PDA

View Full Version : Global warming - a big, healthy dose of reality here:



david gibson
01-03-2010, 10:41 AM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6795858.html


this is by Dr. Neil Frank, a man well known and respected here in Houston:

Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.


please point this article in the direction of global warming sheep that you may know....

Gerry Clinchy
01-03-2010, 11:58 AM
Was it not mentioned in some previous discussions that increases in CO2 followed warming, rather than preceding it?

If this were correct, then the CO2 increases would be an effect, rather than a cause of the warming trend. Perhaps someone recalls that discussion?

subroc
01-03-2010, 12:17 PM
good article.

dnf777
01-03-2010, 12:27 PM
CO2 is NOT the chief greenhouse gas. Anyone who hangs their hat on CO2 is not versed in climate change. And yes, that includes Al Gore, as well as his political opponents who use CO2 to discredit the entire scientific field. I don't think science and politics are good bedfellows, and this debate proves it.

david gibson
01-03-2010, 12:55 PM
Was it not mentioned in some previous discussions that increases in CO2 followed warming, rather than preceding it?

If this were correct, then the CO2 increases would be an effect, rather than a cause of the warming trend. Perhaps someone recalls that discussion?

John Stossel pointed that out in his dissection of "Inconvenient Truth" by zooming in closer of Algores own chart.

Conveniently, Algore avoided the question then and continues to do so.

subroc
01-03-2010, 01:30 PM
CO2 is NOT the chief greenhouse gas. Anyone who hangs their hat on CO2 is not versed in climate change. And yes, that includes Al Gore, as well as his political opponents who use CO2 to discredit the entire scientific field. I don't think science and politics are good bedfellows, and this debate proves it.

If not co2, what do you, as a "normal weather pattern denier" base your belief that man is the cause of global warming?

Richard Halstead
01-03-2010, 04:15 PM
Why is it the main proponent for global warming is the same person giving talks about the effects of global warming. Meanwhile his networth has incrased by millions. Maybe if he dld the lectures pro bono he might be more believeable.

dnf777
01-03-2010, 04:19 PM
If not co2, what do you, as a "normal weather pattern denier" base your belief that man is the cause of global warming?

You won't pin me down on this....I'm not a climatologist. From my reading of what I consider reliable sources, it seems that the number one contributor or greenhouse warming is water vapor. In potency, methane is near the top. CO2 has 1/4 the effectiveness as methane in trapping heat. This is a complex issue. When you look at trends, it appears undeniable that we are contributing to the warming of our planet, or else there is an unprecedented acceleration of climate change never seen before outside of catastrophic volcanic eruptions.

I do not blindly follow Al Gore. He clearly has an agenda to promote. But I also do not follow those who dismiss global warming. We should disconnect politics from the science here, and listen to what the credible scientific community has to say. Like I've said here before, following Al Gore's lead on this, is only slightly more ridiculous as totally dismissing the problem altogether.

subroc
01-03-2010, 04:38 PM
...When you look at trends...

Like Mann's hockey stick? Mann's hockey stick is being discredited every day. So if you are using that as a basis, your entire frame of reference is called into question.


...it appears undeniable that we are contributing to the warming of our planet, or else there is an unprecedented acceleration of climate change never seen before outside of catastrophic volcanic eruptions...

I am not sure your "undeniable that we are contributing to the warming of our planet" is based on anything. That is like saying the sun will rise today, 114 people will be killed in car accidents, therefore, the sun rising caused the car accidents and their deaths. If there is significant debate in the scientific community on this, how do you get to your conclusion?

dnf777
01-03-2010, 05:08 PM
Like Mann's hockey stick? Mann's hockey stick is being discredited every day. So if you are using that as a basis, your entire frame of reference is called into question.

Since I'm not familiar with Mann's hockey stick, I genuinely doubt I'm using it as a basis. Does he play for the Penguins? :confused:


I am not sure your "undeniable that we are contributing to the warming of our planet" is based on anything. That is like saying the sun will rise today, 114 people will be killed in car accidents, therefore, the sun rising caused the car accidents and their deaths. If there is significant debate in the scientific community on this, how do you get to your conclusion?

I completely understand the difference between correlation and causality. I also understand statistical sampling error. Thats why I cringe when I hear rednecks say things like, "dad-burn, more snow in Houston...so much for global warming!" Basically, those who have let politics could their objectivity will see only what they want to see. There's no use arguing with that mentality. And to aniticipate the flames back at me, I will say that Gore is just as blinded as the right wingers, neither of which are based on scientific review.

subroc
01-03-2010, 05:12 PM
Where does gore's infor come from?

dnf777
01-03-2010, 06:01 PM
Where does gore's infor come from?

You'll have to ask him. How the he!! would I know??

david gibson
01-03-2010, 07:33 PM
. When you look at trends, it appears undeniable that we are contributing to the warming of our planet, or else there is an unprecedented acceleration of climate change never seen before outside of catastrophic volcanic eruptions.


absolutely BS. when you look at the "trends", there are many steep and short frequency adjustments, none of them matter in the long run - its the "least squares analysis" or other statistical smooting that really counts. like Neil Frank PhD said, they take models that are unpredictable at 5 -7 days and extrapolate them to 100 years and want to cry out "the sky is falling".

are you forgetting that the last 11 years shows a very strong cooling trend???

dnf777
01-03-2010, 07:54 PM
Hold on. Are you mocking taking 5-7 day trends extrapolated to 100 years, then turning right around and applying an 11 year trend to climate change time frames?? For an eleven year trend, I would refer you to your first line regarding short term adjustments...and their lack of significance. I agree with your statement on short term trends, but not in its selective application.

david gibson
01-03-2010, 07:55 PM
You won't pin me down on this....I'm not a climatologist.


why dont you entertain us and actually comment on the story i posted that is the real subject here? Dr. Neil Frank IS a climatologist. One of the foremost hurricane experts in the world. read his credentials. this guy is not only knowledgeable but plugged in. he knows the game as well as all the players. you dont serve as director of the National Hurricane Center for some 20 years for nothing.

dnf777
01-03-2010, 08:22 PM
why dont you entertain us and actually comment on the story i posted that is the real subject here? Dr. Neil Frank IS a climatologist. One of the foremost hurricane experts in the world. read his credentials. this guy is not only knowledgeable but plugged in. he knows the game as well as all the players. you dont serve as director of the National Hurricane Center for some 20 years for nothing.

I think he raised some excellent points, and questions that need to be answered. Nothing however to refute global warming. The debate seems to center around to what degree man has contributed to the change. That's been said here before. I've posted three or four times now, that to accept Al Gore's version of climate change is almost as foolish as to dismiss it altogether. I hope that entertained you. I'm sorry I didn't take your bait and try to discredit a person with excellent credentials. I don't operate that way just because I disagree with someone, even though its the typical MO on this forum.

Gerry Clinchy
01-03-2010, 09:42 PM
I think he raised some excellent points, and questions that need to be answered. Nothing however to refute global warming. The debate seems to center around to what degree man has contributed to the change.

There has been global warming and cooling long before humans had anything to do with it. It would seem reasonable that within the long-term trends (one way or the other), there were also short-term trends.

So, refuting climate change is a waste of time. However, to make drastic changes in our economies which may, or may not, have any bearing on climate change, does not seem sensible.

I think conservation is a sensible thing when applied in a sensible fashion. It is even an economic advantage when it leads to more independence from foreign sources for our energy needs. In even shorter suppy than energy is, perhaps, common sense in achieving the most beneficial end result.

subroc
01-03-2010, 10:07 PM
well said Gerry...

david gibson
01-03-2010, 10:36 PM
I think he raised some excellent points, and questions that need to be answered. Nothing however to refute global warming. The debate seems to center around to what degree man has contributed to the change. That's been said here before. I've posted three or four times now, that to accept Al Gore's version of climate change is almost as foolish as to dismiss it altogether. I hope that entertained you. I'm sorry I didn't take your bait and try to discredit a person with excellent credentials. I don't operate that way just because I disagree with someone, even though its the typical MO on this forum.

there was no bait, just wanted you to address the topic of the post. the article was not intended to refute global warming, just to show the intentions and dubious methods of those pushing it

Terry Britton
01-03-2010, 11:23 PM
The manmade global warming models are not working because there are statistically insignificant amount of data for all of the inputs required even though Al Gore (would try to lead you to believe other wise without full scientific methods backing him.

We do need to become energy independent.

dnf777
01-04-2010, 05:58 AM
there was no bait, just wanted you to address the topic of the post. the article was not intended to refute global warming, just to show the intentions and dubious methods of those pushing it

We all know by now that there are dubious methods involved ANY time there is money to be made. Its the American way! The pharmaceutical industry is full of profiteering and dubious advertising/research. That doens't mean some people don't need medicine.

Henry V
01-04-2010, 09:36 PM
There is nothing new in the article that was posted to start this thread. If the author wanted to present credible arguments he probably should not have cited as evidence a petition that anyone on this board could have logged into and signed (search "Oregon petition climate change and see for yourself).

Here are some interesting comments by other climate scientists since the email "scandal" that are worth reading:
From The American Academy for the Advancement of Science, Dec. 8, 2009
"The vast preponderance of evidence, based on years of research conducted by a wide array of different investigators at many institutions, clearly indicates that global climate change is real, it is caused largely by human activities, and the need to take action is urgent. ...
“AAAS expressed grave concerns that the illegal release of private e-mails ... should not cause policymakers and the public to become confused about the scientific basis of global climate change.”

From The Met Office (the United Kingdom’s National Weather Service), the Natural Environment Research Council and the UK’s Royal Society (the UK’s national academy of science), Nov. 24, 2009
[/I]"The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment, the most comprehensive and respected analysis of climate change to date, states clearly that without substantial global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, we can likely expect a world of increasing droughts, floods and species loss, of rising seas and displaced human populations.
“However, even since the 2007 IPCC Assessment, the evidence for dangerous, long-term and potentially irreversible climate change has strengthened. …
“Without coordinated international action on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts on climate and civilization could be severe.”[/I]

From a Statement by Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on stolen e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, United Kingdom, Dec. 4, 2009
“Working Group I of the IPCC firmly stands behind the conclusions of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the community of researchers and its individuals providing the scientific basis. ... The key finding of IPCC AR4, ‘The warming in the climate system is unequivocal,’ is based on measurements made by many independent institutions worldwide that demonstrate significant changes on land, in the atmosphere, the ocean and in the ice-covered areas of the Earth.
“The body of evidence is the result of the careful and painstaking work of hundreds of scientists worldwide.”

and, my personal favorite from Nature, the highly respected British scientific journal, in its editorial Dec. 3, 2009.
“The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, U.K., have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall.
“To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial ‘smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe. ...
“Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real – or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

Uncle Bill
01-06-2010, 05:41 PM
Let's ALL assume YOU are correct, Henry V! Please answer these simple questions:

1. Are you favoring the carbon credit system being proposed and the subject of the "Cap & Trade" bill in congress, to be voted on soon?

2. Aren't you just somewhat skeptical this program is reminiscant of the old 'sin-selling' game used by the 16th century Catholic Priests called indulgences?

