 16, 2008 - 23:20 ET by MightyMouthSo insecure in his self and positions that he cannot accept the possiblity of his opinion being challenged. Notice how he does not answer your questions directly?
We have seen this Climatroll before under other names.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Making up nerw terms, are we?
December 18, 2008 - 20:14 ET by CobraMan"a leading source of global warming pollution"
There is no such thing as Global Warming Pollution. CO2 is a NATURAL OCCURRING gas which is found everywhere on earth, including in the core, lower and upper mantels, planetary crust, oceans, fresh water sources like rivers, lakes and streams, and even the atmosphere, just like it has since the earth first formed.
Contrary to the hype, we're not creating excess CO2, we're simply taking part in a natural cycle of CO2 release and sequestration. (The CO2 we're "releasing" today was first sequestered by plant life 100 million years ago or more, when the C2 levels were much higher than today.)
CO2 has existed on this planet, in one form or another, for 4.5 BILLION YEARS. It seems that the Earth does quite well with the "pollution," wouldn't you agree? After all, life on earth wouldn't even EXIST if it wasn't for the carbon and oxygen that CO2 provides life, correct?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
"You know you are talking about politics, not science"
December 19, 2008 - 13:47 ET by Giles Winterbournewant to come up with a stupid idea, and then defend it against all
evidence to the contrary."
Role of Ideology
Fascists Need to Find God"
in thinking
You know the data refutes you,
Your tactics have nothing to do with open discussion,
Everything to do with diversion and delay.
And nothing to do with science."
warriors blogged about it, often embellishing the story with their own
fabrications."
Truthers
climate problem, despite evidence that points to the problem being
greater than we had anticipated."
Instead of acting like a
December 19, 2008 - 14:00 ET by Jack BauerInstead of acting like a demented douchebag, why don't you try explain in your own words why you think that the naturally occuring colorless, odorless gas called "carbon dioxide" (better known as dry ice) is "pollution."
Better still, do us all a favor: stop breathing, and stop expelling what you erroneously call pollution.
Well, Jack, in his case it
December 19, 2008 - 14:39 ET by fitzfongWell, Jack, in his case it is pollution. :-)
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
hey fitz -- god, how we need
December 20, 2008 - 05:44 ET by Jack Bauerhey fitz -- god, how we need an RR right now.
Yes, we do, Jack.
December 20, 2008 - 11:33 ET by fitzfongYes, we do, Jack. Hopefully we won't have to endure another Jimmy Carter to get him (or her).
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
How Carter Was Better Than Reagan
December 20, 2008 - 12:11 ET by Giles Winterbourne"To contrast the two speeches is like comparing the screeching of a cat
to the miracles of Mozart. Yet today, Carter's speech reads as
prescient. Most of his dire predictions -- "It is a problem we will not
solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively
worse through the rest of this century" -- have generally come true,
although not quite as soon or calamitously as he warned. The pity of it
all is that in American politics, being right is beside the point."
Richard Cohen How Carter Was Better Than Reagan
http://www.realclear...
Look, son. I lived
December 20, 2008 - 13:03 ET by fitzfongLook, son. I lived through the misery of the Carter years. He was an unmitigated failure, and the efforts to repackage him as anything but the worst President of (at least) the last 100 years are as sad as they are futile. Save your cut-and-paste propaganda for those who will indulge your little fantasies.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Giles you have
December 20, 2008 - 13:16 ET by cocodriejust revealed your total lack of intelligence with your defense of Jimmy Carter's presidency. Carter had less brains than the peanuts on his farm.
Blank Slate, heh?
December 20, 2008 - 18:54 ET by Giles Winterbourneas before :
No examples or exegesis....
hmmmm,
No attempt to prove your contentions.
Just toss off insults. Good technique.
1977-We can decide to act while there is time -
December 20, 2008 - 18:59 ET by Giles Winterbourne"
We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will
have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn
more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin
to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people
will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations
and among the different regions within our own country.
If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.
But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time."
Jimmy Carter, 1977 http://www.pbs.org/w...
Actually, that speech was a deciding factor in voting for him in '80.
Inflation will soar,
December 20, 2008 - 22:56 ET by fitzfongInflation will soar, production will go down, people
will lose their jobs.
How prescient of the Peanut Farmer! After all, these things all happened during his FAILURE of an Administration. We had what was appropriately called a "Misery Index" during that clown's four-year term.
If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.
What he failed to say in that typical, toothless, inept speech is that we have and continue to face economic, social and political crises that have and will threaten our free institutions...due to failures and actions perpetrated by him and his embarrassment of an Administration.
But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time.
And thank God we did. The American people were through feeling ashamed of the Carter domestic and foreign policies...and we booted the bum out.
Actually, that speech was a deciding factor in voting for him in '80.
Yes, and fortunately your wasted vote ultimately didn't matter.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Well, that's mature.....
December 19, 2008 - 17:25 ET by Giles WinterbourneA few sites debunking the anti-scientific propagandists:
thorough debunking
Since CO2 is the focus of that demented and delusional diatribe:
They may no longer deny, they may only want to delay. That delay will kill us, the delay means tipping points are passed and runaway global warming cannot be stopped, no matter how strong the human will and effort. And a destabilized climate will continue to wreak havoc, and the predicted increase in temperature (11 degrees C ) can extinguish most animal life at sea level. With less heat increase, perhaps we have better survival chances."
et al, 2000)"
After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14."
relatively weak greenhouse gas is more than compensated for by concentration in the atmosphere"
problem in 6 easy steps
For further reading:Also see
Just a few Skeptical Sites
December 23, 2008 - 22:18 ET by PopularTechClimate Audit (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Canada)
ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, USA)
Junk Science (Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Science, M.S. Health Science, USA)
Planet Gore (National Review Online)
The Reference Frame (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Czech Republic)
Watts Up With That? (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, USA)
- SurfaceStations.org
Scientists:
Benny Peiser (Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology, UK)
- Cambridge Conference Network (CCNet)
Climate Police (Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, USA)
Climate Science (Roger A. Pielke (Sr.), Ph.D. Meteorology, USA)
Climate Skeptic (Warren Meyer, B.S. Mechanical Engineering, USA)
CO2 Web (Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, Norway)
Comment & Information on Climate Change (Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Science, Australia)
EcoMyths (Graham Smith, Associate Professor of Geography, Canada)
Global Warming Comments (Hans Erren, M.Sc. Geophysics, The Netherlands)
Global Warming Issues (John McLean, Climate Data Analyst, Australia)
Global Warming Politics (Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography, UK)
Greenie Watch (John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Australia)
Johnston's Archive - Environmental Topics (Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Physics, USA)
Number Watch (John Brignell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Electronics & Computer Science, UK)
Prometheus - The Science Policy Blog (Roger A. Pielke (Jr.), Ph.D. Political Science, USA)
Ross McKitrick (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, Canada)
Science & Environmental Policy Project (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, USA)
ScienceBits (Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel)
Science is Broken (Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA)
The Global Warming Challenge (J. Scott Armstrong, B.A. Applied Science, B.S. Industrial Engineering, Ph.D. MIT, USA)
The Politics and Environment Blog (Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, Australia)
William M. Briggs (William M. Briggs, B.S. Meteorology and Math, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Statistics, USA)
World Climate Report (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, USA)
Carbon Sense Coalition
Climate Change Fraud
Climate Debate Daily
Climate Resistance
CO2 Science
CO2 Skeptics
E-Team
Environmental Capital
Environmentalism is Fascism
EnvironmentNC
Facts on Energy
False Alarm
Global Warming.org
Global Warming and the Climate
Global Warming Debunking News and Views
Global Warming Petition Project
Global Warming Heartland
Global Warming Hyperbole
Global Warming Hysteria
Global Warming Information Center
Global Warming Scam
Global Warming Science
Global Warming Skeptics
Models, Methods, Software
Not by Fire but by Ice
NC Media Watch
Omniclimate
Ponder the Maunder
Really Real Climate
Spiked - Environment
Still Waiting for Greenhouse
TCS Daily - Energy and Environment
- Science Roundtable
The Blackboard
The Carbon Sense Coalition
The Climate Scam
The Global Warming Hoax
US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
Warming Scare Tactics
Warwick Hughes - Free Lance Science Research
- Errors in IPCC Climate Science Blog
Organizations:
AccuWeather - Global Warming (USA)
American Enterprise Institute - Climate Change (USA)
American Land Rights Association (USA)
Business & Media Institute - Environment (USA)
Canada Free Press - Global Warming (Canada)
Cato Institute - Global Warming (USA)
Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change
Competitive Enterprise Institute - Climate Change (USA)
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) (USA)
Friends of Science (Canada)
Frontier Center for Public Policy - Climate Change (Canada)
George C. Marshall Institute - Climate Change (USA)
Grassfire.org (USA)
Heartland Institute - Global Warming (USA)
Institute for Energy Research - Climate Change (USA)
International Climate Science Coalition (Canada)
John Locke Foundation - EnvironmentNC (USA)
National Center for Policy Analysis - E-Team (USA)
National Center for Public Policy Research - Environment (USA)
Natural Resources Stewardship Project (Canada)
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (New Zealand)
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (USA)
Pacific Research Institute - Environment (USA)
Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) (USA)
Science & Public Policy Institute (USA)
The Association of British Drivers - Environment - Global Warming Links (UK)
The Australian APEC Study Centre - Environment (Australia)
The Center for Science and Public Policy (USA)
The Fraser Institute - Environment (Canada)
The Heritage Foundation - Energy and Environment (USA)
The Independent Institute - Environment (USA)
The Lavoisier Group (Australia)
Yawn
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Giles
December 10, 2008 - 23:38 ET by NorthCoasterYou need to research the facts before you make such a claim.
The majority of the individuals cited are truly scientists. When you look at the AGW site there are measurably greater quantities of "Social Scientists" and hangers on than on the Morano report. The initial debunker of the Hockey Stick is a Geologist who had to present accurate research on mining opportunities when he was working for mining interests. His initial contention was that Michael Mann was using non-standard statistical methods and constructs to produce his Hockey Stick temperature graphic. The facts have shown that much of the initial work was compromized by poor data and flawed statistical methods. The respected US and UK Climate sites show a cooling of overall temperatures since 1998 which is in direct contradiction the the theory of CO2 caused climate change. Now people are even trying to claim that the normal climate cycle is masking AGW. The fact is that CO2 has been shown to rise after a lag time behind the rise of global temperature. Most truly interested scientests will tell you that their is no accurate way to tell if CO2 is actually the primary cause of the temperature rise that ended in 1998.
Fun game...
December 11, 2008 - 00:07 ET by meteor79Count the tired, debunked, denialist talking points:
1) "Hockey Stick" has been disproven
2) Global warming stopped in 1998
3) CO2 doesn't lead it lags
More like the Debunked Alarmist Propaganda
December 11, 2008 - 03:02 ET by PopularTech1. The Hockey Stick has been debunked:
"Simulations with red noise do lead to hockey sticks. McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism on the hockey stick from 1998 is entirely valid on this particular point." - Hans von Storch, Ph.D. Climate Statistics Specialist
What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, April 4, 2005)
Spin can’t hide the facts concerning the hockey stick (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick Ph.D. Economics, July 26, 2006)
Peer-Reviewed Papers:
Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and Its Implications (PDF) (David Holland, Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, February 2005)
"Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape"
Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, October 2005)
- Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, October 2005)
The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
2. Global Warming did stop in 1998.
3. CO2 does lag temperature changes:
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination
(Science, Vol. 291. no. 5501, 5 January 2001)
- Eric Monnin, Andreas Indermühle, André Dällenbach, Jacqueline Flückiger, Bernhard Stauffer, Thomas F. Stocker, Dominique Raynaud, Jean-Marc Barnola
Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
(Science, Vol. 283. no. 5408, pp. 1712 - 1714, 12 March 1999)
- Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck
"High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations."
Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming
(Science, September 27, 2007)
- Lowell Stott, Axel Timmermann, Robert Thunell
"Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2C between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years."