3. Are you willing to have your electric bill increased by 25 to 50 % because of this new 'tax' on your way of life?

And for the benefit of many on this BB, could you please explain how this new bill and tax will benefit you personally, which is what I can't find it doing for me? It may be I'm too dense to see all the benefits, and once I see how they are benefitting you, it might be the same for me.

UB

Henry V
01-06-2010, 10:08 PM
Only for you UB.
Yes, let's assume that my point of view which is consistent with the vast majority of climate scientists is correct. Here are some simple answers to your questions. For a more detailed response you may want to look at my previous responses to your badgering in June, 2008 at http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=27604&highlight=climate+change&page=3
1) Yes, generally but I am not sure it will work at reducing carbon emissions. A direct energy tax and strong regulation may be more effective and simpler.
2) No, and I'll give you credit for trying to equate believing in science to religion.
3) Yes, I believe in full cost accounting. I think we do our children and grandchildren a tremendous disservice by externalizing the full costs of our energy consumption to them. You have peaked my curiosity, why do you believe the data and the "precise" models of the economic extremists that make these type of projections?
4) I have nothing to gain financially. I am not a climate scientist, I am not working on carbon sequestration, or development of alternative energy sources. I expect my children to gain in the long run if we conserve more energy and transition to an economy not based on overly cheap and finite sources of energy.

I don't think this new petroleum oil thing is going to work out we need to stick to whale oil regards,

Steve Amrein
01-07-2010, 09:52 AM
This question is for DNF and Henry. 30-40 years ago it was thought by science we were heading for another ice age and similar death to us all type predictions. If you were old enough and had a opinion then based on the reported science how did you feel then ? Some say this is still a valid theory and based on todays temps....

Gerry Clinchy
01-07-2010, 11:26 AM
I expect my children to gain in the long run if we conserve more energy and transition to an economy not based on overly cheap and finite sources of energy.


There is, never has been, anything wrong with conservation. Will the proposed legislation actually do that? If Al Gore is an example, he simply expects to continue consuming obscene amounts of energy by virtue of someone else doing the conserving :-)

Here in Pennsylvania, we will be forced to conserve, since our electric rates have just gone up by 30%. Since I was on a Thermal Storage system, my outlay may rise 50%!

The theory for thermal storage units was that energy consumption overnight was greatly less than during the day when businesses were using lights,heating, machinery, etc. Yet, the power company can't shut down their power generation facilities at 5PM. So, by heating water overnight (when excess energy was simply going to waste), this would provide back-up for heat pumps to draw upon during business hours. So, from 7AM to 5PM, I was penalized for drawing more than 2KWs/hour for more than 15 consecutive minutes. My experience was that it was almost impossible to do this in winter, when I was penalized about $18 for the extra 3KW I would draw. The hot water heater was also on a timer so that it did not heat water during the peak hours. Having this system had requirements: a heat pump with EER of at least 8 (back in 1991 there weren't many of those made) & a high-efficiency, 80-gal hot water heater. The cost of these requirements, over and above an "ordinary" heat pump heating system was about double ($9000 v. $5000 back in 1991). The basic "customer charge" for having such a system was also higher than a "regular" customer charge as it required a special electric meter.

PP&L puts conservation tips into each bill I receive ... everything from switching to curly lightbulbs to unplugging any appliance when it is not in use ... including things like lamps, radio and TVs.

They've also suggested to thermal storage customers that they replace their systems with new higher-efficiency heat pumps OR (get this) GAS. When did you last hear of the electric company suggesting that you switch to gas heat? For many people gas is not an option (unless it's going to be propane). That leaves oil, wood, coal or electric. What will more wood-burning or coal-burning stoves do for the carbon footprint?

The Fed will give me back a credit of $1500 for replacing my heating system with the "right" kind of heating system. I could do geo-thermal but $1500 doesn't make much of a dent in the $20,000 price tag for such a system. PP&L is giving something like a $500 rebate for installing certain systems.

If PP&L is telling people to find another way to heat their homes, and pull the plugs on their appliances when not in use, what do you think they believe will happen to energy costs with, or without, a cap & trade bill?

PP&L has historically been one of the big dealers in re-selling their elec capacity to others. They did get left holding some unpaid bills from their sales to utilities in California a few years back. Remember the California fiasco ... brownouts, etc.

Utilities like PP&L purchase their fuels years in advance of delivery of electricity to its customers. They have made money hand over fist recently since they were operating on fuels purchased years before at lower prices. So, if they're raising rates dramatically now, one has to believe that their fuel costs are about to increase a lot, and they are planning ahead.

I'd expect higher gas prices as more people switch to natural gas and propane for heating. I'd expect higher prices for all other types of heating fuels that could be used by homeowners (wood, coal, wood pellets, and oil).

ducknwork
01-07-2010, 11:54 AM
All I know is that I have never broken ice with my boat like I did yesterday. I can't remember a cold stretch like we are having now. Global warming? PFFFFFFT. Yeah right.:rolleyes:;)


Are you cringing Dave?

BTW, I think that God has an excellent sense of humor. Ever notice how all these global warming conferences always have lots of snow on the ground?:D

dnf777
01-07-2010, 12:00 PM
All I know is that I have never broken ice with my boat like I did yesterday. I can't remember a cold stretch like we are having now. Global warming? PFFFFFFT. Yeah right.:rolleyes:;)


Are you cringing Dave?

BTW, I think that God has an excellent sense of humor. Ever notice how all these global warming conferences always have lots of snow on the ground?:D

Not cringing at all. Shivering, yes.;) I have no agenda or stake in this debate. What I cringe at is the politicization of the science by both sides of this debate, along with the potential profiteering agendas by both sides. I just want an honest assessment and scientific discovery, and let the truth be known. It's not always easy, or even possible when dealing with such large space and time scales.

This also attempts to answer Steve's question to me. At that time 30-40 years ago, we also thought phones needed cords in order to work. Obviously times, technology, and our understanding of things advances. If, with the data and technology available at the time, that is what they thought (yes, I remember that) then obviously they were wrong. It seems by the current debate however, that has been recongnized and corrrected. Maybe. Again, all I ask for is an honest, unbiased, scientific study of the issue.

brandywinelabs
01-07-2010, 01:48 PM
This also attempts to answer Steve's question to me. At that time 30-40 years ago, we also thought phones needed cords in order to work. Obviously times, technology, and our understanding of things advances. If, with the data and technology available at the time, that is what they thought (yes, I remember that) then obviously they were wrong. It seems by the current debate however, that has been recongnized and corrrected. Maybe. Again, all I ask for is an honest, unbiased, scientific study of the issue.

Exactly. Perhaps those that are now crying wolf because they believe that global warming is occuring are missing as much as the ice age purveyers were 30 yrs ago. And perhaps those that point out both are more in tune with what is really happening. No warming, no ice age, just normal cycling.
Which is what I believe. Yes we should try to do our part to keep polution down and conserve. But with realistic, common sense approach without all of the hype.

dnf777
01-07-2010, 02:13 PM
Exactly. Perhaps those that are now crying wolf because they believe that global warming is occuring are missing as much as the ice age purveyers were 30 yrs ago. And perhaps those that point out both are more in tune with what is really happening. No warming, no ice age, just normal cycling.
Which is what I believe. Yes we should try to do our part to keep polution down and conserve. But with realistic, common sense approach without all of the hype.

I don't have the answers, but if we are to accept that this is a natural cycle, we would have to also accept it is the most drastic natural swing in history. That's a little bigger leap than I'm willing to make, so I'm waiting for more info, as it continues to snow here. :)

ducknwork
01-07-2010, 02:32 PM
No warming, no ice age, just normal cycling.
Which is what I believe. Yes we should try to do our part to keep polution down and conserve. But with realistic, common sense approach without all of the hype.

I agree...

Decisions made in haste are rarely good decisions. Let's not jump to conclusions (that will hurt us all) based on science with an agenda.

YardleyLabs
01-07-2010, 02:51 PM
I agree...

Decisions made in haste are rarely good decisions. Let's not jump to conclusions (that will hurt us all) based on science with an agenda.
I'm not sure how you define a decision made in haste. From both a scientific and legislative perspective, the issues related to global climate change have benn on the table with little substantive change for 10-20 years. It has been more than 12 years since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted. Maybe the definition of a decision made in haste is any decision made before it is too late. A parallel definition would be that any vote taken that I might lose is one made "in haste." If my side can win, the vote was obviously taken at the exact correct moment.:rolleyes:

dnf777
01-07-2010, 03:52 PM
I agree...

Decisions made in haste are rarely good decisions. Let's not jump to war (that will hurt us all) based on intelligence with an agenda.

Fixed it for ya. And I couldn't agree more!!

donning asbestos regards,
dave

Uncle Bill
01-07-2010, 04:14 PM
.
2) No, and I'll give you credit for trying to equate believing in science to religion.






I should have realized a Minnesota Democrat that didn't find any thing wrong about voting for Al Frankin, wouldn't have the smarts to see the indulgances analogy to Algores carbon credit scam.

But then, I may be reading this wrong, and you are in this program so you can sell your credits to to the power company. Of course the power company will still be polluting as much as before, but now YOU will be gaining $$$, and they will be into a feel good attitude.

I doubt I can make you understand the folly of this hoax any more than I can explain how your Al Frankin vote was as un-American as anything you ever did in your life. Hope he makes you proud.

UB

Steve Amrein
01-07-2010, 05:11 PM
I don't have the answers, but if we are to accept that this is a natural cycle, we would have to also accept it is the most drastic natural swing in history. That's a little bigger leap than I'm willing to make, so I'm waiting for more info, as it continues to snow here. :)


I am doing all I can I emptied 6 cans of hair spray shot a case of freon cans with a 22 and it still a 10 year record low;)

ducknwork
01-07-2010, 06:19 PM
Fixed it for ya. And I couldn't agree more!!

donning asbestos regards,
dave

I knew that was coming!:p

Are you filling in for Roger today?;)

ducknwork
01-08-2010, 09:44 AM
I'm not sure how you define a decision made in haste. From both a scientific and legislative perspective, the issues related to global climate change have benn on the table with little substantive change for 10-20 years. It has been more than 12 years since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted. Maybe the definition of a decision made in haste is any decision made before it is too late. A parallel definition would be that any vote taken that I might lose is one made "in haste." If my side can win, the vote was obviously taken at the exact correct moment.:rolleyes:

Yes, because cap and trade and all of the ill effects that it will bring on us financially is soooo well thought out... That's a great way to bring the economy back. Raise taxes...:rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
01-08-2010, 10:01 AM
Yes, because cap and trade and all of the ill effects that it will bring on us financially is soooo well thought out... That's a great way to bring the economy back. Raise taxes...:rolleyes:
I have no issue with your disagreement with cap and trade (which I suspect has zero chance of passage anyway). I simply find it interesting when it is criticized as a decision being made in haste. Cap and trade has been on the table as a proposal for many years. It was rejected by the prior administration and supported by the current one. From an economic perspective, it is actually one of the more rational possibilities since it assigns a cost to pollution and then lets market forces determine how much pollution will continue because it is worth paying the cost. What is irrational is our current approach which assigns a zero cost to pollution.

Do you seriously believe that there is no negative effect to pollution of the air? If there is a negative effect, why should it not be incorporated into the price? Why should those causing the pollution through their consumption and production decisions (including me) be getting a free ride at the expense of those who prefer our air in a more natural form? As an asthmatic, I can honestly say that pollution from car exhausts costs me between $1-5000 per year. That is an air pollution tax that I pay. Why shouldn't some or all of that cost be included in the cost of pollutants?

badbullgator
01-08-2010, 10:31 AM
Ok so global warming is killing the polar bears by melting the ice caps and at the same time Florida had record manatee deaths due to cold water..... So do we save the polar bears with cap and trade at the expence of the manatees? Making it cooler for the polar bears also means cooler for us down here and thus more manatee deaths. I am pretty sure there are fewer manatees than polar bears.
I know dnf will like this "redneck" comment, but we have had 6 days in a row with temps in the 30's here in S Florida. This has NEVER happened in my 45 years AND the weatherman said this morning that conditions MAY be right for SLEET on Saturday. Freaking SLEET in S.W. Florida!

Steve Amrein
01-08-2010, 10:58 AM
Ok so global warming is killing the polar bears by melting the ice caps and at the same time Florida had record manatee deaths due to cold water..... So do we save the polar bears with cap and trade at the expence of the manatees? Making it cooler for the polar bears also means cooler for us down here and thus more manatee deaths. I am pretty sure there are fewer manatees than polar bears.
I know dnf will like this "redneck" comment, but we have had 6 days in a row with temps in the 30's here in S Florida. This has NEVER happened in my 45 years AND the weatherman said this morning that conditions MAY be right for SLEET on Saturday. Freaking SLEET in S.W. Florida!


You are so stupid, you are getting all that cold weather and sleet because we are warming;-)

BTW record cold temps here just not in recorded history

badbullgator
01-08-2010, 11:05 AM
You are so stupid, you are getting all that cold weather and sleet because we are warming;-)

BTW record cold temps here just not in recorded history


Well just after I posted I figured out that the manatees are dying because all the ice caps are melting and the cold water is coming down here. Duh! what was I thinking. I have to go out now and pull up my lawn so I have a nice sandy beach when the water come into my front yard with the rising seas :cool:

Pals
01-08-2010, 11:27 AM
The carbon credit program is a big joke. Paying for landowners to save carbon by planting grasses, trees and no tilling. Something they already do anyway and are getting government program payments for thru CRP or other conservation programs(double dipping anyone?)-just so someone producing carbon can 'trade' carbon credits--instead of practicing sound conservation practices themselves. I hope it eases their hypocritcal minds.
I've had to sign up farmers here in central Illinois(I vehemently protested, BTW-now they do it on their own):rolleyes: It was the most poorly run excuse of a program I've seen in a long time, and I've seen some doozies.

NOTE: They don't pay for planting new stuff, only existing stuff in CRP programs. How dumb is that?

Makes about as much sense as the current wetland mitigation laws, destroy a bog in northern Illinois and put in a manmade floodplain riparian wetland in southern Illinois. STUPID, stupid, stupid.

dnf777
01-08-2010, 11:33 AM
Ok so global warming is killing the polar bears by melting the ice caps and at the same time Florida had record manatee deaths due to cold water..... So do we save the polar bears with cap and trade at the expence of the manatees? Making it cooler for the polar bears also means cooler for us down here and thus more manatee deaths. I am pretty sure there are fewer manatees than polar bears.
I know dnf will like this "redneck" comment, but we have had 6 days in a row with temps in the 30's here in S Florida. This has NEVER happened in my 45 years AND the weatherman said this morning that conditions MAY be right for SLEET on Saturday. Freaking SLEET in S.W. Florida!

Hey, I'm PROUD of my redneck, you should be too!
None of this cold spell has anything to do with long-term gobal warming. It's like finding a nickel in my sofa cushion and thinking my financial situation has changed. Everything that happens in our lifetime is a piss in the ocean, let alone a two week cold spell. I'm not buying Al Gore's version, but I don't think it would be prudent to dismiss our impact of the planet just because some strawberries got frosted in Florida.

Steve Amrein
01-08-2010, 11:57 AM
Hey, I'm PROUD of my redneck, you should be too!
None of this cold spell has anything to do with long-term gobal warming. It's like finding a nickel in my sofa cushion and thinking my financial situation has changed. Everything that happens in our lifetime is a piss in the ocean, let alone a two week cold spell. I'm not buying Al Gore's version, but I don't think it would be prudent to dismiss our impact of the planet just because some strawberries got frosted in Florida.


Algore and the Cap and traders say the ice cap will be gone in ten years.

dnf777
01-08-2010, 01:00 PM
Algore and the Cap and traders say the ice cap will be gone in ten years.

Well, when you look at the satellite pictures trending over the past years, it will be. Whether or not that's due to man's impact, and if so, what is the significance....those are the questions.

ducknwork
01-08-2010, 01:21 PM
I have no issue with your disagreement with cap and trade (which I suspect has zero chance of passage anyway). I simply find it interesting when it is criticized as a decision being made in haste. Cap and trade has been on the table as a proposal for many years. It was rejected by the prior administration and supported by the current one. From an economic perspective, it is actually one of the more rational possibilities since it assigns a cost to pollution and then lets market forces determine how much pollution will continue because it is worth paying the cost. What is irrational is our current approach which assigns a zero cost to pollution.

Do you seriously believe that there is no negative effect to pollution of the air? If there is a negative effect, why should it not be incorporated into the price? Why should those causing the pollution through their consumption and production decisions (including me) be getting a free ride at the expense of those who prefer our air in a more natural form? As an asthmatic, I can honestly say that pollution from car exhausts costs me between $1-5000 per year. That is an air pollution tax that I pay. Why shouldn't some or all of that cost be included in the cost of pollutants?

I never said that pollution has no negative impact and I don't think I implied it either. I find it extremely difficult to believe that this global 'warming' is due to humans alone. If scientists can do research and see how the temperature of the earth has fluctuated throughout time, how can they now unquestionably say that the current fluctuation is more than just a natural occurrence? I'm not buying it. We may be a small factor that has something to do with it, but I seriously doubt we are CAUSING it.

What is irrational is thinking of the jump in my electric bill that will occur if we are 'punished' with legislation meant to force us to reduce energy consumption. What is an ordinary working family supposed to do? My heat is on 68 during the day (my wife stays home with the babies) and 64 at night. It's been in the 20's at night for over a week straight. I am scared of what my electric bill is going to be. At night and when I get up for work, it's freaking cold in my house, but we are trying to save money where ever possible. And then some rich politician with no clue what real life is like is going to add MORE taxes to my electric bill because I am being wasteful? All that is going to do is force me to cut back on money spent elsewhere, further damaging the economy. Perhaps 'in haste' was not a great term to use. Maybe I should have said 'in poor taste' or 'stupid' instead. So yeah, let's start charging people extra for necessary living expenses during a time when many people are already struggling to get by at the current cost of living. That doesn't sound irrational at all.

I guess next year I should have the heat pump removed from my house and invest in snuggies for everyone in my family. At least then, we will still be able to afford to buy groceries.

Henry V
01-13-2010, 09:25 PM
More reality at: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18383-major-antarctic-glacier-is-past-its-tipping-point.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

Terry Britton
01-14-2010, 11:22 AM
But Henry, the ICE on Antarctica has grown 4.7%. They ignore the forest and look at one tree. THey tend to ignore all of the Glaciers that are growing. Then they can't explain why some Glaciers are shrinking at the same time he temperatures on the Glaciers never get close to thawing temperature, which is due to solar radiation rather than green house gasses. Green house gasses such as h2o vaper would actually protect glaciers from solar radiation.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

Henry V
01-14-2010, 12:45 PM
Terry, it is interesting that you apparently take comfort in statements in the article you linked to like:

New ground measurements by the West Antarctic GPS Network (WAGN) project suggest the rate of ice loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet has been slightly overestimated, says this article in Science Daily.
and
"Our work suggests that while West Antarctica is still losing significant amounts of ice, the loss appears to be slightly slower than some recent estimates," said Ian Dalziel, lead principal investigator for WAGN"

Regarding "all the glaciers that are growing". You may want revise your view that I am the one that can't see the forest for the trees. First, the mass balance from a bunch of glaciers throughout the world. The trees that you seem to be paying attention to are those few bars sticking out on the right.
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/glacemb.jpg
and then a worldwide summaryhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Global_Glacier_Mass_Change.gif

Both from http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htmwhere they say:
When you narrowly focus on a few cherry picked glaciers, you can be misled into an incorrect view of global glacier trends. When you take in the broader picture, you see that globally, glaciers are shrinking at an accelerating rate.

I know, I know, probably just more lies with statistics and an extension of the hoax instigated by those darn European unions.

brandywinelabs
01-14-2010, 02:11 PM
Thats, um, 7 yr old data. Now I don't have it but, supposedly the glaciers and ice caps are growing again. And recent year7 are showing a downward trend in the avg global temp. Heck they have trended down since the ice age too.

YardleyLabs
01-14-2010, 03:01 PM
Thats, um, 7 yr old data. Now I don't have it but, supposedly the glaciers and ice caps are growing again. And recent year7 are showing a downward trend in the avg global temp. Heck they have trended down since the ice age too.
Well, let's see. According to the World Glacier Monitoring Service in its January 2009 release, glacier ice mass declined for the 18th consecutive year:

http://photos.mongabay.com/09/0129glaciers.jpg
This is actually based on a sample of maritime and mountain glaciers that have been monitored for a number of years. By global estimates, ice mass has been declining throughout the world with the exception of Iceland and Scandinavia where increased precipitation has contributed to recent growth. Mountain glaciers are actually melting faster than maritime ones. The decline in glacier mass has followed a continuous trend for the last 150 years.

http://photos.mongabay.com/09/0129glaciers_mass.jpg

See http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0129-glaciers.html

Henry V
01-14-2010, 03:37 PM
Thats, um, 7 yr old data. Now I don't have it but, supposedly the glaciers and ice caps are growing again. And recent year7 are showing a downward trend in the avg global temp. Heck they have trended down since the ice age too.
You discount a 50 year record because it does not show the last seven years. You have to be kidding.
When you find the scientific evidence that the "glaciers and ice caps are growing again." that refutes the hard data already presented, please post it.

The graph Jeff posted almost looks like the rate of loss is increasing. Imagine that. I can't believe the breadth of this global conspiracy.;)

Eric Johnson
01-14-2010, 03:38 PM
What you don't seem to realize is that none of the data is worth a hoot now because of the alterations that have recently been revealed. You can present it is any way you chose but since the integrity of the primary collector of the data is now suspect, none of it means anything.

Eric

YardleyLabs
01-14-2010, 04:08 PM
What you don't seem to realize is that none of the data is worth a hoot now because of the alterations that have recently been revealed. You can present it is any way you chose but since the integrity of the primary collector of the data is now suspect, none of it means anything.

Eric
If you are talking about East Anglia, they are not involved in the collection of any of the data on glaciers.

Henry V
01-14-2010, 04:10 PM
What you don't seem to realize is that none of the data is worth a hoot now because of the alterations that have recently been revealed. You can present it is any way you chose but since the integrity of the primary collector of the data is now suspect, none of it means anything.