The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka
(Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 583-589, February 2001)
- Manfred Mudelsee
"Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3±1.0 ka"
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
(Science 14, Vol. 299. no. 5613, March 2003)
- Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang, Volodya Y. Lipenkov
"The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation"
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
See Also
December 11, 2008 - 01:59 ET by Giles Winterbournehttp://www.scholarsa...
&
http://scienceblogs....
&
http://www.newscient...
&
http://www.realclima...
&
"This updated result will no doubt be widely attacked by the deniers,
much as the original result was. But given the greater extent and
diversity of the evidence, coupled with the superior analytical methods
applied, I suspect this will be a definitive work for quite some time.
The planet is warming anomalously and dangerously thanks primarily
to human emissions of greenhouse gas emissions, the bulk of which are
from burning fossil fuels. The time to act is yesterday."
http://climateprogre...
&
http://books.nap.edu...
& Note that virtually all of the claims aimed at Mann, et al 's original work has been substantially reaffirmed by subsequent research. Yet virtually all of the comments floating around refer only to the pioneering work. There have been no substantive critiques about the further studies nor about how they all correlate with each other.
A small point perhaps, but that does indicate where the real science is happening.
Giles, See also the Skeptics Guide
December 11, 2008 - 03:10 ET by PopularTech"More informed respondents both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming" - 2008 Texas A&M University Study
Don't Believe the Hype (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)
I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train (David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D.)
The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)
Climate chaos? Don't believe it (Christopher Monckton, Mathematician, UK).
Guides:
A Global Warming Primer (PDF) (National Center for Policy Analysis)
A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism (PDF) (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
A Skeptical Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming (PDF) (Climate Skeptic)
Global Warming FAQ (PDF) (Competitive Enterprise Institute)
Global Warming: Science vs. Nonsense (PDF) (Executive Intelligence Review)
Myths:
Fallacies about Global Warming (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Five Biggest Myths about Global Warming (The Washington Examiner)
Global Warming: Fact and Myth (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science)
Global Warming Myths (Friends of Science)
Green Myths On Global Warming - Debunked (The Association of British Drivers, UK)
Heartland President Debunks Global Warming Myths (The Heartland Institute)
Myths and Facts About the Environment (National Center for Public Policy Research)
Myths of Global Warming (National Center for Policy Analysis)
The Global Warming Myth? (John Stossel, ABC News)
Top 10 Climate Myth-Busters for 2007 (Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Science, M.S. Health Science)
Top 10 Environmental Myths (PDF) (U.S. Chamber of Commerce)
Top 10 'Global-Warming' Myths (Human Events)
Papers:
A Climate of Belief (PDF) (Patrick Frank, Ph.D. Chemistry)
Carbon Dioxide is not the primary cause of global warming (PDF) (Allan M.R. MacRae, B.Sc., M.Eng.)
Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming (PDF) (David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D.)
Climate Change is Nothing New (PDF) (Lance Endersbee, Professor Emeritus of Engineering)
Climate Change Re-examined (PDF) (Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Chemistry)
Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts (PDF) (David R. Legates, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology)
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered (Christopher Monckton, Mathematician, Physics & Society)
CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time (PDF) (Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc.)
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF) (Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry)
Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat (Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology)
Global Warming: Experts’ Opinions versus Scientific Forecasts (PDF) (Kesten C. Green, Ph.D. Management Science, J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D. MIT)
Global Warming - Is Carbon Dioxide Getting a Bad Rep? (PDF) (Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology)
Is the Earth still recovering from the "Little Ice Age"? (PDF) (Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geophysics)
Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories (PDF) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology)
Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm? (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)
Low climate sensitivity and other inconvenient truths (PDF) (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics)
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (PDF) (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science)
Pseudoscientific elements in climate change research (PDF) (Arthur Rörsch, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics)
The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide (Jeffrey A. Glassman, Ph.D. Applied Physicist and Engineer)
The Global Warming Scam (PDF) (Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry)
The Increase in Global Temperature: What it Does and Does Not Tell Us (PDF) (Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology)
The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide - The Innocent Source of Life (PDF) (Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry)
The Myth of Dangerous Human Caused Climate Change (PDF) (Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Science)
The IPCC's dubious evidence for a human influence on climate (PDF) (John McLean, Climate Data Analyst)
The Science Isn't Settled - The Limitations of Global Climate Models (PDF) (Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Historical Climatology)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Same old, tired, debunked, attempted rejoinders
December 11, 2008 - 09:19 ET by Giles WinterbourneNote that virtually all of the claims aimed at Mann, et al 's original
work has been substantially reaffirmed by subsequent research. Yet
virtually all of the comments floating around refer only to the
pioneering work. There have been no substantive critiques about the
further studies nor about how they all correlate with each other.
Accentuated by observing that there are no new voices, no new data that significantly adds to or improves the quality of the the anti-scientific propagandists' arguments,
An actual review of the literature shows a much larger, and growing, amount of actual research supporting causes and effects of Anthropogenic CO2 caused Global Climate Change.
A small point perhaps, but that does indicate where the real science is happening. Good luck getting the sand out of your ears.
FACT: Only Computer Illiterates (Giles) believe in AGW
December 11, 2008 - 10:04 ET by PopularTechFACT: Only Computer Illiterates believe in "Man-Made" Global Warming
That is you Giles - Computer illiterate. Mann has been long ago debunked by anyone with a remote understanding of computer systems. Your continued defense of this just proves you to be computer illiterate.
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, February 2005)
"Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape"
"Simulations with red noise do lead to hockey sticks. McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism on the hockey stick from 1998 is entirely valid on this particular point." - Hans von Storch, Ph.D. Climate Statistics Specialist
I take it Giles you have been unsuccessful at convincing anyone of your propaganda that you have come back here in desperation.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Sun Tzu
December 11, 2008 - 19:00 ET by Giles WinterbourneInsults, like violence, are the last refuge of the incompetent.
As before, no mention of all the corroborating data since the original study. No critique of that data. No explanation why data from a wide range of sources continues to match results. No data that disputes these studies. No critical analysis of the whole body of research.
For a more thorough discussion of M&M's attempts to critique 'hockey stick' research, look at
http://www.realclima... There are comments from McIntyre there.
Or for a look at the various reconstructions, look at page 467
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/asse...
Interesting WAG at the end. Similar to the WAG on computer competency of those who have studied Mann, et al and further research, those who use modeling in their research, those who are funding that research, and the vast majority of scientists and general population who agree with the research.
Truth is not an insult
December 11, 2008 - 20:14 ET by PopularTechStating the truth is not an insult.
Mann 2008 is being debunked as we speak.
Hockey Stick? What Hockey Stick? (PDF) (Christopher Monckton, Mathematician, September 12, 2008)
The Revival of the Hockeystick Graph - a new Low in Climate Science (PDF) (Ernst-Georg Beck, September 4th, 2008)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Self-published
December 12, 2008 - 03:31 ET by Giles WinterbourneWhen their stuff actually comes in a real published format, then reputable scientists and the moderately informed public can consider it less like Conspiracy Theory: Did We
Land on the Moon? or that show on BBC 4
Try Peer-Reviewed Giles
December 12, 2008 - 14:13 ET by PopularTechBias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and Its Implications (PDF) (David Holland, Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, February 2005)
"Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape"
- Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, October 2005)
- Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, October 2005)
The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Let me get this right---
December 12, 2008 - 20:59 ET by Giles WinterbourneYou are attempting to prove something by saying a couple of pieces in E&E, a couple of letters in reply to comments shows that all the research and data published in dozens of journals that are actually being subscribed to by Science departments throughout the world is invalid? That a couple of pieces in, what we can charitably call a journal with a rather poor reputation, negates hundreds, thousands of pieces of well studied research? Really?
E&E, really? Not in the ISI list. A Social Science journal.
Bad enough you're trying to disprove CO2's role in warming, anthropogenic or not, but really, this is the quality of research, the quality of data, the quality of publication you're staking the whole argument on? Really?
Learn how computers work Giles and stop pushing Fraud
December 13, 2008 - 10:36 ET by PopularTechI don't need any journals to prove what any computer literate computer scienctist already knows - if you feed a computer program random noise and it produces a hockey-stick shape, there is nothing else to discuss. It is called fraud.
Michael Mann is a Fraud.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
computer literate computer scienctist
December 13, 2008 - 12:31 ET by Giles WinterbourneSo you are saying your computer competency and understanding of the science exceeds those who have studied
Mann, et al and further research, those who use modeling in their
research, those who are funding that research, and the vast majority of
scientists and general population who agree with the research?
And you have published those findings where? And you consult with what groups developing (and have developed 'shovel ready') projects?
Oh, I see.....
Giles I have FAR more Computer Knowledge than Natural Scientists
December 13, 2008 - 18:22 ET by PopularTechMy understanding of computer systems far exceeds those of Mann and the other incompetent scientists who "reviewed" his papers and approved them. Having your buddies sign off on your work who know as little as you do doesn't make you any less computer illiterate. The reason this hoax continues is computer scientists are not even involved in any serious way. If global warming was as interesting to computer scientists as trying to embarrass Microsoft is this would have long been over. The more they become involved the worse and more embarrassing this will get for those perpetuating the fraud.
What findings do I need to publish to run a program with random junk data and get a result that has the shape of a hockey stick? Are you that stupid? This is like elementary basic stuff.
BTW Giles I frequently fix computer systems at major universities where the natural scientists and "engineers" screw up. I fix systems and resolve problems all the time because computer illiterates like yourself have no remote concept of how computers work.
The amount of computer system knowledge I have compared to you Giles is just beyond embarrassing. I laugh everytime you cite Wikipedia and defend the hockey stick. You are the perfect example of a computer illiterate.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
"and the vast majority of
December 12, 2008 - 01:59 ET by NL207"and the vast majority of scientists and general population who agree with the research"
How many is this vast majority , Giles? Amongst the scientific community I work in, the skeptics outnumber the alarmist by at least 2 to 1 and the realists outnumber the alarmists and skeptics combined by at least 3 to 1. I don't actually know any scientist who qualifies as a "denier". I can only assume they are so few in number as to be insignificant. Your views clearly fall into the alarmist bucket.
Start with
December 12, 2008 - 02:49 ET by Giles WinterbourneThis compilation of statements by scientific organizations supporting man's influence on climate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change (with links to organization's statement)
"An international poll finds widespread agreement that climate change is a pressing problem"
http://www.worldpubl...
"Almost two-thirds, 62 percent, of all U.S. adults believe it is
important that the next President of the United States initiates strong
action to address climate change soon after taking office."
http://www.eponline....
http://www.climateac...
A Handful of Statements are not Consensus
December 12, 2008 - 14:20 ET by PopularTechGiles please provide the scientific survey of scientists endorsing AGW. Your tired propaganda of a handful of statements created by a handful of scientists from 40 organizations does not cut it, no vote by the organizations bodies was ever taken.
"...we often hear how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But what you don't hear is that both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions
produced the "consensus" statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations buckled to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science." - James Inhofe
NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming
31,000 Scientists Prove No 'Consensus’ on "Man-Made" Global Warming (OISM)
- Art Robinson Responds to Petition Slander (OISM)
- Art Robinson: A Scientist Finds Independence (American Spectator)
- Qualifications of Signers (OISM)
4000 Scientists sign 'The Heidelberg Appeal' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
1500 Scholars, Policy Experts and Theologians sign the 'Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship' (Cornwall Allliance)
1100 Climate Realists sign 'The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change' (ICSC)
650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works)
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares (The Heartland Institute)
400 Scientists Dispute Man-Made Global Warming Claims (US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works)
197 Climate Experts sign 'The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change' (ICSC)
170 Scientists, Economists and Theologians sign an open letter to the signers of 'Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action' (Cownwall Alliance)
105 Scientists sign 'The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
100 Scientists sign an 'Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations' (National Post, Canada)
60 Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (Financial Post, Canada)
47 Scientists sign the 'Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
41 Scientists debunk global warming alert (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
35 Skeptical Scientists, 'The Deniers' (National Post, Canada)
Inconvenient Fact: ...only 51 individuals signed the IPCC Report released on February 2, 2007 (Institute for Canadian Values)
71% think Global Warming has nothing to do with Man’s actions (Pocket Issue)
66% of Americans do not believe Global Warming can be stopped (Rasmussen Reports)
65% of Americans reject spending even a penny more for gasoline in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (NCPPR)
59% of Americans do not believe human activity is the cause of Global Warming (Pew Research Center)
56% of Americans do not believe Global Warming is caused by human activities (Rasmussen Reports)
56% believe scientists are still questioning climate change (BBC)
Despite Awareness Of Global Warming Americans Concerned More About Local Environment (Science Daily)
Increased Knowledge About Global Warming Leads To Apathy, Study Shows (Science Daily)
Only 25% See Global Warming as a Threat (Business & Media Institute)
Only 24% Consider Al Gore a Global Warming Expert (Rasmussen Reports)
Only 33% of Evangelical Christians view Global Warming as a "major" problem (The Christian Post)
Poll: Many See No Need to Worry About Warming (ABC News)
Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change (The Guardian, UK)
Poll: Terrorism a More Serious Threat than Climate Change (FOX News)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
You claim to be an
December 16, 2008 - 19:04 ET by NL207You claim to be an Acacdemician. I see that virtually all of your references are the Wikipedia. The few that aren't are from know partisan hacks like RealClimate.