Eric
And there you have it. In just a few posts, Terry says that the glaciers are growing yet presents no evidence unless you call melting slower than expected a defense. BrandyWine makes a similar claim and presents no evidence. So then, its Eric to the rescue stating that you do not need evidence because all the data collected worldwide that suggests there is climate change is suspect because of a couple of emails by scientists totally unrelated to this data. So, all the studies and data I present are invalid and you can't present any data. Yep, you win.

Eric, specifically, please enlighten us and tell us how the "primary collector of the data" presented here has no integrity. The links to the research are provided. Did they start measuring the glaciers with bias back in the 1950s? Did they just make up the data?. Did they plot it incorrectly? Since numerous researchers measure these glaciers worldwide are they all in cahoots together? The same researchers that measured gains also measured losses, are they just trying to confuse us?

Bayou Magic
01-14-2010, 04:34 PM
Tons of data (and opinions) on climate change here. Cherry pick, read, cut and paste as you see fit.

http://icecap.us/index.php

fp

brandywinelabs
01-14-2010, 05:05 PM
Henry V posted some info back in post #49.
I don't have time to mess with uploading a graph found on the same web page that shows, close to 33% growing and 67% shrinking. Most that are growing have started growing in approximate conjucntion with the current downturn in the avg global temp. Having been shown (on RTF) the graphs showing the current downward trend in temps, One could expect that the glaciers would start growing again. As can be seen on the graph I mentioned. I don't doubt that we should all do our part to prevent polution, etc. But, the big picture shows these up and down trends throughout history. It appears that a peak has been reached and the trend is now toward cooling. And the trend in glacier growth seems to be turning too.

brandywinelabs
01-14-2010, 05:23 PM
Here is data from the NSICD show the ice caps are growing and expected to grow again.....

From NY Times...
The National Snow and Ice Data Center released its summary of summer sea-ice conditions in the Arctic on Tuesday, noting a substantial expansion of the extent of “second-year ice” — floes thick enough to have persisted through two summers of melting. The result could be a reprieve, at least for a while, from the recent stretch of remarkable summer meltdowns.

According to the center, second-year ice this summer made up 32 percent of the total ice cover on the Arctic Ocean, compared with 21 percent in 2007 and 9 percent in 2008. The percentage of ice that was many years old, forming thick pancaked expanses, was at its lowest since satellite observations began 30 years ago. But that could change next year as the second-year ice adds mass through the long winter freeze.

Henry V
01-14-2010, 09:53 PM
Here is data from the NSICD show the ice caps are growing and expected to grow again.....


Direct from the NSICD website...http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100105_Figure3_thumb.png
and
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100105_Figure2_thumb.png

Try again?.

Eric Johnson
01-15-2010, 11:35 AM
If you are talking about East Anglia, they are not involved in the collection of any of the data on glaciers.

I don't take a position on global warming. I guess it's occuring but as part of the normal cycle of events.

My point was that the East Anglia mess now colors every number that the global warming folks put up because the East Anglia folks destroyed the concept of integrity in climate science.

Eric

YardleyLabs
01-15-2010, 12:12 PM
I don't take a position on global warming. I guess it's occuring but as part of the normal cycle of events.

My point was that the East Anglia mess now colors every number that the global warming folks put up because the East Anglia folks destroyed the concept of integrity in climate science.

Eric
That makes no sense at all. First, nothing in the published emails actually contradicts any scientific findings. Second, you are implying that questions about the integrity of one person or group discredit all others doing independent research in the same field. Would you agree that the same standard should be applied to all conservatives?

Eric Johnson
01-15-2010, 03:07 PM
Who said anything at all about conservatives?

Tell ya what Jeff. I'll grant you that which you so desparately seek.....the last word.

Eric

Henry V
06-21-2010, 11:25 AM
Just thought I'd throw in an update on the arctic sea ice reality.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

subroc
06-21-2010, 11:44 AM
does this mean man is the cause of global warming?

Cody Covey
06-21-2010, 11:51 AM
of course!! I hear that correlation ALWAYS equates to causation.

Henry V
06-22-2010, 12:53 AM
does this mean man is the cause of global warming?

I just report. You have already decided.

Here is another report from those darn incompetent scientists that get their articles published in the proceedings of national acadamies of sciences.
Article at: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Study+questions+credentials+climate+change+skeptic s/3183069/story.html
Full article at: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html?sid=862c2eb3-ee50-4d7b-b124-002edcb650fe

....the study analyzed the publishing background of 1,372 academics, concluding that at least 97 per cent of climate change researchers support evidence that humans are responsible for causing global warming.

Scout
06-22-2010, 11:09 PM
I just report. You have already decided.

Here is another report from those darn incompetent scientists that get their articles published in the proceedings of national acadamies of sciences.
Article at: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Study+questions+credentials+climate+change+skeptic s/3183069/story.html
Full article at: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html?sid=862c2eb3-ee50-4d7b-b124-002edcb650fe

I shall start recycling tommorow.

caryalsobrook
06-22-2010, 11:39 PM
That makes no sense at all. First, nothing in the published emails actually contradicts any scientific findings. Second, you are implying that questions about the integrity of one person or group discredit all others doing independent research in the same field. Would you agree that the same standard should be applied to all conservatives?

Just to let you know that I read your comments with interest and believe you at least try to put forth a rational statement based on facts.

I am sure you know who Michael Mann, a professor at Penn State University who developed the famous hockey stick graph depicting the global temperature of the earth for the last 2000 years. He stated that data obtained from rings of trees 200 years old and ice samples showed that the global temperature was relative constant for that period up until the invention of the internal combustion engine. As I understand it, his data has been found to be falsified and he is under investigation for destroying e-mails and falsifying data. He was-is an avid advocate of global warming.

I am sure you are familiar with Phil Jones of Great Britian, another renowned supporter of global warming and formally highly respected by global warming advocates who now states that the earth may very well have been warmer during the medieval period long before the industrial revolution. He also states that during the last 15 years that the earth has actually cooled but that the cooling is statistaccl insignificant. I don't know whether he is so highly regared among the global warming advocates now.

I don't argue that there is no global warming. I don't even argue that there is no manmade global warming. I do argue that we don't know. I also argue that cap nd trade has nothing to do with global warming. I argue it only has to do with income redistribution-nothing more.

One last thought- the first person I heard to use the term "climate change" was BO during the presidential primaries. I was surprised-shocked. Why are we now talking about climate change and not global warming?? Certainly global warming is climate change but climate change is not the same thing as global warming. If there was no natural climate change and the climate was constant then a lot of weather forcasters would be out of a job.

Just some thought:)

YardleyLabs
07-06-2010, 08:32 PM
Just to let you know that I read your comments with interest and believe you at least try to put forth a rational statement based on facts.

I am sure you know who Michael Mann, a professor at Penn State University who developed the famous hockey stick graph depicting the global temperature of the earth for the last 2000 years. He stated that data obtained from rings of trees 200 years old and ice samples showed that the global temperature was relative constant for that period up until the invention of the internal combustion engine. As I understand it, his data has been found to be falsified and he is under investigation for destroying e-mails and falsifying data. He was-is an avid advocate of global warming.

I am sure you are familiar with Phil Jones of Great Britian, another renowned supporter of global warming and formally highly respected by global warming advocates who now states that the earth may very well have been warmer during the medieval period long before the industrial revolution. He also states that during the last 15 years that the earth has actually cooled but that the cooling is statistaccl insignificant. I don't know whether he is so highly regared among the global warming advocates now.

I don't argue that there is no global warming. I don't even argue that there is no manmade global warming. I do argue that we don't know. I also argue that cap nd trade has nothing to do with global warming. I argue it only has to do with income redistribution-nothing more.

One last thought- the first person I heard to use the term "climate change" was BO during the presidential primaries. I was surprised-shocked. Why are we now talking about climate change and not global warming?? Certainly global warming is climate change but climate change is not the same thing as global warming. If there was no natural climate change and the climate was constant then a lot of weather forcasters would be out of a job.

Just some thought:)

For Michael Mann:
From The Daily Collegian at Penn State....
PSU handles case appropriately


At long last, Michael Mann can move on with his life.
The much-maligned climate change researcher and Penn State professor was cleared of any wrongdoing last week by a university panel in the "Climategate" scandal.
This vindication has been a long time coming. In a few short days last year, Michael Mann went from renowned researcher to enemy No. 1 in the eyes of climate change doubters.
On Nov. 21, 2009, hundreds of e-mails -- spinning a tale of intrigue and conspiracy almost too good to be true, according to climate change doubters -- were illegally obtained from a web server in England. This sparked "Climategate," and the ensuing vilification of Mann.
Penn State did its job by following through and investigating accusations that Mann falsified climate change data. A panel of university employees, led by the Office for Research Protections, pored over more than 300 e-mails and interviewed Mann before coming to a well thought out decision.
In February this year, the panel cleared Mann of three misconduct charges against him. One charge remained -- but Penn State made its unanimous decision clear last week.
Mann is not the conspirator some have made him out to be. He did not "undermine public trust in science" when he conducted his climate change research, the panel's report states.
We applaud Penn State for its due diligence in this ongoing saga. The university published pages-long reports, detailing the panel's every step along its 120-day investigation.
The panel's final report sealed the deal. The time has come: Let Michael Mann continue his work.


See also http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/MannInquiryStatementFinal.html for the formal report results.

Concerning Phil Jones, from The Times:

From The Times
http://s0.2mdn.net/720796/1x1.gif (http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh%3Dv8/39d0/3/0/%2a/b%3B127171314%3B0-0%3B0%3B22819114%3B4357-143/50%3B22160321/22178211/1%3B%3B%7Eaopt%3D2/1/cf/0%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk)
March 31, 2010
Climate-row professor Phil Jones should return to work, say MPs

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited { color:#06c; } The climate scientist at the centre of the row over stolen e-mails has no case to answer and should be reinstated, a crossparty group of MPs says.
Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia, was acting “in line with common practice in the climate science community” when he refused to share his raw data and computer codes with critics.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee said that the focus on Professor Jones, director of the university’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), had been “largely misplaced”. It said that there were innocent explanations for his use of the word “trick” and the phrase “hide the decline” in e-mails concerning global temperatures.
He stepped down in December pending the outcome of an inquiry by the university into more than 1,000 e-mails sent by him and colleagues.

(see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7081921.ece)

There is a big difference between an accusation and a fact.

road kill
07-06-2010, 09:06 PM
For Michael Mann:
From The Daily Collegian at Penn State....
PSU handles case appropriately


At long last, Michael Mann can move on with his life.
The much-maligned climate change researcher and Penn State professor was cleared of any wrongdoing last week by a university panel in the "Climategate" scandal.
This vindication has been a long time coming. In a few short days last year, Michael Mann went from renowned researcher to enemy No. 1 in the eyes of climate change doubters.
On Nov. 21, 2009, hundreds of e-mails -- spinning a tale of intrigue and conspiracy almost too good to be true, according to climate change doubters -- were illegally obtained from a web server in England. This sparked "Climategate," and the ensuing vilification of Mann.
Penn State did its job by following through and investigating accusations that Mann falsified climate change data. A panel of university employees, led by the Office for Research Protections, pored over more than 300 e-mails and interviewed Mann before coming to a well thought out decision.
In February this year, the panel cleared Mann of three misconduct charges against him. One charge remained -- but Penn State made its unanimous decision clear last week.
Mann is not the conspirator some have made him out to be. He did not "undermine public trust in science" when he conducted his climate change research, the panel's report states.
We applaud Penn State for its due diligence in this ongoing saga. The university published pages-long reports, detailing the panel's every step along its 120-day investigation.
The panel's final report sealed the deal. The time has come: Let Michael Mann continue his work.


See also http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/MannInquiryStatementFinal.html for the formal report results.

Concerning Phil Jones, from The Times:

From The Times
http://s0.2mdn.net/720796/1x1.gif (http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh%3Dv8/39d0/3/0/%2a/b%3B127171314%3B0-0%3B0%3B22819114%3B4357-143/50%3B22160321/22178211/1%3B%3B%7Eaopt%3D2/1/cf/0%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk)
March 31, 2010
Climate-row professor Phil Jones should return to work, say MPs

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited { color:#06c; } The climate scientist at the centre of the row over stolen e-mails has no case to answer and should be reinstated, a crossparty group of MPs says.
Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia, was acting “in line with common practice in the climate science community” when he refused to share his raw data and computer codes with critics.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee said that the focus on Professor Jones, director of the university’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), had been “largely misplaced”. It said that there were innocent explanations for his use of the word “trick” and the phrase “hide the decline” in e-mails concerning global temperatures.
He stepped down in December pending the outcome of an inquiry by the university into more than 1,000 e-mails sent by him and colleagues.

(see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7081921.ece)

There is a big difference between an accusation and a fact.

Rationalization, the second strongest human drive.





rk

Henry V
07-07-2010, 04:24 PM
Great to see that detailed investigations clear them of any wrong doing and that the science remains fully intact.

As always, please post your theories about climate change along with evidence and references to support them.

YardleyLabs
07-07-2010, 04:27 PM
Rationalization, the second strongest human drive.





rk
I agree. Rationalization seems to be all the deniers have left.;-)

road kill
07-07-2010, 04:29 PM
I agree. Rationalization seems to be all the deniers have left.;-)
Perhaps, but noone here uses it more than YOU do.



rk

caryalsobrook
07-07-2010, 05:56 PM
For Michael Mann:
From The Daily Collegian at Penn State....
PSU handles case appropriately


At long last, Michael Mann can move on with his life.
The much-maligned climate change researcher and Penn State professor was cleared of any wrongdoing last week by a university panel in the "Climategate" scandal.
This vindication has been a long time coming. In a few short days last year, Michael Mann went from renowned researcher to enemy No. 1 in the eyes of climate change doubters.
On Nov. 21, 2009, hundreds of e-mails -- spinning a tale of intrigue and conspiracy almost too good to be true, according to climate change doubters -- were illegally obtained from a web server in England. This sparked "Climategate," and the ensuing vilification of Mann.
Penn State did its job by following through and investigating accusations that Mann falsified climate change data. A panel of university employees, led by the Office for Research Protections, pored over more than 300 e-mails and interviewed Mann before coming to a well thought out decision.
In February this year, the panel cleared Mann of three misconduct charges against him. One charge remained -- but Penn State made its unanimous decision clear last week.
Mann is not the conspirator some have made him out to be. He did not "undermine public trust in science" when he conducted his climate change research, the panel's report states.
We applaud Penn State for its due diligence in this ongoing saga. The university published pages-long reports, detailing the panel's every step along its 120-day investigation.
The panel's final report sealed the deal. The time has come: Let Michael Mann continue his work.


See also http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/MannInquiryStatementFinal.html for the formal report results.

Concerning Phil Jones, from The Times:

From The Times
http://s0.2mdn.net/720796/1x1.gif (http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh%3Dv8/39d0/3/0/%2a/b%3B127171314%3B0-0%3B0%3B22819114%3B4357-143/50%3B22160321/22178211/1%3B%3B%7Eaopt%3D2/1/cf/0%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk)
March 31, 2010
Climate-row professor Phil Jones should return to work, say MPs

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited { color:#06c; } The climate scientist at the centre of the row over stolen e-mails has no case to answer and should be reinstated, a crossparty group of MPs says.
Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia, was acting “in line with common practice in the climate science community” when he refused to share his raw data and computer codes with critics.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee said that the focus on Professor Jones, director of the university’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), had been “largely misplaced”. It said that there were innocent explanations for his use of the word “trick” and the phrase “hide the decline” in e-mails concerning global temperatures.
He stepped down in December pending the outcome of an inquiry by the university into more than 1,000 e-mails sent by him and colleagues.

(see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7081921.ece)

There is a big difference between an accusation and a fact.

Thanks for updating me on Michael Mann's status at Penn State. I didn't know the outcome of their investigation. Two questions that maybe you can help me with. 1 Where is his data for his graph showing no significant change in global temperature for the last 2000 years up until the industrial revolution. 2 Do you discount Phil Jones statement that the temperature during the menieval time may very well have been warmer then than it is today. Second, his statement that the earth has becom cooler in the last 15 years but the change is not stistically significant. While you are at it why have we changed from talking about global warming to attempts to call it climate change. We all know that the climate changes every second. If there was no climate change then we would not have to listen to weathermen(joke).

Clint Watts
07-07-2010, 06:10 PM
Thanks for updating me on Michael Mann's status at Penn State. I didn't know the outcome of their investigation. Two questions that maybe you can help me with. 1 Where is his data for his graph showing no significant change in global temperature for the last 2000 years up until the industrial revolution. 2 Do you discount Phil Jones statement that the temperature during the menieval time may very well have been warmer then than it is today. Second, his statement that the earth has becom cooler in the last 15 years but the change is not stistically significant. While you are at it why have we changed from talking about global warming to attempts to call it climate change. We all know that the climate changes every second. If there was no climate change then we would not have to listen to weathermen(joke).

Good questions, I was also wondering why the 'key' words have been changed. Why is it now 'climate change' -vs- the 'global warming' of the 90's. I am interested to hear the answers to your questions.

Henry V
07-08-2010, 10:23 AM
....... While you are at it why have we changed from talking about global warming to attempts to call it climate change. We all know that the climate changes every second. If there was no climate change then we would not have to listen to weathermen(joke).
Thanks for clearly demonstrating that you are either not aware of or do not understand the difference between "weather" and "climate".
Here is a good reference to better understand the differences. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html


I was also wondering why the 'key' words have been changed. Why is it now 'climate change' -vs- the 'global warming' of the 90's. The "key words" have not changed. These two terms have often been used somewhat interchangeably for more than 20 years. Global warming is on aspect of climate change. Climate change is a broader term. There is a good explanation of the two and a history on each at http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

YardleyLabs
07-08-2010, 10:44 AM
Just to reiterate the point made in the NASA sources referenced by Henry.

"But temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming."

The biggest error made in discussions of "global warming" is o confuse increases in average global temperatures with local climate patterns. If the only effects were in local climates fluctuations, I might welcome an increase is winter temperatures in my part of Pennsylvania. However, even a relatively modest increase in average sea levels is fairly likely to make my house uninhabitable, not to mention the effects on coastal cities like New York, Philadelphia, Boston, etc.

Orion
07-08-2010, 05:19 PM
I would like to pose this question in all seriousness.

Could anyone out there who believes in global warming please explain (seriously) why global warming is a bad thing ?

Henry V
07-08-2010, 05:35 PM
I would like to pose this question in all seriousness.

Could anyone out there who believes in global warming please explain (seriously) why global warming is a bad thing ?

You can start at this site: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/ which is a US-based assessment that covers potential impacts to water supplies, coastal areas, agriculture, etc, etc.

and then also google "climate change consequences" for more information.

huntinman
07-08-2010, 06:06 PM
You can start at this site: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/ which is a US-based assessment that covers potential impacts to water supplies, coastal areas, agriculture, etc, etc.

and then also google "climate change consequences" for more information.

Or watch the Crazed Sex poodle's propaganda piece...

Bayou Magic
07-08-2010, 06:26 PM
Or watch the Crazed Sex poodle's propaganda piece...

Please cite your source and provide a link. Without evidence your statement is pure speculation.

fp

david gibson
07-08-2010, 06:48 PM
You can start at this site: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/ which is a US-based assessment that covers potential impacts to water supplies, coastal areas, agriculture, etc, etc.

and then also google "climate change consequences" for more information.

its only a "bad" thing for civilization's infrastructure as it exists today. otherwise, the earth has warmed and cooled over and over and everything changes and adapts to the change. no big deal.

david gibson
07-08-2010, 06:54 PM
Just to reiterate the point made in the NASA sources referenced by Henry.

"But temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. .

...and the nile was once a lush region. deep marine sediments are found in colorado.

the only constant is change.

caryalsobrook
07-08-2010, 07:01 PM
Thanks for clearly demonstrating that you are either not aware of or do not understand the difference between "weather" and "climate".
Here is a good reference to better understand the differences. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

The "key words" have not changed. These two terms have often been used somewhat interchangeably for more than 20 years. Global warming is on aspect of climate change. Climate change is a broader term. There is a good explanation of the two and a history on each at http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

Thanks for pointing out my failure to differentiate between weather and climate. A mistake on my part which I would like to assume was carelesness. No matter the reason, it was certainly a mistake that I should not have made.

Correct if I am wrong. Climate will change if there is global warming. Climate may change and there may be no global warming. If you have no problem with this maybe you can assume that I understand the difference unless I show otherwise. Not differentiating between weather and climate was a mistake on my part and should reinforce in me to hold myself to a higher standard.

Now to Yardly's statement that it is more appropriate that climate change be the focus of environmental policy rather than global warming, I have a simple question. If the arguement of global warming was the inappropriate arguement in determining environmental policy, why was that arguement put forth for more than 10 years. Are not these the same people who argued that now only was there global warming but that global warming is man made? I thought that the absolute FACT that global warming was resoundingly proved by the studies of Michael Mann who showed that the global temperature had remained relatively constant for the last 2000 years up until the industrial revolution and the advent of the internal combustion engine. As slow as I am, It took me quite some time to grasp his theory using data such as the rings on trees ect. I realize that this was not the only data that he used, I just cite it as one of the data he used.

Yardley pointed out that Penn State had cleared him of any violations of policy of Penn State, which I have no problem with. The comission composed entirely of Penn State professors as they stated found him innocent of any policy violations based on the preponderence of the evidence (51%) The deletion of e-mails was of little interest to me but the findings of the committee certainly gave me pause concerning his data. Let me quote from the comission. "Thus even though there are a number ofhighly sophisticated, physically sound models that are used to analize and predict various features of the earth's climate system, HUMAN JUDGEMENTS ARE INVARIABLY INVOLVED, AND A CERTAIN ABOUNT OF SUBJECTIVITY IS INTRODUCED." I may be wrong and maybe you should read he quote but it appears that they were talking about the introduction of subjectivity into the data. I certainly understand the introduction of subjectivity into any conclusions resulting from the data but I can't understand introducing subjectivity into data. It appears to me by doing so, one would lose any creditibility of any conclusions that might be drawn. Maybe I am wrong and the commission was not talking about Prof. Mann's data but I can't figure anything else that they might be talking since subjectivity in conclusions would be quite acceptable.
If you could read the comission report, I am sure you can find the quote and maybe there is a better explanation for it that I could see. I would like to know your opinion.