In our local university, it is a general policy that no term paper may be submitted for credit that uses Wikipedia as a reference. Why? because Wiklipedia is not authoritative and it is filled with left-wing bias, a perception which is even shared by some of our left-leaning faculty. There is no faculty member that I know who makes an exception to this term paper rule.
Looks like your post gets the grade, "F".
Since there is not one unbiased, authoritative source in your references, your thesis is also rejected.
I will repeat my thesis: The great majority of scientists do not accept as fact the extremist AGW thesis: Human activity is the dominant factor in Global Climate Change and that change is in net, harmful to the biosphere of this planet.
Acacdemician ?
December 16, 2008 - 22:03 ET by Giles WinterbourneI think you mean academician. Nope, haven't claimed that; haven't studied under Plato.
The wiki links in this thread are to a definition (corroborated with four links to dictionaries) and a compilation showing all the reputable scientific organizations that support the research findings on anthropogenic CO2. The first provides a thorough etymology missing on other on-line sources, and the second is kept up to date, including links to the organization's statement page.
I'd review the reasoning your 'local university' doesn't allow use of Wikipedia. At uni and high school and usually middle school and elementary, the general requirement is for primary sources and well sourced secondary. NO tertiary sources; and usually a rubic is available for ascertaining the reliability of the secondary sources.
The politicization of climate change has unfortunately forced labels on basic science. By defining resources that cite well researched peer-reviewed, published, cited work as from ...'know(n) partisan hacks...' while accepting anecdotal weather reports, self-published blogs and papers, and lengthy lists of links from highly selective choices of news sources shows a very non-skeptical mind, lack of thoughtful contemplation and discussion, and easy acceptance of anti-scientific propagandists.
The propagandizing of science by Giles
December 16, 2008 - 23:55 ET by PopularTechThe propagandizing of science has unfortunately abolished the scientific method. By citing only papers peer-reviewed by elitist buddies seeking to increase their research funding in journals that censor all opposing views, blog posts by caroonists and others funded by left wing environmental organizations as truth shows a very brainwashed mind, lack of independent thinking and easy acceptance of alarmist propaganda.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Of course you can provide examples of
December 17, 2008 - 07:35 ET by Giles Winterbourne'...journals that censor all opposing views...' and '...blog posts by caroonists...', whatever they are.
However, that censorship trope continues to be a anti-scientific propagandist tool. Helps cover up the fact that there just isn't the data to support contentions like http://www.skeptical...
LMAO! Giles responds with the Cartoonist!
December 17, 2008 - 16:31 ET by PopularTech"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science
OMG - LMAO!
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
side stepping an issue?
December 17, 2008 - 18:47 ET by Giles WinterbourneNo further discussion on
'...journals that censor all opposing views...'
?
giles, I looked at your site. and the latest solar cycle 24..OLD
December 17, 2008 - 17:28 ET by upcountrywaterHere we are at 2009, and the most up to date info on solar cycles is 1999
Heres a real GEM from your site:
The correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.
Oh wait here is the most up to date march 2007 cs24
GET UP TO DATE . will ya!
sc24 is still spot free TODAY!! S** word.
So break out your ice skates..Record cold ...
NOT RECORD WARM!
FREEDOM
(D)
Right - a bit out of date:
December 17, 2008 - 19:08 ET by Giles WinterbourneBrought to our attention through Inhofe / Morano's most recent purposeful misinterpreting.
"We did a strong differentiation between preindustrial (1250-1850) time
and the last 150 years. In the preindustrial time we found a strong
correlation between the solar activity proxy and our temperature,
suggesting solar forcing as a main force for temperature change in this
time. However, the correlation between the solar activity
proxy and Altai temperature is NOT significant anymore for the last 150
years. In this time the increase in the CO2 concentrations is
significantly correlated with our temperature."
http://climateprogre...
Giles.... This should
December 17, 2008 - 19:17 ET by Clear thinkerGiles....
This should make your Christmas... Climate Skeptic Changes Mind
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Thanks for reminding me
December 17, 2008 - 18:38 ET by Giles WinterbourneA few more sites debunking the anti-scientific propagandists:
Since solar is of especial interest:
For further reading:Also see
giles, First snow in 30 years, and it's NOT even winter yet.
December 17, 2008 - 21:42 ET by upcountrywaterDice roll, giles you lose, or was it "ICE-9"?
EDIT: once again you continue to use OLD links, QUIT IT!
FREEDOM
(D)
'old links'
December 18, 2008 - 12:27 ET by Giles WinterbourneThe debunking still works, some organizations and sites see no need to update with more discussion of the newest piece of dreck being posted.
If you're going to take umbrage over a link that continues to cover the topic well enough, then you really should discuss the posting of papers ~eleven years old and/or with virtually no citations as 'skeptics guides'.
But what should be of more concern; 2006 survey results when there is an identical 2007 survey not linked. Not linked because the newer survey has statistics that don't favor that poster's anti-scientific propaganda.
giles loses AGAIN...Snow in Malibu, Keep FLAILING
December 18, 2008 - 13:13 ET by upcountrywaterSnow in the FALL
UPDATE: Todays S** word ! Hint this is DATA from 12-18-2008
oh yea cooling is BAD: A freeze warning means subfreezing temperatures
are imminent or highly likely. These conditions will kill crops and
other sensitive vegetation," the NWS said.
Freeze warnings were also issued for north San
Francisco Bay area valleys, and a combination of frost advisories and
freeze warnings were issued for parts of southwestern California.
BTW giles I posted FROM your link!!
FREEDOM
(D)
Weather is not Climate
December 18, 2008 - 19:42 ET by Giles WinterbourneRemember, we talked about that already. And your 3rd grade teacher covered it also.
Anthropogenic CO2, not Solar; here are some reliable resources that you can use to brush up on the basic science.
It's the sun, stupid' http://gristmill.gri...
The lure of solar forcing http://www.realclima...
Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. http://www.fightglob...
Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans http://www.newscient...
Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone
http://www.metoffice...
Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin http://www.realclima...
Why Climate Denialists are Blind to Facts and Reason: The Role of Ideology http://www.celsias.c...
'BTW giles I posted FROM your link!!' So that must be your idea of attribution?
FYI: In elementary and middle school and sometimes in high school, there is a daily exercise in English class, usually first item of the day. Provides practice on things like grammer, commas, capitalization, and other basic aspects of written communication. Seems you must have been late to class overmuch.
Here are Real Skeptic Sites Giles
December 18, 2008 - 23:06 ET by PopularTechNot the alarmist nonsense you linked to
Climate Audit (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Canada)
ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, USA)
Junk Science (Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Science, M.S. Health Science, USA)
Planet Gore (National Review Online)
The Reference Frame (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Czech Republic)
Watts Up With That? (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, USA)
- SurfaceStations.org
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
My fav is Watt's Up With
December 18, 2008 - 23:09 ET by Clear thinkerMy fav is Watt's Up With That? It's where I got this vid... Polar Bear Commits Suicide
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
PT, Nice work educating
December 18, 2008 - 23:12 ET by SvenPT,
Nice work educating the mind-numbed AGW numbskulls!
Giles said in his last post: "Weather is not climate..." ok, fair enough, but if you want to use that argument, why does the left consistently cry "Global Warming!" on the first hot summer day?
Sorry Giles, we've been cooling since 1998!
Giles...Here are two
December 17, 2008 - 21:44 ET by Clear thinkerGiles...
Here are two more areas to consider. Link... Earth’s Magnetic Field Has Massive Breach - scientists baffled. This also has info on new Solar wind find. Both of which can have an effect on the earth's climate.
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Gile here are some Skeptic Guides
December 17, 2008 - 21:52 ET by PopularTechGuides:
A Global Warming Primer (PDF) (National Center for Policy Analysis)
A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism (PDF) (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
A Skeptical Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming (PDF) (Climate Skeptic)
Global Warming FAQ (PDF) (Competitive Enterprise Institute)
Global Warming: Science vs. Nonsense (PDF) (Executive Intelligence Review)
Myths:
Fallacies about Global Warming (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Five Biggest Myths about Global Warming (The Washington Examiner)
Global Warming: Fact and Myth (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science)
Global Warming Myths (Friends of Science)
Green Myths On Global Warming - Debunked (The Association of British Drivers, UK)
Heartland President Debunks Global Warming Myths (The Heartland Institute)
Myths and Facts About the Environment (National Center for Public Policy Research)
Myths of Global Warming (National Center for Policy Analysis)
The Global Warming Myth? (John Stossel, ABC News)
Top 10 Climate Myth-Busters for 2007 (Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Science, M.S. Health Science)
Top 10 Environmental Myths (PDF) (U.S. Chamber of Commerce)
Top 10 'Global-Warming' Myths (Human Events)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
My typography aside, the
December 17, 2008 - 22:49 ET by NL207My typography aside, the salient point remains, the Wikipedia is not reliable.
Academician. I was being polite. Academic. You have in the past here cited yourself as a peer reviewer of scientific literature. As such, you should know better than to cite an indirect reference when there is immediate access to the original references.
I don't need to investigate why our local university prohibits the use of Wikipedia for refrence. It is not primary source material. It is not authoritative. In the case of science, it is not original science. No paper prepared for publication, including original thesis work, may cite ANYTHING other than original science. I am sure a few secondary references occasionally escape undetected, but the are nevertheless, contrary to policy. Papers prepared for credit may cite secondary sources at the discretion of the instructor, but Wikipedia is not an acceptable secondary reference under any scircumstances.
As for your renewed claims that all of the scientific bodies indirectly referenced by you endorse the Alarmist Thesis, nothing could be further from the truth. Do they endores the thesis that man is contributing to the net global climate through various human emissions? Yes. Virtually all of them do. But how many of them endorse the catastrophe presented by Al Gore in his deceptive movie, "An Inconvenient Truth"? Not one that I have ever seen, but perhaps you can illuminate and show me one. Challenge: produce one credible primary reference to an establsihed scientific body that predicts sea level will rise 23 feet or more in the next century. I don't think you can.
Orthography;
December 18, 2008 - 19:47 ET by Giles Winterbournetypography is, to be simplistic, font. For a fairly thorough discussion of orthography, see http://en.wikipedia.... , but there are plenty of books if you druther.
"Papers prepared for credit may cite secondary sources at the discretion
of the instructor, but Wikipedia is not an acceptable secondary
reference under any scircumstances."
Wikipedia, like Encyclopaedia Britannica, is a tertiary source. Neither would be considered as authoritative; much less, secondary. Which is the point. From middle school - and usually elementary - on, citing a tertiary source is not acceptable (beyond a necessary definition).
In this forum, where we have long lists of newspaper accounts routinely submitted as that poster's proof that firmly established basic science is wrong, self-published articles that never see a review process, articles with no references,and anecdotal, unreferenced weather reports provided as proof that AGW theory is wrong, obviously does not require the same standards.