Of the many charges leveled against Prof. Mann, the charges were reduced to about four. After questioning a number of witnesses who staunchly supported his innocence, all but one was dropped. Dr. Lindzen, a Prof. at MIT was called. Prof. Lindzen was quite upset when informed that all charges but one had been droped and he was to be question ononly the remaining charge. It appeared to me fron the transcript that Dr. Lindzen did not share the same opinion of Prof. Mann that all the previousl witnesses had of him.

Let me be clear. If it is a fact that man is affecting the environment so drastically as to cause the level of the oceans to rise as much as 10 feet in the next 50-100 years then I certainly believe that man should reduce his affect on the environment to a level that would not be catastrophic.

Assuming man made golbal warming, or climate change or whatever the arguemant might be tomorrow, I would prefer an open, civil and honest discussion from Dr. Lintzen, Dr. Mann, and a host of renowned experts devoid of ridicule and political policy.

Just a little extra food for thought- let's assume that man made global warming, climate change whatever is a fact and man is so drastically affecting our environment as to be flirting with self destruction is an fact not refutable. Do you believe that the cap and trade tax is the only solution. If you don't think that it is the only solution, can you think of any other. Put on your thinking cap Yardley and Henry V. I sincerely would like to know your thoughts.

Orion
07-08-2010, 08:39 PM
This whole global warming thing is amazing and hilarious. Mostly because of how so many people can get sucked into anything they read or hear. And how so many people just cant live without something to panic about.

Ask the question "what is really wrong with global warming" and 99 % of the respondants will say something about the fear of sea level rise. Good god. So we are worried about a few feet of sea level rise in the next 50 to 100 years, maybe 200 ? Even if it does actually happen, most of our infrastructure does not even last that long, and we can make adjustments to the infrastructure during normal everyday rebuilding over that 50-200 years, as needed. New Orleans, a city that sits what 5ft + below sea level, has been doing that since its existance.

I want everyone to know how comforted I am that our goverment has the power to control sea level rise and fall. One thing I am a little fearful of...what if they are totally wrong and sea level actually falls ? Oh no, what will we do ? Thank god, I am sure they have some kind of plan in place to just change course, and tell everyone to go back to buying big SUVs so we can crank out more CO2 and methane, to heat things up again. Well I dont know what the govt does, I will just live in peace knowing they have it all under control.

Is anyone out there aware, that during the most biologically active/diverse time in the earths evolution, the age of the dinosaurs, that CO2 and other so called "warming" gases were something like 30 times what they are now ? Ok let me explain, when things are warmer (man made or not) living things flourish. I wonder if the dinosaurs had to move their families to higher ground when the sea level rose back then.

Oh, and how about the politics behind it all. How brilliant of Al Gore to come up with the idea of carbon credits. Basically if you have the money, then its ok to pollute. You can crank out as much CO2 as you like, as long as you pay a fee. Ok, so then its not really about saving the world AL ? Its really about making yourself famous and lecturing everyone about how to live their lives, as you pay your way out of doing what you want everyone else to do.

And how about the scientists behind the recent "bust" where they were basically nailed for falsifying/manipulating data. Oh and how convenient, someone just determined two days ago that it was all just a false alarm, and that its all legit again. That is hysterical ! OJ did it ok ? Well hold on, maybe no he didnt really. Wait, he did. Dang, I just cant keep this straight anymore.

Ok I am almost done. We have a hell of a lot more to worry about than having the ocean knocking at our doors sometime in the next 100+ years. How about the things that are happening right NOW, that are of immediate concern. Illegal immigration that is bankrupting Arizona and California. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a bunch of nuts in the middle east. An ever deteriorating economy here at home. Terrorist plots against the NYC subway that almost came true. Etc Etc. And here we are pissing billions of $ away trying to solve a problem born out of some paranoid liberal's thirst for fame and panic.

Global warming ? Hey that sounds great. Whatever it takes to extend the summer.

dnf777
07-08-2010, 09:00 PM
I agree with Orion. Therefore I'm letting my kids worry about global warming and paying for the Iraq war! These darn panic-mongers! Next they'll be claiming that an oil spill in the gulf will impact the shores and possibly the environment at large! I know better, I read the BP corporate spill contingency plan...and it CLEARLY STATES that even in the event of a major spill, no oil will reach the shore some 40 miles away! I think CNN is planting tar balls to stir public anxiety over nothing. I challenge all liberals to SHOW ME ONE WALRUS that has been harmed by this oil spill!!

Gerry Clinchy
07-08-2010, 09:54 PM
Let's just supposed that the CO2 is a consequence of warming, & not the other way around. That has, after all, been theorized to be the case.

Should we not be spending our scientific time figuring out how to deal with something we may not be able to control? That would be an even larger problem, world-wide no less, than dealing with the Gulf spill, horrible as that is. It would have been helpful if someone had spent some time figuring out what to do about such an emergency before the emergency actually arrived.

Now, if industrialization has contributed to the warming trend, most recent indications are that developing countries like China are going to be pouring into the problem more than the rest of us can take out.

Faced with either of the two above situations, trading $ for carbon credits, ain't going to solve the problem of those islands that are supposed to end up under water due to the rising oceans (if that should be the case). Shouldn't we be thinking about where those people will relocate and how? And it won't stop another Icelandic volcano from blowing its top ... or some other volcano we haven't been paying much attention to for several decades.

I'm waiting for when the local electric company gives up on the curly lightbulbs and starts offering us all a discount on candles.

Orion
07-08-2010, 10:01 PM
Hi dnf, thanks for the diversion, I mean reply. Just so you know, you forgot to actually comment on substance of the subject.

dnf777
07-08-2010, 10:28 PM
Hi dnf, thanks for the diversion, I mean reply. Just so you know, you forgot to actually comment on substance of the subject.

You're right. It would take too long. I didn't think you were serious when you cited NOLA as an example of things being hunky-dory, or that the time scale of 50-200 years isn't worth worrying about. I've said many times here before that I don't buy into algore's theories. I will add that I don't believe we should rush into cap and trade and possibly set our economic recovery back for theoretical results, and given the profits involved, I wouldn't even give them the full benefit of being theoretical!

but to dismiss it altogether, or ridicule rising sea-levels, or changing climate patterns, is just as foolish. That's what I was alluding to with my sarcastic reply.

I also wanted to convey that trusting the petroleum industry, or its funded research, is also asking for trouble. Walruses in the GOM? Its been 20 years since I lived in Baytown, and I drank a lot of beer in my younger days, but I swear I don't remember seeing any walruses! Well, come to think of it, my homecoming date in 1985.....

huntinman
07-09-2010, 09:12 AM
Please cite your source and provide a link. Without evidence your statement is pure speculation.

fp

OK, you asked for it!

Al Gore: big lummox or crazed sex poodle?
By Alexandra Petri

“Get off me, you big lummox!”

It’s officially the worst sex scandal ever. When people accused Bill Clinton or Tiger Woods of extramarital activities, their accounts, if startling, were at least occasionally flattering. Not this time.

“You’re being a crazed sex poodle.”

These are only two of the phrases that make the recently-released testimony of a 54-year-old massage therapist so riveting. She depicts a sexual assault by Al Gore which, if fictional -- no claims have been brought -- is one of the greatest literary triumphs of the past decade. This is no steamy, sordid narrative of seduction. Gore emerges from the testimony as “rotund” and long-winded, when he isn’t trying to plant unwanted kisses or urging her to massage below the “safe, non-sexual area of the abdomen.”


Most people who make allegations about Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning former vice presidents are nice -- or naïve enough -- to imply that they were somewhat suave. Not this massage therapist -- or, as she repeatedly calls herself, "Grandma."

First, Gore greets "Grandma" at the door with a lengthy hug. The hug goes on a bit too long, but, she notes, “I try to keep an open, professional mind and a sense of ‘the benefit of the doubt’… I assumed he must be engaging in something like the ‘new ages politician in casual mode’… a kind of a beneficent patriarch thing going on it seemed.”

If someone were trying to make up this sort of claim, I can’t imagine a better start. This is the “Call me Ishmael” of starts to testimonies.

Grandma's descriptions alone are well worth the 73-page read. Of Gore: “he’s rotund, you know.” “He had a dramatic display of violent temper as well as extremely dictatorial commanding attitude besides his Mr. Smiley Global Warming concern persona.”

And she has the Gore tone down perfectly.

While he was still face down, he suddenly asked me, "What has become clear to you lately?"... I asked him what he had become clear about lately himself and he said, "Letting go of results."

This is when he demands that she massage more than the “safe, non-sexual area of the abdomen.”

At one point, she even mentions Tipper to him. Then:

I started backpedaling with something well, about well, everybody’s relationship or marriage is a private affair. No one really knows for absolute certainty what is the true arrangement that was private with Bill and Hillary for example... I really stepped in it because talk about Bill and Hillary is like a sore point with this guy. And I didn’t know so he’s just like roar…

What follows after the "roar" is one of the most mangled seduction attempts of all time. Gore lures her into his bedroom to listen to a “song about the current president that would shock me.”

The song was “Dear Mr. President” by Pink.… As soon as he had it playing, he turned to me and he immediately flipped me flat on my back and threw his whole body face down over atop me, pinning me down and outweighing me by quite a bit. Get off me, you big lummox! I loudly yelled protested to him… We lay on our sides a couple feet apart, looking at each other as he played the song, him singing along with it as if he were revealing deep feelings like some bizarre karaoke and me stuck there.... He prevailed upon me to listen to just this one other song about women’s feelings and their inner self and trust that he said his wife introduced him to, which is about a woman choosing to let a man into her deeper self or some such things.
This scene belongs in the annals of literature. If real, I understand why Grandma says she’s been having difficulty sleeping and is terrified to go on other calls. But -- wow.

You can read the whole of the testimony here. It’s riveting, with a great sense of context. Sometimes an attempt to initiate sexual contact with a licensed massage therapist in a hotel becomes a geopolitical challenge. Grandma notes:

This is what’s been really hard with this. Um, because I, I, you know, I live in "The Birkenstock Tribe," and it’s like being the ultimate traitor. And, by the by, there are people um… one who was basically asking me to just suck it up, otherwise the world’s going to be destroyed from global warming.

There are hundreds of jokes to be made here. I won’t make any of them, because I don’t want the world to be destroyed by global warming.

But Grandma says it best: “The mind trip with this thing is it’s just like instead of swallowing a pill, it’s like trying to swallow one the size of a globe. And having to carry the mantle for if the world falls apart, according to people’s belief system, it’s all on me. And I’m, like, that’s so crazy-making.”

From the Washington Post.

Henry V
07-09-2010, 10:37 AM
its only a "bad" thing for civilization's infrastructure as it exists today. otherwise, the earth has warmed and cooled over and over and everything changes and adapts to the change. no big deal.
Right, just ask the Mayan and Mesopotamia civilizations, it is no big deal. Same for the dinosaurs.

subroc
07-09-2010, 10:44 AM
I have been looking for some information but can’t seem to locate it. Could someone point me to a link that explains how much the reduction in PPM of CO2 will reduce the temperature by degrees? Example: if we reduce the CO2 by 100 PPM the earths temp will reduce by X.

Thanks

Henry V
07-09-2010, 10:56 AM
I have been looking for some information but can’t seem to locate it. Could someone point me to a link that explains how much the reduction in PPM of CO2 will reduce the temperature by degrees? Example: if we reduce the CO2 by 100 PPM the earths temp will reduce by X.

Thanks

This one gets to part of your answer. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_13/

david gibson
07-09-2010, 11:30 AM
its still all a guess. grossly extrapolated calculations = grossly wide margins of error.

YardleyLabs
07-09-2010, 01:33 PM
...and the nile was once a lush region. deep marine sediments are found in colorado.

the only constant is change.
Yes, and the last time temperatures approached the levels we are beginning to see, homo sapiens did not even exist. The world will be here whether it warms or cools. Many regions, many countries, and many species may or may not survive the adjustment. However, a fairly large percentage ot the world's current population and economic infrastructure exist in areas that may or may not be habitable, in the future. If there are things we can do to mitigate the transition or slow the change, we might want to think about it. The fundamental difference between those who believe that global climate change is happening and those who do not is their willingness to engage in that type of discussion and planning. Deniers are just that. They look at the economic implication of change and change mitigation and say "We can't deal with that so it must not actually be happening."

david gibson
07-09-2010, 01:38 PM
Right, just ask the Mayan and Mesopotamia civilizations, it is no big deal. Same for the dinosaurs.

and even if we could go back in time we could not have altered the outcome.

oh, and the dinosaurs were done in by changes brought about by a collision from an asteroid, evidence of the crater is down in the youcatan. thats a bit different, but i am sure you dont think so...:rolleyes:

Gerry Clinchy
07-09-2010, 02:11 PM
Yes, and the last time temperatures approached the levels we are beginning to see, homo sapiens did not even exist.

In the era to which you refer, was the entire earth warm at high temperatures?


If there are things we can do to mitigate the transition or slow the change, we might want to think about it.

It seems to go without saying that climate change would be inevitable based on the earth's position in its solar system. Have people studied hard on that aspect of climate change? That would be key to laying out a "plan" for mitigation and transition. If the industrial revolution is a minor factor in the climate change we may be experiencing, then the efforts of mitigation that are being proposed may better be spent doing something else?


They look at the economic implication of change and change mitigation and say "We can't deal with that so it must not actually be happening."

Too simplistic an explanation to cover a myriad of different opinions and perspectives.

subroc
07-09-2010, 02:28 PM
...oh, and the dinosaurs were done in by changes brought about by a collision from an asteroid...

maybe global climate change brought about by what man was expected to do 65 million years in the future.

david gibson
07-09-2010, 02:54 PM
maybe global climate change brought about by what man was expected to do 65 million years in the future.

ordered a new batch of foil hats i see......

subroc
07-09-2010, 03:36 PM
ordered a new batch of foil hats i see......

:D chuckling :D

ordered it from a left wing web site. right wingers don't sell them...

road kill
07-09-2010, 03:44 PM
Yes, and the last time temperatures approached the levels we are beginning to see, homo sapiens did not even exist. The world will be here whether it warms or cools. Many regions, many countries, and many species may or may not survive the adjustment. However, a fairly large percentage ot the world's current population and economic infrastructure exist in areas that may or may not be habitable, in the future. If there are things we can do to mitigate the transition or slow the change, we might want to think about it. The fundamental difference between those who believe that global climate change is happening and those who do not is their willingness to engage in that type of discussion and planning. Deniers are just that. They look at the economic implication of change and change mitigation and say "We can't deal with that so it must not actually be happening."

Well then, who caused it?????




rk:D

caryalsobrook
07-09-2010, 05:14 PM
Yes, and the last time temperatures approached the levels we are beginning to see, homo sapiens did not even exist. The world will be here whether it warms or cools. Many regions, many countries, and many species may or may not survive the adjustment. However, a fairly large percentage ot the world's current population and economic infrastructure exist in areas that may or may not be habitable, in the future. If there are things we can do to mitigate the transition or slow the change, we might want to think about it. The fundamental difference between those who believe that global climate change is happening and those who do not is their willingness to engage in that type of discussion and planning. Deniers are just that. They look at the economic implication of change and change mitigation and say "We can't deal with that so it must not actually be happening."

I guess you missed my post referring you to the commission exonorating Prof. Mann of violating and policies of Penn State. I gave you a quote from the findings of the commission and asked your opinion as to what they were referring to with the only explanation that they were referring to the data of his research s the only one that I could thing of. I was curious if you might see some other possible explanation which would be ofinterest to me.


I also referred to Dr. Phil Jones who I am sure you are aware of. Let me give you a report of an interview of Dr. Jones by the BBC.

"Prof. Jones told the BBc yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues the he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is not as good as it should be.
The data is crucial to the famous hockey stick graph used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Prof. Jones also conceded the possibility that the world ws WARMER in medieval times than now-suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said for the past 15 years there has been no stistically significant warming.
But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and he said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made."

Now I would not question that there are creditable arguemants of anything from insignificant to significant man made global warming. But what I would like to see is other independent verification by other scientists using other models that might concur with Dr. Jones' beliefs. Economics has nothing to do with my opinion and I assure you I am just as concerned about the environment as you. As I said in the previous post, given that global warming if a proven fact, the solutions such as cap and trade are political policy. I suggested that there might be other solutions if the only interest is reducing the impact of global warming. When the only proposal is cap and trade then I become concerned that preserving the environment may only be a part of the political policy. A contend that there are other possible solutions to cap and trade that may focus only on preserving the environment given the fact of global warming and those who advocate cap and trade have political agendas reaching far beyond environmental protection.

You might believe that the earth has never experienced periods of time warmer that today but even Dr. Jones is reluctant to make such a statement.

caryalsobrook
07-10-2010, 03:27 AM
last sentence of lst post periods of time DURING THE EXISTANCE OF MAN warmer than today

YardleyLabs
07-10-2010, 07:34 AM
I guess you missed my post referring you to the commission exonorating Prof. Mann of violating and policies of Penn State. I gave you a quote from the findings of the commission and asked your opinion as to what they were referring to with the only explanation that they were referring to the data of his research s the only one that I could thing of. I was curious if you might see some other possible explanation which would be ofinterest to me.


I also referred to Dr. Phil Jones who I am sure you are aware of. Let me give you a report of an interview of Dr. Jones by the BBC.

"Prof. Jones told the BBc yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues the he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is not as good as it should be.
The data is crucial to the famous hockey stick graph used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Prof. Jones also conceded the possibility that the world ws WARMER in medieval times than now-suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said for the past 15 years there has been no stistically significant warming.
But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and he said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made."

Now I would not question that there are creditable arguemants of anything from insignificant to significant man made global warming. But what I would like to see is other independent verification by other scientists using other models that might concur with Dr. Jones' beliefs. Economics has nothing to do with my opinion and I assure you I am just as concerned about the environment as you. As I said in the previous post, given that global warming if a proven fact, the solutions such as cap and trade are political policy. I suggested that there might be other solutions if the only interest is reducing the impact of global warming. When the only proposal is cap and trade then I become concerned that preserving the environment may only be a part of the political policy. A contend that there are other possible solutions to cap and trade that may focus only on preserving the environment given the fact of global warming and those who advocate cap and trade have political agendas reaching far beyond environmental protection.

You might believe that the earth has never experienced periods of time warmer that today but even Dr. Jones is reluctant to make such a statement.
Sometimes complete answers are longer than even I care to write. The short answer is that you are focusing on punctuation and ignoring the paragraphs. None of the conclusions concerning global climate change rel;y on the work of any single person or group. The findings have been confirmed by multiple groups working independently using different methodologies. There are areas of uncertainty that remain. However, those areas of uncertainty the broad conclusions that average world temperatures are rising and that the activities of humans have significantly contributed to accelerating the changes.

On the broader issue of the relationship of weather to climate, it is important to note that changes in temperature are not uniform and that the location of changes may be more important in determining consequences than the extent of change. For example, 100 million years ago, when dinosaurs ruled the earth, equatorial temperatures averaged only a couple of degrees warmer than they are today. However, ocean levels were at some of their highest levels in the history of the earth. The difference was that temperatures at the poles were 20-30 degrees warmer than they are now. The ice caps that we now take for granted were not there and all that resulting water covered the lands that we now inhabit.

If that happens again, life will continue on earth, just as life continued 65 million years ago when a great asteroid struck the earth and threw up dust clouds that obscured the sun and led to the cooling of the earth and the formation of polar ice caps that lowered sea levels and made more land available for the development of land-based species. That accident of climate helped create the environment that made the evolution of humans possible. Unfortunately, for the dinosaurs, those same changes led to their extinction. Those are good lessons to remember as we cavalierly say that change is normal.

dnf777
07-10-2010, 07:40 AM
If that happens again, life will continue on earth, just as life continued 65 million years ago when a great asteroid struck the earth and threw up dust clouds that obscured the sun and led to the cooling of the earth and the formation of polar ice caps that lowered sea levels and made more land available for the development of land-based species. That accident of climate helped create the environment that made the evolution of humans possible. Unfortunately, for the dinosaurs, those same changes led to their extinction. Those are good lessons to remember as we cavalierly say that change is normal.

Thanks Jeff! Now that I know we can repopulate the world even if we first destroy it....I'm going out and buying a bigger SUV, eating more steak until I get big and fat and happy, and lining my pockets with tax break dollars that benefit only me... ME!!!! I'M A REPUBLICAN AGAIN!!! (how stupid of me to care for the environment or future generations :-x)

Drill Baby Drill Regards......

YardleyLabs
07-10-2010, 07:51 AM
Thanks Jeff! Now that I know we can repopulate the world even if we first destroy it....I'm going out and buying a bigger SUV, eating more steak until I get big and fat and happy, and lining my pockets with tax break dollars that benefit only me... ME!!!! I'M A REPUBLICAN AGAIN!!! (how stupid of me to care for the environment or future generations :-x)

Drill Baby Drill Regards......
Of course, I didn't say that humans would be the ones that survived. You might want to polish up your cockroach credentials.:D

dnf777
07-10-2010, 08:02 AM
You might want to polish up your cockroach credentials.:D

Didn't you hear me say I'm a republican again?? ;)

Keith Farmer
07-10-2010, 08:19 AM
For example, 100 million years ago, when dinosaurs ruled the earth, equatorial temperatures averaged only a couple of degrees warmer than they are today. However, ocean levels were at some of their highest levels in the history of the earth. The difference was that temperatures at the poles were 20-30 degrees warmer than they are now. The ice caps that we now take for granted were not there and all that resulting water covered the lands that we now inhabit.

If that happens again, life will continue on earth, just as life continued 65 million years ago when a great asteroid struck the earth and threw up dust clouds that obscured the sun and led to the cooling of the earth and the formation of polar ice caps that lowered sea levels and made more land available for the development of land-based species. That accident of climate helped create the environment that made the evolution of humans possible. Unfortunately, for the dinosaurs, those same changes led to their extinction. Those are good lessons to remember as we cavalierly say that change is normal.