"You claim to be an Acacdemician. I see that virtually all of your
references are the Wikipedia. The few that aren't are from know
partisan hacks like RealClimate."
I think this started due to citing a Wikipedia compilation of science organizations that have official statements in support of the science showing man's effect on the climate. It's a simple list, supported by links to each organization's full statement.
I guess you'd also include the Royal Society, Science, works cited in IPCC, U.S Geological Service, DOE as '..from know
partisan hacks like RealClimate ' also. You know, bald-face lying doesn't strengthen your case.
Or it is from a link providing a simple definition and etymology. Corroborated with four dictionary definitions.
Your last para beggars description. What do you mean? 'Virtually ...' - can you show one on that list that doesn't support the science showing man's effect on the climate?
Each of the organizations explain exactly what they support.
Wikipedia is a worthless source
December 18, 2008 - 23:08 ET by PopularTechThe Anti Wikipedia Resource
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Yeah, that is good debating technique.
December 19, 2008 - 11:46 ET by Giles WinterbourneYeah, that is good debating technique.
So, what is incorrect in either the definition of Ipse-dixitism or in the list of 40 some major scientific organizations' statements of support of the science showing CO2 being the cause of global warming?
A list with links to each original statement, a definition corroborated by four dictionaries, v. a bald statement with no support from one who insists that newspaper articles equal scientific study.
So we wind up with a list of news stories about wind farms; sorta reminds me of the 70's stories about Detroit not able to build safe fuel efficient cars, houses with 'too good' sealing and so expensive because of the added insulation.... Or 'proof' that there isn't a sea-level rise because '...I live on the beach and it is in the same spot it was 15 years ago' or that coal is non-polluting because 'I never had to clean soot from the driveway, windows, car, etc..'
You know, we could dig up a list of news articles about cell phones and brain cancer, computer screens and eye problems, benefits of auricular candling,....
And the funny thing is that much of the hue and cry about using Wikipedia is actually a real life issue abut using most any general search engine's results without putting those sources through critical analysis. Or blindly accepting a paper because you liked what they wrote previously, has Ph.D after his name, an official sounding organization behind it, or it fits your paradigm.
Propaganda is a debating Technique?
December 23, 2008 - 21:46 ET by PopularTechPropagandizing 40 organizations as in support of AGW when no vote by their membership body was ever taken is dishonest. Now please provide the scientific survey of their members on this issue.
Increased Fuel efficiency has killed people Giles
Death by the Gallon (PDF) (USA Today)
I realize you don't care about other people's lives but I do.
It is so sad that you still don't get your obvious computer illiteracy constantly sourcing Wikipedia. Anyone with a remote understanding of computers just keeps laughing at your trying to defend it - it is getting embarrassing.
The Anti Wikipedia Resource
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Same tired old debunked hack
December 12, 2008 - 10:21 ET by NL207Same tired old debunked hack science, Giles.
The latest data continue to indicate human caused climate change is (1) not outside the envelope of natural variation demonstrated by paleoclimate reconstructions of recent geologic history, ~2.5 million years. (2) is not in aggregate, harmful to the biomass of earth.
For most Conservatives an Libertarians, it comes down to this: You team proposes that climate change is a catastrophe and is predominantly caused by humans, in spite of the mountain of evidence to the contrary. To "solve" this "crisis", your team proposes government intrusion into private life and against private property on a scale heretofore unseen on this planet. As such, you are seen by all Conservatives and Libertarians as an enemy of the Republic, an enemy of liberty, and an enemy of the people.
Our team does not want to impose the yoke of government tyranny upon the people, especially to try to prevent a catastrophe that has not been proven to be a catastrophe and not even necessarily a bad thing in total.
Sic semper tyrannis.
This is the only response for thugs like you.
1st para
December 12, 2008 - 11:35 ET by Giles Winterbournehttp://en.wikipedia.... and about seven of these
http://www.nizkor.or...
Not to mention, unsupportable.
2nd para - No, a thorough review of the literature shows most proposed programs are not only designed to move us back from a scientifically well-established range of tipping points, but also are effective boosters of economic sectors, improve technology infrastructures.
It is also worth noting that the 'intrusion' meme was also fairly rampant in the era that brought us child labor laws, laws supporting safer working conditions in mines and factories, beginnings of environmental protections, gov't health standards for water, food, housing, and a host of other progressive ideas that we take for granted now.
Giles
December 12, 2008 - 11:41 ET by botgdo you really expect anyone to hit a link to wiki about a disputed theory? good god man get a clue!
----- Radical Liberal
A bit of tech support
December 12, 2008 - 12:44 ET by Giles WinterbourneIf you mouse over the link the full url is displayed in the bottom matter of your browser.
Since not reading past en.wiki... means not looking up the definition of a word, here are some other sources:
Giles still does not understand how Wikipedia works
December 12, 2008 - 14:33 ET by PopularTechYou cannot expect a computer illiterate to understand something computer related.
The Anti Wikipedia Resource
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
4 resources in agreement
December 14, 2008 - 04:05 ET by Giles Winterbournewith Wikipedia; so of course WP must be wrong.
Take the blinders off; it's a simple definition. Supported by two published examples of use. Like OED. Which, as it happens, has relied on volunteers for 140 years.
Giles, I'm pretty sure
December 14, 2008 - 04:32 ET by hydrodynDMGiles,
I'm pretty sure Pop was alluding to a lack of perceived understanding on your part about the ins and outs of computer models (you know, the stuff that most of this AGW stuff is based on).
Agreement with what Giles?
December 14, 2008 - 08:52 ET by PopularTechThat page view of the time you looked at it? Are you that dense?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
In the Kellstedt Zahran, & Vedlitz
December 13, 2008 - 00:25 ET by Giles Winterbournepaper, do you know how they defined 'more informed', do you have the statistics, know how they ran the models?
Yes, used models......
And you do know, of course, that there is a fair body of research showing that self-identified experts tend not to be...
Giles - who and what are you talking to?
December 13, 2008 - 10:40 ET by PopularTechYour Random desperate comments make less sense with each post.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Texas A&M
December 14, 2008 - 10:31 ET by Giles WinterbourneThe Texas A&M one. Odd you didn't recognize:
Giles is beyond desperate to keep people misinformed
December 14, 2008 - 12:03 ET by PopularTechStatistical Models used to analyze phone survey data has nothing to do with climate models.
Odd I have not memorized all the author names of all the papers I have read? Especially when my source link does not mention them. What?
I can understand your desperation with this study as it clearly shows that the more informed one is the less they are concerned about global warming. So it is in your best interests to keep them misinformed. Well that will never happen here.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Good god, man
December 17, 2008 - 13:19 ET by Giles WinterbourneYou're citing a news report you didn't even read? "Especially when my source link does not mention them. What?" Actually, the lead author is quoted and the title is supplied. So it's not really difficult to read the actual study. You know, to find out if the reporting is complete and accurate, if their methodology fits, who they referenced, what discussion of the paper has been done. Basic research. Not doing it shows a level of incuriosity and possibly an intent to deceive the reader.
"Statistical Models used to analyze phone survey data has nothing to do with climate models." Check in with your old profs about that. Then get back to us. Until then, it could go under 'Kids say the darndest things.'
"I can understand your desperation with this study as it clearly
shows that the more informed one is the less they are concerned about
global warming."Actually, since there is a problem in self-identifying expertise (also well studied), not defining how it was ascertained puts most of the rest of the paper's validity in question. Or, since most studies show that self-identified expertise tends to be high for those subsequently tested and found to be low in actual expertise, it is showing that those who've made up their mind without significant research tend to ignore what doesn't fit their paradigm.
Here we go again
December 17, 2008 - 22:25 ET by PopularTechGiles, I read it you are now trying everything you can to discredit it. I understand why, it is obvious. You cannot have people becoming more informed as they will lose faith.
Again Giles, I don't memorize the authors of every paper I have read, that paper I have filed in my mind as a study from Texas A&M which is why it is sourced as such.
How about I get back to you right now, they have nothing to do with each other.
I understand Giles you wish to define who is an expert just like everything else, you have no such power. I understand the frustration it must be unberiable having zero control.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
“the next great global
December 10, 2008 - 17:08 ET by motherbelt“the next great global industry is going to be energy technology --
clean power, clean water, clean energy. It simply has to be --
otherwise, we’re not going to survive as a planet. I know that for
sure, Campbell.” (emphasis mine)
Well, to the liberal lexicon that includes "It's a fact that," "The truth of the matter is," and "That's a fact." we can now add "I know that for sure."
In the seventies they knew "for sure" that we were going to "freeze to death in the dark," have food riots by 1990 and by 2000 half the world population was going to be dead from starvation.
trope
December 12, 2008 - 03:28 ET by Giles WinterbourneThat 'global cooling' trope has been promulgated by anti-scientific propagandists in an effort to imply that climate science has been inaccurate for years. Unfortunately for those propagandists, studies show there were more papers written in the '70s about warming than cooling.
Most of what people remember as discussion about cooling was a small handful of sensationalist magazine articles and books. Hardly the level of data and research that supports Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Global Cooling in the 70s
December 12, 2008 - 14:22 ET by PopularTech1970 - Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age (The Washington Post)
1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post)
1974 - Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine)
1975 - Climate Changes Called Ominous (PDF) (The New York Times)
1975 - Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News)
1975 - In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife)
1975 - Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times)
1975 - The Cooling World (Newsweek)
1976 - The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (Book)
1976 - Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report)
1977 - The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Oh, please
December 19, 2008 - 19:57 ET by Giles Winterbourne65-79 Survey of the scientific literature
"44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling"
Likewise there is no real basis for the alarmist predictions of an imminent ice age which have largely been based on extrapolation of the 30-year trend of falling temperatures between 1940 and 1965. Apart from the strong dubiety of making a forecast from such a highly fluctuating record by extrapolation of such a short period trend, there is now evidence that the trend has been arrested."
Giles you are being a goofus
December 19, 2008 - 20:03 ET by cocodrieYou twist numbers into meaningless statements to support a rediculous belief in a failed idea. Better go snuggle up to Algore to keep warm. We 're in for a long, severe winter. This is only the beginning. Dress warm.
?
December 20, 2008 - 03:00 ET by Giles WinterbourneBut no examples or exegesis....
hmmmm,
Nor an attempt to prove your contentions.
Media Clearly pushed Global Cooling in the '70s
December 23, 2008 - 22:23 ET by PopularTechPoor Giles, the media clearly hyped the Ice Age hysteria in the 70s
1969 - New Ice Age Threat Seen (St. Petersburg Times, January 15, 1969)
1969 - Worrying About a New Ice Age (The New York Times, February 23, 1969)
1969 - Ice Age Biggest Threat According to Archeologist (The Hartford Courant, November 21, 1969)
1970 - Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 - Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 - New Ice Age Coming - It's Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1972 - British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 - Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 - Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 - Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 - Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 - 2 Scientists Think 'Little' Ice Age Near (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 - Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1975 - Climate Changes Called Ominous (PDF) (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 - Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 - B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 - The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 - The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 - Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 - In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1976 - Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1976 - The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (Book, 1976)
1977 - The Big Freeze (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 - The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book, 1977)
1978 - Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1979 - New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Time for the S&P to slash
December 10, 2008 - 17:09 ET by Teddythe New York Times revenue rating to that of junk (science) status.
Oh, Wait! Never mind, Tommy.
Thomas Friedman
December 10, 2008 - 17:18 ET by NorthCoasterWhat world do you live in where jobs would be guarunteed simply because they will be "Green" jobs? The street sweepers disappeared because it was no longer necessary to pick up horse hockey in our towns. This was a public health related position that changed because of innovation (sweeper vehicles) and the demise of horse drawn vehicles. It took 50 years for sweepers to age out but things change with time. There is no guarantee that any job will be around tomorrow let alone years from now.
Wow. A New York Timer
December 10, 2008 - 17:22 ET by mattmWow. A New York Timer calling for environmental radicalism....what a shock.
Save the planet - shut down the Times.
Exactly how radical?
December 10, 2008 - 23:02 ET by ThisnThatWhen stupid Friedman says "environmental radicalism", what exactly does he mean? Does he mean that people should take part in guerrilla activies carried out by environmental protest groups? Would the NYT support such activities; or if not actively support it, would the NYT suppress negative stories about such activities?
Or, would Friedman support the use of enviornmental protection laws to shut down industry, and shut down the military? Is he going to start a campaign, using the NYT editorial board, of pushing this radicalism down our throats?
People like Friedman remind me of small-minded men who are given a position of influence, and they misuse it to promote their own warped views. Too bad, but what do you expect these days from the NYT?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Crater
December 10, 2008 - 17:24 ET by nkviking75For Friedman, it must not be enough for Obama to make the economy crater. We need to make the crater so deep that it becomes a tunnel to the other side.
Welcome to the era of unity, you racist!
More Liberal BS
December 10, 2008 - 18:16 ET by ConservativeFLMore liberal BS, all those whose worship at the alter of algore. "Man made global warming is certain, no it's not, yes it is." Who cares? I'm not buying it.
Sounds like two third graders on the P.E. field trying to figure out whose dad could beat each other up.
"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15." Ronald Reagan
This economically
December 10, 2008 - 20:14 ET by fitzfongThis economically illiterate eco-parasite is getting more and more brazen and arrogant by the minute. Thomas Friedman has zero credibility, yet his profile keeps growing. In future, he's going to have to whore himself out to DNCNN and MSDNC because it's beginning to look like the Times could fold. If Pinch was smart, he'd save a hell of a lot of money dropping this ignorant pantload...he could keep the operation going for another month, at least.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Obama is economically illiterate - Government cannot create jobs
December 10, 2008 - 21:49 ET by PopularTech"Obama wants to create millions of new jobs via various environmental schemes. It is important to remember, though, that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The resources to create all these jobs must come from somewhere, and if the government is to get the resources to create these jobs, they must redirect them from other lines of employment. Where government intervention is involved, jobs created in one sector are jobs destroyed in another."
Economic Illiteracy Is Not the Change We Need (Art Carden, Ph.D. Professor of Economics)
Government Projects do not "Create Jobs" (Ludwig Von Mises Institute)
The Fallacy of 'Green Jobs' (John Stossel, RealClearPolitics)
The Fallacy That Government Creates Jobs (Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D. Economics)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
I wished Friedman, and all
December 10, 2008 - 23:44 ET by bigtimerI wished Friedman, and all his ilk... would be Cap and Traded.
Globally, anywhere but on our shores...permanently.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Ms. All Bias - All Bull
December 11, 2008 - 01:08 ET by BW222Billing her show as "No Bias, No Bull" is a blatent lie, even for CNN.
Campbell Brown's Dad spent a few years in the slammer for insurance fraud and she's an even bigger fraud than he was. I guess it runs in the family.
She has one of the most annoying voices in broadcast news, but she's cute and I imagine she "interviews well."
BW222
Everytime I see Friedman I
December 11, 2008 - 07:32 ET by msh1973Everytime I see Friedman I just want to "smack'um" right up side the head. Sorry about that if I offended anyone. LOL.
Tossing thunderbolts.
December 11, 2008 - 10:02 ET by ahusserI have just watched Giles and Popular toss thunderbolts at each other. Dueling "sources" to mix the metaphor. Giles I am not averse to a cleaner environment, but there are costs. You are a true believer in the alarmist theory of climate change but the effects of which, even if true, are all over the map. We cannot even be sure if we do "this" and "that" (whatever "fix" the radical environmentalists want) will solve any climate or environmental problem even if it exists. How can anyone, in good conscience risk destroying the U.S. economy on an environmental crap shoot. Recall what four dollar gas did recently to the economy. The cure may be worse than the "disease". If the radical environmental movement successfully attacks coal, nuclear and oil what do we have left as an energy source? Whale oil? Wood? Charcoal? No matter how much folks like Giles wish it this world cannot at present run without oil or coal and personally I don't wish to lower my standard of living on some truly unproven theory. If nature throws us a curve ball at least I know it isn't personal, malicious or politically motivated and at present I cannot in good conscience trust what these environmentalists say because their agenda, motivations political or personal are unclear and muddy the waters. At the present time there are no alternative sources of energy which can compete on infrastructure, efficiency and economy as well as oil and coal and until such time any "solution" will be destructive rather than constructive.
Change: When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles. From a Poster
Giles See the Graphics in this article
December 11, 2008 - 14:40 ET by NorthCoasterSee Romms Fairy Tales for a graphic of CO2 and Hadley---CRU Temp trends. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
How do you explain the graphics?
Global Warming has nothing to do with Pollution
December 11, 2008 - 20:24 ET by PopularTechEveryone wants a cleaner environment but the debate about AGW or "Man-Made" Global Warming has NOTHING to do with air pollution. The public is completely confused on this issue, which is why so many blindly support Al Gore's crusade:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Clean air is already regulated under the clean air act.
The environmentalists seek nothing less than the destruction of western civilization, namely capitalism to impose their socialist/communist agendas, the scary part is they do not even deny this - go ask them: Capitalism or Socialism?
Our major sources of energy are Coal, Oil, Natural Gas and Nuclear Power. Without these our societies and economies would ground to a halt. Your points are right on and something that everyone needs to hear.
Warmer than....when?
December 11, 2008 - 14:52 ET by Gary HallSometimes, even while they are patting themselves on each other's backs over the "proof," they don't even read what they are saying:
This National Academy of Sciences report was highlighted all over the MSM as proof of man-made global warming. Proof of what?
LA Times highlights the US Panel Backs Data, by noting the % numbers defining the panel's confidence in the data:
Well, that doesn't sound so bad - after all that was smack in the middle of the "little ice age." It always warms up for 300-400 years in these cycles.
OK, we can buy that. They are 95% confident that it is warmer now then smack in the middle of the Little Ice Age.
Makes sense - less confident in the 600 years before 1600, because they don't have good data.
Wow - they are about 67% confident in their findings. Not 100% confident. The debate is over. Settled science. Well! No wonder they are shocked that some scientists are curious about that other 33%.
Well then. That explains why the media supports it, does it not?
Warmer than the Little Ice Age? No Kidding!
December 11, 2008 - 20:30 ET by PopularTechFACT: All the NAS study concluded was that recent temperatures are warmer than the Little Ice Age (no kidding)
Here are some quotes directly from the report:
"Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" [...]
Prior to about 1600, ...periods of medieval warmth are seen in a number of diverse records, including historical information from Europe and Asia; cave deposits; marine and lake sediments; and ice cores from Greenland, Ellesmere Island, Tibet, and the equatorial Andes. [...]
Using proxies sensitive to hydrologic variables (including moisture-sensitive trees...) to take advantage of observed correlations with surface temperature could lead to problems [...]
For tree ring chronologies, the process of removing biological trends from ringwidth data potentially obscures information on long-term changes in climate. [...]
Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the "Medieval Warm Period") and a relatively cold period (or "Little Ice Age") centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse ...set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia"
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Pop - Good job
December 11, 2008 - 23:06 ET by Gary HallPop - Good job.
If only they could read their own stuff! gary
Gore was right--
December 11, 2008 - 23:20 ET by misterbillToday's weather----
"The same storm system that brought snow and wind to the KC area on Tuesday brought record setting snow to parts of SE TX, S LA, and Mississippi. Below is a preliminary map of the snowfall totals for C MS. As you can see 8" of snow fell in parts of the state with widespread 5". This is incredible for so far south, anytime of the year."
Like in "yeah, right!".
Also
December 12, 2008 - 01:38 ET by Giles Winterbourneremember, the uncritical reader is putting faith in the writer having good intentions in those omissions. Ellipses tend to raise questions in the mind of the more thoughtful and critical reader.
You really think that those few excerpts convey the full report, which runs to 160 pages?
They are in the report
December 12, 2008 - 14:23 ET by PopularTechThe report clearly states what is posted much to your dismay.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Giles.... You
December 13, 2008 - 18:35 ET by Clear thinkerGiles....
You inconsiderate boob, what about the poor little polar bears?
Global Warming Update
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
hot, cold, hot, cold, hot, cold
December 11, 2008 - 20:46 ET by porpoiseboysaw this on ace of spades today.....and i don't know about you, but i see stuff like this almost daily
650 Scientists Dissent Against IPCC's and Al Gore's Global Warming Fantasias
—Ace
Some killer quotes here. These quotes are not, if I'm understanding it right, quotes from the report they're set to report, but previous quotes from the skeptics which preview their upcoming report.
This whole scam got started in the late eighties and went viral in 1998, the hottest recent year. But since 1998, the earth has been cooling. Not warming. Defying their predictions.
The scammers like to claim (to the extent they address this fact at all) that 10 years is far too short an interval to make projections by. And yet their evidence for worldwide, inevitable, increasing warming is based on the records from 1980-1998, an interval of all of eighteen years.*
"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason" Ben Franklin
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
See Also
December 12, 2008 - 00:26 ET by Giles Winterbournehttp://climateprogre...
See Also the Facts Giles
December 12, 2008 - 14:29 ET by PopularTechNO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming
Sea level isn't rising at all, I live on the beach and it is in the same spot it was 15 years ago.
Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud (PDF) (Nils-Axel Mörner, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics)
Sea-level Expert: It’s Not Rising! (PDF) (Nils-Axel Mörner, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics)
The Sun is the main driver of climate changes.
The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (The Danish National Space Center)
"...over the past 20 years the solar cycle remains fully apparent in
variations both of tropospheric air temperature and of ocean subsurface
water temperature. [...]
When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record. For whatever reason, it is a poor guide to Sun-driven physical processes that are still plainly persistent in the climate system. [...]
...one cannot distinguish between the effects of anthropogenic gases such as carbon dioxide and of natural greenhouse gases. For example, increased evaporation means that infrared radiation from water vapor, by far the most important greenhouse gas, will tend to provide positive feedback for any global warming, ... In any case, the most recent global temperature trend is close to zero. [...]
The continuing rapid increase in carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 10-15 years has apparently been unable to overrule the °attening of the temperature trend as a result of the Sun settling at a high, but no
longer increasing, level of magnetic activity. Contrary to the argument of Lockwood and FrÄohlich, the Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change."
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Fortunately
December 17, 2008 - 12:56 ET by Giles WinterbourneFortunately, referencing "Sea level isn't rising at all, I live on the beach and it is in the same spot it was 15 years ago.", scientists have:
"...but the high end of the estimates here is still about 2m, and woe
betide any government that thinks a 2m rise in sea level isn't
something to take notice of." http://news.bbc.co.u... discussing the Pfeffer, et al paper published in Science note below.
"... the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) estimates that the global average sea level will rise by 7.2
to 23.6 inches (18-59 cm or 0.18- 0.59m) by 2100 (see Figure
1) relative to 1980-1999 under a range of scenarios.
Note that these estimates assume that ice flow from Greenland and
Antarctica will continue at the same rates as observed from 1993-2003.
The IPCC cautions that these rates could increase or decrease in the
future. For example, if ice flow were to increase linearly, in step
with global average temperature, the upper range of projected sea level
rise by the year 2100 would be 19.2 to 31.6 inches (48-79 cm or
0.48-0.79 m)." http://www.epa.gov/c...
After discussing measured rise since 1880. "By the year 2100, the predicted level is 51 cm...."
http://www.pik-potsd...
" We consider glaciological conditions required for large sea-level rise to occur by 2100 and conclude that increases in excess of 2 meters are physically untenable. We find that a total sea-level rise of about 2 meters by 2100 could occur under physically possible glaciological conditions but only if all variables are quickly accelerated to extremely high limits. More plausible but still accelerated conditions lead to total sea-level rise by 2100 of about 0.8 meter. These roughly constrained scenarios provide a "most likely" starting point for refinements in sea-level forecasts that include ice flow dynamics." http://www.sciencema...
"Although no ice-sheet model is currently capable of capturing the glacier speedups in Antarctica or Greenland that have been observed over the last decade, including these processes in models will very likely show that IPCC AR4 projected sea level rises for the end of the 21st century are too low."
Abrupt Climate Change Final Report, Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.4 U.S. Geological Survey http://www.climatesc...
And probably worth noting the pages of references each study lists.....
Giles said it not me (IPCC: Sea Level rise only 7.2 inches)
December 23, 2008 - 22:32 ET by PopularTech"the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the global average sea level will rise by 7.2 ...inches"
For everyone else, here is some basic logic even if the temperatures rise the rate of water EVAPORATION would increase thus offsetting any sort of catastrophic sea level rise. This would also increase the amount of fresh water (which we need). Simple logic.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Hey Giles... Isn't that
December 13, 2008 - 18:36 ET by Clear thinkerHey Giles...
Isn't that the same link that claimed Karl Rove had his own weather machine?
Global Warming Update
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Oil is the cheapest it's
December 13, 2008 - 18:33 ET by Clear thinkerOil is the cheapest it's been in a very long time and the economy sucks. So you tell me, is this really the opportune time to go radical on the environment? Morons!
Global Warming Update
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Going Radical -
December 14, 2008 - 19:15 ET by Giles Winterbourne"There’s nothing wrong with mocking GM. It is a target-rich
environment that has gone the extra mile and painted a bunch of
bull’s-eyes on itself (see General Motors is full of crocks and GM’s Lutz: Wagoner is one of “the innocents,” just “the mayor of a city hit by an earthquake”).
To fire at GM and hit yourself instead thus requires a special kind of ignorance, as both cartoonist Pat Oliphant and the Washington Post exhibited Saturday when they ran this staggeringly ill-informed cartoon:"
http://climateprogre...
"At a time when major U.S. companies are announcing job layoffs
almost daily, the renewable energy industry is hiring new workers every
day to build wind farms, install rooftop solar arrays, and build solar
thermal and geothermal power plants. The output of industrial firms
that manufacture the equipment for these energy facilities is expanding
by well over 30 percent a year. These investments both create jobs and
help prevent climate change from spiraling out of control.
Among the several sources of renewable energy, wind looms large. The
United States has 24,000 megawatts of wind generating capacity already
online (think 24 coal-fired power plants), and 83 wind farms with some
8,000 megawatts of capacity are under construction. Beyond this, a
staggering 225,000 megawatts of planned wind farms are waiting for
access to transmission lines."
http://sustainablog....
"Who will the media believe this time: The Senate’s leading climate denier, James Inhofe (R-OK), or their own lying eyes?
Deniers like Inhofe have a serious media problem — an ever growing
number of studies, real world observations, and credible scientific
bodies all point to human-caused emissions as the increasingly dominant
cause of planetary warming and dangerous climate change.
What’s a denier to do? The answer is simple: Repackage previously debunked disinformation, release it as a “new” so-called “Full Senate Report” full of hysterical headlines, push it through right-wing news outlets, and hope the traditional media bites. Why not? It worked before.
Here is the screaming headline this week from Inhofe staffer Marc Morano"
http://climateprogre...
"Inhofe and sidekick Marc Morano merit credit for using their positions
of power quite effectively to do great damage to our abilities to move
toward sensible policies that might actual provide a prosperous and
secure future for Americans. Giving credit where credit is due is, to
me, a quite pleasurable task. Lou Grinzo’s Inhofe Scale captures the delusional nature of the Senator from Exxon."
http://getenergysmar...
"“Bush will go down in history as possibly a person who has doomed the planet”
Some people just don’t think President Bush has done a terribly good job on climate change.
But just because he single-handedly stopped any international action on climate and reneged on his 2000 campaign pledge to regulate CO2 and stopped California from regulating tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions and muzzled climate scientists and forced Congress to drop almost all non-oil-related provisions to cut GHGs from the 2007 energy bill — that’s no reason to think the FHA (Future Historians of America), having previously named Bush the Worst President in American History will award him one of their rare Worst Leaders of All Time Awards, alongside such notables as Neville Chamberlain and Nero.
The headline quote comes from “Saleem Huq, a lead author of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report on adaptation,”
in a Greenwire (subs. req’d) article on Bush’s legacy. It continues:"
http://climateprogre...
"In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to
provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity
for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in
the most benefit among the options considered"
http://www.rsc.org/P...
"The raw energy sources that Jacobson found to be
the most promising are, in order, wind, concentrated solar (the use of
mirrors to heat a fluid), geothermal, tidal, solar photovoltaics
(rooftop solar panels), wave and hydroelectric. He recommends against
nuclear, coal with carbon capture and sequestration, corn ethanol and
cellulosic ethanol, which is made of prairie grass. In fact, he found
cellulosic ethanol was worse than corn ethanol because it results in
more air pollution, requires more land to produce and causes more
damage to wildlife. The paper with his findings will be published in
the next issue of Energy and Environmental Science but is available online now. Jacobson is also director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford."
http://www.physorg.c...
Giles continues the Eco-Propaganda
December 15, 2008 - 10:52 ET by PopularTechBesides your post being fairly incomprehensible it is pure propaganda...
1. Anyone who understand economics knows GM should go bankrupt:
Big Three Bailout - Give Me a Break (Video) (5min) (John Stossel, 20/20)
Detroit Needs Drilling, Not Bailouts (FOX News)
Don't Bail Out the Big Three (The American)
Let Detroit Go Bankrupt (The New York Times)
Say No to the Auto Bailout (CNN)
There's nothing wrong with a "Big Two" (New York Daily News)
Why Bankruptcy Is the Best Option for GM (The Wall Street Journal)
Honda opens new U.S. plant as Detroit seeks bailout (Reuters)
2. Renewable Energy, especially Wind Power is a scam:
Renewables Aren't the Answer (USA Today)
Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not "Green" (Cato Institute)
Renewable Energy Wrecks Environment, According To Researcher (Science Daily)
Windmills for Suckers (PDF) (Executive Intelligence Review)
Wind Power Exposed: The Renewable Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas (Energy Tribune)
Loss of Wind Causes Texas Power Grid Emergency (Reuters)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Good God, LaRouche?
December 15, 2008 - 12:46 ET by Giles WinterbourneYou're expecting us to consider you as a reliable resource and you quote LaRouche? Really?
FYI, that article has terminal errors in the math at about the second step. Reread it and see if you can find it.
Also the comparison between nuclear and wind for electricity generation starts out with at least two errors regarding space requirements, false representation of outputs, and incomplete analysis of environmental requirements (which is funny in the sense that that is supposed to be the thesis of the paper...).
Did you notice on last night's MtP Mitt couldn't offer any rebuttal to Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm's number crunching of Romney's talking point numbers beyond a 'you're wrong'? Good show, that. Real proof those talking points have substance....
And, NYDailyNews? Really!? "Up to the minute New York news, sports, gossip, entertainment, lifestyle, opinion, borough news, columnists, blogs, photo galleries, polls, discussion groups and forums, classifieds and more from NYDailyNews.com" (their meta desc.) Yeah, that's a source. Not necessarily for a reasonable discussion about anything substantive, but I guess an important one for something....
Sorta like using Milloy as a resource. A resource who seems to have a problem actually citing sources, relying on talking point memos.
Then we move up in quality to USA today.... Opinion piece not (after getting the actual link, not the Cato reprint) acknowledging that that wind turbines are being built and installed and generating power while coal can't figure out how to build a working 'clean coal' plant. Written by an econ professor who can't come up with a source for any of his assertions. Jeez, even the nutcase on the corner can shake their bible as proof...
FYI, Honda and Toyota both support Big3 bailout... Even mentioned in one of the stories.....
Giles desperately tries to defend his propaganda
December 15, 2008 - 14:59 ET by PopularTechYes even a fellow socialist dislikes Wind Power Giles.
There is no question the amount of space required by nuclear equivalent wind power is massive. The outputs are not false but based on real world use not fantasy.
The NY Daily News is the fith largest Newspaper in the Country. Wow your list fits the New York Times - now there is a source.
Romney understand more about economics then you have forgotten. Look Giles I understand you are also economically illiterate but what else is new.
Since you got the reprint in USA Today did the Cato source leave anything out? Nope.
Wind turbines are only being built because the government is subsidizing them. Who the hell cares about clean coal.
Giles you are like a sad desperate man shouting in the dark.
I got plenty of sources Giles, hundreds.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
"...even a fellow socialist dislikes Wind Power..." ?
December 15, 2008 - 16:44 ET by Giles Winterbourne"...even a fellow socialist dislikes Wind Power..." ?
re: The outputs are not false but based on real world use not fantasy
http://gristmill.gri... as one exegesis.
The story is so full of erroneous assumptions, faulty math, and RW
cant it didn't get much exposure beyond the usual RW linking.
NYDT: Why would 'fith largest Newspaper in the Country.. ' equate to being a quality news source for serious discussion? Their stated purpose: "Up to the minute New York news, sports, gossip, entertainment,
lifestyle, opinion, borough news, columnists, blogs, photo galleries,
polls, discussion groups and forums, classifieds and more from
NYDailyNews.com".
"Romney understand(s) more about economics then you have forgotten."
- Perhaps, but that doesn't address the fact that he couldn't support
his R. talking points when confronted with the errors by Granholm. So
adding an extraneous insult - seemingly because that is the best one
can do under the circumstances - is support?
Interesting that you made the choice to state it as USAToday (where it
originated on their blog pages) then linked to Cato's reprint. Didn't
like the comments at
http://blogs.usatoda...
perhaps?
"Wind turbines are only being built because the government is subsidizing them."
An admittedly biased source, but with links to data that would be difficult to disprove: http://www.awea.org/... other factsheets at http://www.awea.org/... disprove other R. talkingpoints.
"I got plenty of sources Giles, hundreds."
-Never disputed that. But massive bookmarking doesn't equate to
substantive discussion, thoughtful analysis, quality of research, nor
quality of those resources. And there is the matter of being truthful - citing a 2006 survey when the 2007 survey from the same source didn't support your contention.
Giles discredits the New York Times!
December 15, 2008 - 19:37 ET by PopularTechThe New York Daily News clearly says NEWS, there is no law against covering different subjects in the same paper or are you against the New York Times? sports, gossip, entertainment (I guess adding in Opera and naming it 'Arts' makes you elitist), of course splitting your lifestyle section into three parts makes you extra special: style, health, travel. I guess the New York Times is not for serious discussion.
Wait that is it? You can farm around Wind Turbines? Is that a joke?
Granholm is a socialist and doesn't understand economics like you. Bailouts cannot fix anything, they can only make it worse.
I try not to link to sources where they censor opposing comments or are spammed by alarmists like you.
I am against all subsidies but the oil subsidies are not what you linked:
"Big Oil" at the Public Trough? An Examination of Petroleum Subsidies (Cato Institute)
Sorry to disappoint Giles but there is no emotion in analysis and all I have are quality resources.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
And now, the rest of the story
December 15, 2008 - 21:51 ET by Giles Winterbournehttp://gristmill.gri...
continues for several paras after discussing duel use of land. Discussing along the way the shortage of uranium, problems with storage of 'spent' fuel, and higher cost of generation.
So, read the whole thing. Might be difficult if you're used to reading the précis.
And I guess we're to trust to Ipse-dixitism for corroboration on '...even a fellow socialist dislikes Wind Power...' and '...Granholm is a socialist...'
Right, '...the oil subsidies are not what you linked...'; I pointed to a source discussing wind energy subsidies in comparison to nuclear and oil subsidies using primary sources. The Cato oil apologia uses a preponderance of secondary and opinion sources.
Ipse-dixitism again: '...all I have are quality resources.' For review:
Giles lies about Nuclear Power
December 16, 2008 - 09:10 ET by PopularTech- There is plenty of Uranium resources to sustain the growth of Nuclear Power (NEA)
- 95% of the material in a spent fuel rod can be recycled for energy and medical isotopes (WSJ)
Recycling Nuclear Fuel: The French Do It, Why Can’t Oui? (FOX News)
Former 'No Nukes' Protester: Stop Worrying and Love Nuclear Power (Wired)
Going Nuclear - A Green Makes the Case (The Washington Post)
Greenpeace is wrong - we must consider nuclear power (Patrick Moore, B.Sc. Forest Biology, Ph.D. Ecology)
Let's Have Some Love for Nuclear Power (The Wall Street Journal)
Nuclear option 'must be examined' (BBC)
Why greens must learn to love nuclear power (Mark Lynas, New Statesman)
Giles you are socialist and so was Larouche. I thought you knew so much about him with your knee-jerk comments. I guess you have been reading the wrong sources.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Cap't Queeg
December 16, 2008 - 13:25 ET by Giles WinterbourneA couple of sources 'missed' in the compilation:
"If estimates of current (2006) rates..Identified Resource base would be sufficient for about 100 years of reactor supply.."
Uranium 2007: Resources, Production and Demand
By International Atomic Energy Agency Staff, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, International Atomic Energy Agency, OECD, Nuclear Energy Agency Staff 2008
"The proved reserves (=reasonably assured below 40 $/kgU extraction cost) and stocks will be
exhausted within the next 30 years at current annual demand. Likewise, possible resources –
which contain all estimated discovered resources with extraction costs of up to 130 $/kg –
will be exhausted within 70 years."
www.lbst.de/publicat...
"Geologists also estimate that there are about 35 million tons of uranium out there regardless of the cost of mining it (geologists call this identified resources). With nuclear power replacing all fossil fuels, even these would be used up in 29 years
At a recent meeting, the Group of Eight major industrial countries agreed to reduce carbon emissions 50 percent by 2050. Suppose nuclear energy increased just enough each year to enable fossil-fuel use to decline at a constant annual rate, to 50 percent by 2050, while nuclear power therefore increased to provide 50 percent of the world's energy.
At this rate of use, uranium reserves would run out by 2019, and the estimated maximum of 35 million metric tons of uranium in identified resources would run out by year 2038, gaining us less than two decades."
http://www.iht.com/a...
http://www.eia.doe.g...
'Giles you are socialist and so was Larouche.' And previously, Granholm has also been identified as a socialist.
Seen your palm tree recently?
Or are you going to pull a piece of paper out of your pocket and proclaim, "I have here in my hand a list of 205...."
Waiting, waiting, waiting, here it comes. The long list of resources proving McCarthy was right....
Uranium Reserves can last 2500 Years using Fast Breeder Reactors
December 16, 2008 - 14:09 ET by PopularTechGiles you need to do your homework better. Nuclear power is more than sufficient to supply us with electricity for over 2500 years!
- There is plenty of Uranium resources to sustain the growth of Nuclear Power (Nuclear Energy Agency)
- There is enough Uranium to last over 2500 years using fast breeder reactor technology (International Atomic Energy Agency)
Abundant uranium reserves make nuclear viable long-term option (Mining Weekly)
Global Nuclear Expansion Based on Plentiful Uranium Supply (Environment News Service)
Global Uranium Resources to Meet Projected Demand (International Atomic Energy Agency)
Uranium resources: plenty to sustain growth of nuclear power (Nuclear Energy Administration)
Uranium resources sufficient to meet projected nuclear energy requirements long into the future (Nuclear Energy Administration)
China: Nuclear body says uranium reserves sufficent for power developmen (China Daily)
India has 113,000 tonnes of uranium reserves (The Economic Times, India)
Russian uranium reserves up 275% since 2006 (RIA Novosti)
Russia: Uranium Reserves Top One Million Tons (The St. Petersburg Times, Russia)
I hate embarrassing you like this Giles.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT -- Is that fission or
December 16, 2008 - 14:21 ET by Jack BauerPT -- Is that fission or fusion reactors?
Which one of these nuclear techologies uses the "Suns" method with Hydrogen. Which I believe, for all intents and purposes, is limitless?
These Reactors use Nuclear Fission
December 16, 2008 - 14:32 ET by PopularTechThe Sun is Nuclear Fusion. With the new reactor designs and the ability to recycle fuel, uranium will last a very, very long time.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
→ Nuclear Power
December 16, 2008 - 15:22 ET by Cool ArrowThis, I believe, is the future of home electricity needs.
We're not reading a lot about self-contained nuclear batteries yet, but we will.
$25 million spread out over 5 years and 20,000 households is some pretty cheap electricity from a source no bigger than a hot tub.
Toshiba just sold one opps; ( gave one away)!
December 16, 2008 - 18:11 ET by upcountrywaterin Alaska
The small town of Galena, Alaska, is tired to pay 28 cents/kwh for its
electricity, three times the national average. Today, Galena "is
powered by generators burning diesel that is barged in during the Yukon
River's ice-free months," according to Reuters.
But Toshiba, which designs a small nuclear reactor named 4S (for "Super
Safe, Small, & Simple"), is offering a free reactor to the
700-person village, reports the New York Times
(no reg. needed). Galena will only pay for operating costs, driving
down the price of electricity to less than 10 cents/kwh. The 4S is a
sodium-cooled fast spectrum reactor -- a low-pressure, self-cooling
reactor. It will generate power for 30 years before refueling and
should be installed before 2010 providing an approval by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
EDIT: get one in your town
FREEDOM
(D)
→ Thanks UCW
December 16, 2008 - 18:30 ET by Cool ArrowTechnology developed in New Mexico comes to fruition in the United States via Japan.
Imagine that!
Those who say it can't be done should get out of the way of those who are doing it.
Yea Cool This is the fastest route, to get rid of the OPECers
December 16, 2008 - 18:42 ET by upcountrywaterWill the 0ne jump on this and we can have one in every small town!
I do not think any one (in this country) will have this technology..
[the unit]should be installed before 2010 providing an approval by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
as in FAT CHANCE.
FREEDOM
(D)
→ Nuclear batteries
December 16, 2008 - 18:48 ET by Cool ArrowImagine the cost savings an Automobile Manufacturer would enjoy by using this technology.
These are the solutions Detroit should have been investigating rather than which legislators can be bought.
I wonder what Ford's monthly utility bill is?
Cool, I know you seen this OLD 50's tech..
December 16, 2008 - 19:00 ET by upcountrywaterFord Nucleon, 5,000 miles per fill up
FREEDOM
(D)
Some light reading on Wind Power
December 16, 2008 - 09:13 ET by PopularTechWindmills for Suckers (PDF) (Executive Intelligence Review)
Wind Power Exposed: The Renewable Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas (Energy Tribune)
Loss of Wind Causes Texas Power Grid Emergency (Reuters)
When the wind doesn't blow (BBC)
Out of Control (Video) (17min)
Energy Answer is Not 'Blowing in the Wind' (The Heartland Institute)
Homeowners living near windfarms see property values plummet (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Hot Air and Wind (Cato Institute)
Gordon Brown puffs the great wind scam (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Greenpeace Opposes Wind Farm Plan (BBC)
More Failures of Wind Energy (Hawaii Reporter)
Overblown: The Real Cost of Wind Power (Energy Tribune)
Poverty fears over wind power (BBC)
Problems With Wind Power (National Center for Policy Analysis)
Report blows hole in wind power plan (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Switch to windpower could add £6 billion a year to fuel bills (The Times, UK)
The True Cost of Electricity from Wind Power And Windmill "Availability" Factors (Minnesotans For Sustainability)
Urban wind turbines 'may be waste of time' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
US gets ready to blow its economy away (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
When the wind stops - the other side of the wind turbine argument (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind Energy: Unreliable, Heavily Subsidized (Hawaii Reporter)
Wind Energy Will Not Reduce US Oil Dependence (Minnesotans For Sustainability)
Wind Farm Claims Are So Much Hot Air (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind Farms: Blowing money on a fantasy (Daily Mail, UK)
Wind Farms fail to deliver value for money, report claims (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind Farms, hot air and spin (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind Farms may not be the answer (The Times, UK)
Wind Farms May Not Lower Air Pollution, Study Suggests (The New York Times)
Wind Farms may pose risk to shipping (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind Farms: One of the great deceptions of our time (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind Jammers (The Wall Street Journal)
Wind Power: Economic insanity of the Government's renewable energy strategy (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind Power: Red Not Green (National Center for Policy Analysis)
Wind power targets unrealistic, say critics (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind Power will push up household electricity bills (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind Turbines are 'unreliable and will cost each home £4,000' claims think-tank (Daily Mail, UK)
Why wind turbines could cause mid-winter black-outs (Daily Mail, UK)
Why Wind Won't Work (Executive Intelligence Review)
Bats:
Researchers Alarmed by Bat Deaths From Wind Turbines (The Washington Post)
Study shows hundreds of dead birds, bats at wind turbines (International Herald Tribune)
Why Wind Turbines Can Mean Death For Bats (Science Daily)
Birds:
Altamont Pass Settlement Fails to Reduce Bird Kills (The Heartland Institute)
Coastal wind farm would destroy bird haven say protesters (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Eagles Killed By Wind Farm Blades (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Enviro Group Sues Wind Farm to Stop Bird Deaths (The Heartland Institute)
Rare Bird Killed By Wide Turbine (BBC)
Sea Eagles Being Killed by Wind Turbines (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Turbine Expansion Said to Threaten Birds (FOX News)
Wind Farm 'Hits Eagle Numbers' (BBC)
Wind Farms May Threaten Whooping Cranes (Associated Press)
Wind Farm Threat to Bird Species (BBC)
Wind Turbines Hazardous to Birds, Bats (UPI)
Wind Turbines Taking Toll on Birds of Prey (USA Today)
Windmills slaughter endangered birds (The Modesto Bee)
Environmental:
Catch the Wind, Change the Weather (The New York Times)
Offshore wind power could alter ocean currents (MSNBC)
Eyesore:
Blow Back Over 'Eyesore' Wind Farms (ABC News)
The shocking picture that shows how a wind farm has disfigured one of Britain's loveliest landscapes (Daily Mail, UK)
Wind Farm? Not Off My Back Porch (ABC News)
Wind Farms Worst Eyesore in UK (BBC)
Noise:
Are wind farm turbines making people sick? Some say yes (The Kansas City Star)
Family says wind farm noise made them sick (Fort Frances Times Online)
Flicker noise from turbines a worry for Montreathmont plans (Brechin Advertiser, UK)
Wind Farm Noise 'Harms Health' (Yorkshire Post, UK)
Wind Farms 'Make People Sick Who Live Up to A Mile Away' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind turbines 'are ruining our quality of life' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind Turbine Syndrome (Nina Pierpont, Ph.D. Population Biology, M.D. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine)
Radar:
Wind Farm Blow to Radar Systems (BBC)
Wind Farm Fears For Ships' Radar (BBC)
Wind Farms 'A Threat to National Security' (The Times, UK)
Wind Farms Disrupt Radar Images (BBC)
Wind Farms 'Grounded By Air Safety Fears' (The Times, UK)
Wind Farms Threat to MoD Radar (The Press Association)
Windmill Projects Stilled For Now (USA Today)
Unsafe:
The Dangers of Wind Power (BusinessWeek)
Danish Wind Turbine Rips Itself Apart (Video Close-up )
Danish Wind Turbine Rips Itself Apart (Video Wide-angle)
242-foot Wind Turbine Snaps in Half, Killing a Worker at Top, Oregon (The Oregonian)
Big Chunk of Turbine Blade Shears Off (West Morning News, UK)
Blazing Turbine Falls Into Field, UK (BBC)
Danger Claim As Turbine Blade Snaps Off, UK (Berwickshire News)
Fire Damages Wind Turbine Near Garner, Iowa (Globe Gazette)
Man Dies After 100ft Turbine Fall, UK (BBC)
Spinning to destruction (The Guardian)
Two Giant Vestas Wind Turbines Collapse, UK (off-grid)
Unexpected Shrapnel From A Wind Turbine, UK (Habitat21)
Wind Farm Fears As Blade Snaps, UK (The Times, UK)
Wind Farm Fire Caused Blackout, Australia (NEWS.com.au)
Wind Turbine Catches Fire: Mount Storm, West Virginia (West Virginia Firefighters)
Wind Turbine Falls Near Weatherford, Oklahoma (The Oklahoman)
Wind Turbine on Fire, California (Video)
Wind Turbine on Fire (Video)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Possibly marginally suitable for writing a opinion piece
December 16, 2008 - 13:16 ET by Giles WinterbournePossibly marginally suitable for writing a opinion piece, but the vast majority of these references would not be accepted in a serious discussion.
As we've said before, massive bookmarking doesn't equate to
substantive discussion, thoughtful analysis, quality of research, nor quality of those resources. And there is the matter of being truthful - citing 2006 surveys and documents when the 2007 and 2008 surveys and documents from the same sources didn't support your contention.
You know, I know, we all know that if most of these resources were cited in any sort of research paper from middle school to university, the note back would be for a review of the resources before grading.
There is a portion of your Ipsi-dixitism that is insulting to the readers sharing your POV and basic positions. Between the fear mongering, name calling, and lying about the quality of your research, you're assuming that the rest of the readers on this site do not have the capability of critical thinking. Good luck with that.
Ipse-dixitism yet again: '...all I have are quality resources.' For review:
Giles, Arrogant ,Condescending.. Giles
December 16, 2008 - 14:01 ET by upcountrywaterHow about an apology NOW!
You are back before it reached 115F in Omaha.
-18F in Denver yesterday, a record BREAKING COLD.
No #5 hurricanes this year...
Any bets on a record cold winter this year?
The new S** word for you...HINT: this is bigger than any AGW
A Ponzi energy scheme is all you have to offer. Take more energy from the Grid to provide feel good green crap.
talk is cheep giles.
FREEDOM
Giles is a (Democrat)
→ UCW
December 16, 2008 - 14:11 ET by Cool ArrowHe just moved the goalpost.
A fond afficianado of soft bigotry of low expectations, 40° in Phoenix is sufficient to prove Global Warming.
Hi Cool, yea typical, giles with a (D)*
December 16, 2008 - 14:40 ET by upcountrywaterPT keeps hammering giles with some FACTS....
typical TROOl, comeback with his STEWPID links.
FREEDOM
(D)*
up... he's also an apposite
December 16, 2008 - 14:43 ET by Jack Bauerup... he's also an apposite anagram
G. LIES.
Nice try
December 16, 2008 - 19:03 ET by Giles Winterbournebut the difference between weather and climate is covered in your 3rd grade Science text. The difference between global and local is in second grade (and touched on in K) Geography.
Admittedly, trends and curves v. outliers isn't really dealt with 'til 6th.
But is is amazing you seem to have been absent when each of those topics were covered.
Thanks for the picture of the Sun. Too bad you missed most of the discussion about how anthropogenic CO2 in the last 150 years has been the major factor in climate change. Several actual, real science, research papers have covered that.
"The study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global warming today." http://www.skeptical...
Longer lists, called bibliographies or Works Cited or (here's a novel idea) References at www.ipcc.ch
In an interview, the lead author of a study that Inhofe/Morano misinterprets clearly states their findings http://climateprogre...
Perhaps you can explain how the Hawaii / Better Place plan is a Ponzi scheme.
And you could sit down with your 7th grade American History book and find most of the errors in the opinion piece from Arkanas.
Giles, To bad you, know NOTHING about science..
December 16, 2008 - 20:31 ET by upcountrywaterBlame man first, American man. So what if there is a ball of fire a million miles across, taking away the darkness every 12 hours.
So what if co2 was 4,000 ppm, a few million years ago..
So what! Now that the sun is sunspot free..
And a bunch of science guys say.. it's going to get colder, much colder..
And the temperature record is breaking the cold records, NOT THE HOT RECORDS.
oh yea that link of yours OLD VERY OLD.. All i'm asking of you is get up to date..
All government programs are Ponzi schemes.
Electric cars in Hawaii will use energy produced by oil ! A very inefficient method, energy losses all the way around. So what! my taxes will cover the difference.
FREEDOM
(D)
A Better Try - The Sun controls the Climate
December 16, 2008 - 22:26 ET by PopularTechCorrect Giles there is a difference between local and global temperatures.
It has not been remotely proven that anthropogenic CO2 is the major factor in climate change. The sun controls the climate not man.
100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles (Science Daily)
Changes In Sun’s Intensity Tied To Recurrent Droughts In Maya Region (Science Daily)
Cosmic Rays Linked To Global Warming (Science Daily)
Evidence For Sun-climate Link Reported By UMaine Scientists (Science Daily)
Flares From Sun's Far Side May Affect Space Weather Of Inner Planets (Science Daily)
Greater Solar Activity May Bring United States More Gray Days (Science Daily)
Holes In Sun's Corona Linked To Atmospheric Temperature Changes On Earth (Science Daily)
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate (Science Daily)
New Analysis Shows Earth's Lower Stratosphere In Synch With Solar Cycle (Science Daily)
New Experiment To Investigate Effect Of Galactic Cosmic Rays On Clouds And Climate (Science Daily)
Northern Climate, Ecosystems Driven By Cycles Of Changing Sunlight (Science Daily)
Regional Variation In Warming From Sun During Solar Cycle Shown By Satellite (Science Daily)
Scientists Determine Biological And Ecosystem Changes In Polar Regions Linked To Solar Variability (Science Daily)
Sun's Direct Role In Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report (Science Daily)
Sun's Magnetic Field May Impact Weather And Climate: Sun Cycle Can Predict Rainfall Fluctuations (Science Daily)
Sun's Past Strength Took Toll On Tropical Glaciers, Worsens Today's Outlook (Science Daily)
Surface Warming And The Solar Cycle (Science Daily)
The Sun's Chilly Impact On Earth (Science Daily)
The Sun Is More Active Now Than Over The Last 8000 Years (Science Daily)
The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (The Danish National Space Center)
"...over the past 20 years the solar cycle remains fully apparent in variations both of tropospheric air temperature and of ocean subsurface water temperature. [...]
When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record. For whatever reason, it is a poor guide to Sun-driven physical processes that are still plainly persistent in the climate system. [...]
...one cannot distinguish between the effects of anthropogenic gases such as carbon dioxide and of natural greenhouse gases. For example, increased evaporation means that infrared radiation from water vapor, by far the most important greenhouse gas, will tend to provide positive feedback for any global warming, ... In any case, the most recent global temperature trend is close to zero. [...]
The continuing rapid increase in carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 10-15 years has apparently been unable to overrule the °attening of the temperature trend as a result of the Sun settling at a high, but no longer increasing, level of magnetic activity. Contrary to the argument of Lockwood and FrÄohlich, the Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change."
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
90 Sources only Marginally Suitable to Giles
December 16, 2008 - 21:10 ET by PopularTechLMAO! You crack me up Giles.
I have written plenty of research papers in college and received good grades on all. So please spare me your nonsense. Does this mean Giles that you will stop citing biased blogs such as Grist and RealClimate? LMAO!
I think the readers can clearly see I cited valid sources and can read for themselves.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
PT -- do you have a link on
December 16, 2008 - 14:16 ET by Jack BauerPT -- do you have a link on the figures for the amount of LAND needed to support a 1000MW generating capacity.
I believe they are
1. Nuclear Power Station 2.6 sq. miles
2. Coal fired Power Station: 3.6 sq miles
3. Wind Farm: 30 sq. miles.
I wasn't sure if the Wind Farm figures include the land needed for the backup Power generation needed from either coal or nuclear generation.
A 1000 MW Wind Farm takes up 300 sq miles
December 16, 2008 - 22:15 ET by PopularTechWind Power: Red Not Green (National Center for Policy Analysis)
"To produce 1,000 MW of power, a wind farm would require approximately 192,000 acres, or 300 square miles; a nuclear plant needs less than 1,700 acres, or 2.65 square miles (within its security perimeter fence); and a coal powered plant takes up about 1,950 acres, 3.05 square miles"
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Incorrect data
December 16, 2008 - 23:43 ET by Giles Winterbourneabout Vestas http://www.oregonliv...
And not one sourced quote or statistic.
That sure is a quality source!
There is a portion of your Ipsi-dixitism that is insulting to the readers sharing your POV and basic positions. Between the fear mongering, name calling, and lying about the quality of your research, you're assuming that the rest of the readers on this site do not have the capability of critical thinking. Good luck with that.
Ipse-dixitism yet again: '...all I have are quality resources.' For review:
* http://www3.widener....
* http://www.rbs0.com/...
* http://library.usm.m...
* http://www.lib.berke...
Think about the footprint comparison: Wind, while using more space for the production facility ('wind farm'), has a small footprint in terms of building the towers, generators, and blades. Both coal and nuclear have much larger mining footprints; i.e. blowing the tops off mountains, much larger environmental impacts in mining and production and hauling product to the plant. Consider also the space required for storage of spent materials, sequestering of carbon, and general health issues of the workers.
So, to review resource evaluation (from USM)
Is the information reliable?
Check the author's credentials and affiliation. Is the author an
expert in the field?
Does the resource have a reputable organization or expert behind
it?
Are the sources of information stated? Can you verify the
information?
Can the author be contacted for clarification?
Check for organizational or author biases.
Scope:
Is the material at this site useful, unique, accurate or is it
derivative, repetitious, or doubtful?
Is the information available in other formats?
Is the purpose of the resource clearly stated? Does it fulfill
its purpose?
What items are included in the resource? What subject area, time
period, formats or types of material are covered?
Is the information factual or opinion?
Does the site contain original information or simply links?
How frequently is the resource updated?
Does the site have clear and obvious pointers to new content?
So, the NCPA is not providing a full scope of the available information, hides data by not citing sources, has obvious bias.No indication of expertise or reputation. Not authoritative, is biased, limited scope.
Really, that is quality? Really?
Napoleon Complex Giles?
December 17, 2008 - 00:12 ET by PopularTech300 sq. miles or area is needed to produce the equivalent of 1000MW of electricity using worthless wind power.
Who cares about mining, when it is done the land can be used again. No one cares about sequestering of carbon except you. The workers have a choice to work there or not, if they don't want to work they can get other jobs. Again nuclear fuel can be recycled.
Recycling Nuclear Fuel: The French Do It, Why Can’t Oui? (FOX News)
Giles no one cares about your opinion on sources - really no one cares. You cannot declare what sources are valid based on your Napoleon complex. Yes the NCPA is a quality source.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
There is a portion of your Ipsi-dixitism
December 17, 2008 - 07:16 ET by Giles WinterbourneThere is a portion of your Ipsi-dixitism that is insulting to the readers sharing your POV and basic positions. Between the fear mongering, name calling, and lying about the quality of your research, you're assuming that the rest of the readers on this site do not have the capability of critical thinking.
In this particular case, there are no citations for where their information came from. Just a vague mention of TVA and an obscure newsletter. Are they doing that to prevent fact-checking?
There are many guidelines available of helping a researcher critically analyze possible sources. A few:
* http://www3.widener....
* http://www.rbs0.com/...
* http://library.usm.m...
* http://www.lib.berke...
So, though I have helped in developing research guidelines, they are hardly a single person's effort, nor are they arbitrary.
Readers and researchers here can certainly judge for themselves whether the information being presented is unbiased, accurate, current, complete and whether the organization and the author have an agenda or even the authoritativeness they would want in a source they are basing decisions on.
Otherwise, they would be following the leader through the lairage.
The propagandist continues from the left
December 17, 2008 - 16:41 ET by PopularTechYou being a computer illiterate is not an insult it is the truth. Fear Mongering? That is what the alarmist Al Gore and you are doing. You are the only one lying about the quality of my research by trying to define what can be researched - you have no such power Giles, get over it.
I have full confidence in the readers here being able to critically think, you are the one who doesn't which is why you keep bringing this up. Readers can look at my over 90 sources and make up their own minds.
Giles all your time here, all your left wing, biased, inaccurate sources and you have yet to convince anyone - that has to be demoralizing.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
A quantitative evaluation of interest
December 16, 2008 - 22:48 ET by Giles WinterbourneA quantitative evaluation of interest
"Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security"
"Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2
includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes
corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11
categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate
damage reduction."
http://www.rsc.org/d...
Simple Solution = Do Nothing
December 17, 2008 - 00:11 ET by PopularTechI will save you some time - do nothing.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
→ Dylan was wrong
December 17, 2008 - 21:27 ET by Cool Arrow"you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" - Bob Dylan
Evidently some people do.