Jeff,

You state the above as if it were fact. Anyone who would state such nonsense as fact really has no clue what they are talking about...and the disparity between reality and the fantasy you represented in the statement above is so wide that trying to reconcile the difference is not rational.

If the debate is about whether or not the earth is warming perhaps analytical data can support or deny that claim. Otherwise your "millions of years" theories are just a simplistic way for evolutionists to try and overwhelm unsuspecting folk with numbers to try and prove the unprovable.

Here is a challenge: Supply folks here with the presuppositional starting data that all of the research statistics you refer to are founded upon. Since there must be an arbitrary starting grid of information post what that information contains...

Oh...and another challenge for ya: Tell folks here how soft tissue with blood cells can survive for millions of years...that should be an easy one for you Jeff...a softball.





.

Gerry Clinchy
07-10-2010, 08:29 AM
Those are good lessons to remember as we cavalierly say that change is normal.

Cavalier? Not necessarily. Realistic? Yes.

The Earth is part of a galaxy that is also shared with asteroids. So an asteroid hitting the earth (to cause the polar ice caps & make the dinosaurs extinct) is a "normal" event within the context of the dynamics of the galaxy. It may not happen very often, given the laws of probability, but it is not necessarily "abnormal" based on the laws of physics.

The question further revolves upon whether trading carbon credits is the best way to prepare for climate change, purportedly the most subscribed to being warming of the Earth.

If we assume that global warming is occurring, does it serve humans' interests to depress industrial economies (where solutions are more likely to be developed) so that Chinese consumers can have more TVs (and other consumer goods that the more affluent Chinese workers are now demanding)?

YardleyLabs
07-10-2010, 09:20 AM
Cavalier? Not necessarily. Realistic? Yes.

The Earth is part of a galaxy that is also shared with asteroids. So an asteroid hitting the earth (to cause the polar ice caps & make the dinosaurs extinct) is a "normal" event within the context of the dynamics of the galaxy. It may not happen very often, given the laws of probability, but it is not necessarily "abnormal" based on the laws of physics.
I agree. However, one of the characteristics of humans that has helped us survive this long is that we never take the environment as a given limitation on our activities. Housing, clothing, heating and cooling, are all techniques that we have used to trump nature.



The question further revolves upon whether trading carbon credits is the best way to prepare for climate change, purportedly the most subscribed to being warming of the Earth.
Trading carbon credits is not a way to prepare for climate change, it is part of an effort to use the power of economics to slow down a form of human pollution that appears to be accelerating climate change. From an economic perspective, it is a method for forcing those making production decisions to internalize the costs of pollution as opposed to ignoring those costs is a way that "taxes" all of us.


If we assume that global warming is occurring, does it serve humans' interests to depress industrial economies (where solutions are more likely to be developed) so that Chinese consumers can have more TVs (and other consumer goods that the more affluent Chinese workers are now demanding)?
You act as if there is an either/or choice where there isn't. Chinese, Indian, and other populations are building their own economies on their own. In fact, our companies are increasingly hoping to tag along for the ride since our own economy seems likely to remain in the doldrums for years to come. As their economies grow (at rates 2-4 times the growth rate of our own), those two countries -- India and China -- will see growth in consumption by their own populations. Given that the combined populations of China and India are eight times the population of the U.S., a relatively small shift in consumption in those countries will have a dramatic impact on worldwide consumption. That increases worldwide prices which will affect consumption everywhere.

M&K's Retrievers
07-10-2010, 10:21 AM
Didn't you hear me say I'm a republican again?? ;)

Might I suggest you never were a Republican?

david gibson
07-10-2010, 10:26 AM
Cavalier? Not necessarily. Realistic? Yes.

The Earth is part of a galaxy that is also shared with asteroids. So an asteroid hitting the earth (to cause the polar ice caps & make the dinosaurs extinct) is a "normal" event within the context of the dynamics of the galaxy. It may not happen very often, given the laws of probability, but it is not necessarily "abnormal" based on the laws of physics.

The question further revolves upon whether trading carbon credits is the best way to prepare for climate change, purportedly the most subscribed to being warming of the Earth.

If we assume that global warming is occurring, does it serve humans' interests to depress industrial economies (where solutions are more likely to be developed) so that Chinese consumers can have more TVs (and other consumer goods that the more affluent Chinese workers are now demanding)?

in universal time it is actually a very frequent event, just look at the moon. its just abnormal in the perceived time frame of our own puny human existence.

Gerry Clinchy
07-10-2010, 11:14 AM
Given that the combined populations of China and India are eight times the population of the U.S., a relatively small shift in consumption in those countries will have a dramatic impact on worldwide consumption. That increases worldwide prices which will affect consumption everywhere.

I was thinking back to your reference earlier (here or some other thread?) that countries like US, Canada, etc would have to decrease their consumption by 70% (!) in order to offset the growth of emerging economies (like China & India).

If as you theorize here, that their "new" consumption will automatically increases energy costs worldwide, is there some special need to further depress economies of countries like US, Canada, etc. with added burdens of paying for carbon credits?

Obviously, US, Canada, etc. are already bearing burdens of 30% increases in costs for electricity. Yardley, PA (where you live), I believe may be served by PECO which won't increase until 2011. Where I live, I have already seen the 30% increase in elec costs.

Interestingly, as costs of oil, gas and electric increase, more people would turn to coal and wood stoves. They'll have to tax the coal and wood as well, since they won't help the carbon balance if usage of those two as heating fuels increases. While I am optimistic enough to believe that the economy will cycle back up (though the length of the down cycle is unpredictable), in the interim how can the partially employed, unemployed, or those employed without wage increases be able to sustain the increase in heating/lighting costs without pulling those funds from other consumer/retail spending ... thus delaying economic upturn? It would appear that increased costs will go to the energy industries (to cover their taxes), and ultimately to the govt to spend ... thus sucking more $ out of the private sector and re-directing it to the govt sector.

YardleyLabs
07-10-2010, 11:50 AM
I was thinking back to your reference earlier (here or some other thread?) that countries like US, Canada, etc would have to decrease their consumption by 70% (!) in order to offset the growth of emerging economies (like China & India).

If as you theorize here, that their "new" consumption will automatically increases energy costs worldwide, is there some special need to further depress economies of countries like US, Canada, etc. with added burdens of paying for carbon credits?

Obviously, US, Canada, etc. are already bearing burdens of 30% increases in costs for electricity. Yardley, PA (where you live), I believe may be served by PECO which won't increase until 2011. Where I live, I have already seen the 30% increase in elec costs.

Interestingly, as costs of oil, gas and electric increase, more people would turn to coal and wood stoves. They'll have to tax the coal and wood as well, since they won't help the carbon balance if usage of those two as heating fuels increases. While I am optimistic enough to believe that the economy will cycle back up (though the length of the down cycle is unpredictable), in the interim how can the partially employed, unemployed, or those employed without wage increases be able to sustain the increase in heating/lighting costs without pulling those funds from other consumer/retail spending ... thus delaying economic upturn? It would appear that increased costs will go to the energy industries (to cover their taxes), and ultimately to the govt to spend ... thus sucking more $ out of the private sector and re-directing it to the govt sector.
Do you believe that the US will be able to consume dramatically more energy per capita than the rest of the world forever? I don't. What do you believe are the implications of having India and China achieve standards of living comparable to those of the other developed economies of the world?

caryalsobrook
07-10-2010, 08:26 PM
Sometimes complete answers are longer than even I care to write. The short answer is that you are focusing on punctuation and ignoring the paragraphs. None of the conclusions concerning global climate change rel;y on the work of any single person or group. The findings have been confirmed by multiple groups working independently using different methodologies. There are areas of uncertainty that remain. However, those areas of uncertainty the broad conclusions that average world temperatures are rising and that the activities of humans have significantly contributed to accelerating the changes.

On the broader issue of the relationship of weather to climate, it is important to note that changes in temperature are not uniform and that the location of changes may be more important in determining consequences than the extent of change. For example, 100 million years ago, when dinosaurs ruled the earth, equatorial temperatures averaged only a couple of degrees warmer than they are today. However, ocean levels were at some of their highest levels in the history of the earth. The difference was that temperatures at the poles were 20-30 degrees warmer than they are now. The ice caps that we now take for granted were not there and all that resulting water covered the lands that we now inhabit.

If that happens again, life will continue on earth, just as life continued 65 million years ago when a great asteroid struck the earth and threw up dust clouds that obscured the sun and led to the cooling of the earth and the formation of polar ice caps that lowered sea levels and made more land available for the development of land-based species. That accident of climate helped create the environment that made the evolution of humans possible. Unfortunately, for the dinosaurs, those same changes led to their extinction. Those are good lessons to remember as we cavalierly say that change is normal.

I liked your statement of "focusing on the punctuation and ignoring the paragraph". It was at leas novel. You were right to say that none of the conclusions rely on a single scientist for their conclusions. So why don't you admit that there are differing conclusions besides that of man made global warming? You seem to admit that Prof. Michael Mann's data and conclusions are at the very least suspect. You seem to discount Dr. Phil Jones who is-was if not the lmost respected sientist advocating global warming has at the very least admitted that some of his assumptions may very well be wrong.

Other than that you ignored the rest of my post and gave a lecture on a theory of the earth's climate in the past. I assume you would like to avoid the questions I asked specifically concerning capp and trade as a solution to global warming if it in facts exists. Might the proposal of capp and trade be more directed toward income redistribution and not enviromental protection. Are there not other solutions to global warmling that would not involve income redistribution. Frankly I use this as a yardstick to the seriousness of those who advocate the existance of man made global warming. Those who are more interested in income redistribution don't seem to have an alternative to capp and trade and they don't want to hear an alternative unless it involves income redistribution.

YardleyLabs
07-10-2010, 09:03 PM
I liked your statement of "focusing on the punctuation and ignoring the paragraph". It was at leas novel. You were right to say that none of the conclusions rely on a single scientist for their conclusions. So why don't you admit that there are differing conclusions besides that of man made global warming? You seem to admit that Prof. Michael Mann's data and conclusions are at the very least suspect. You seem to discount Dr. Phil Jones who is-was if not the lmost respected sientist advocating global warming has at the very least admitted that some of his assumptions may very well be wrong.

Other than that you ignored the rest of my post and gave a lecture on a theory of the earth's climate in the past. I assume you would like to avoid the questions I asked specifically concerning capp and trade as a solution to global warming if it in facts exists. Might the proposal of capp and trade be more directed toward income redistribution and not enviromental protection. Are there not other solutions to global warmling that would not involve income redistribution. Frankly I use this as a yardstick to the seriousness of those who advocate the existance of man made global warming. Those who are more interested in income redistribution don't seem to have an alternative to capp and trade and they don't want to hear an alternative unless it involves income redistribution.
You would be hard pressed to find any peer reviewed articles by qualified climatologists that question any of the basic science of global climate change. For that reason, there is little to argue.

As an economist by training, I believe that the free market cannot operate efficiently unless transactions are structured to internalize all related costs and benefits. Thus, a factory that pollutes should be required to bear the cost of eliminating its wastes or repairing all damages caused. Otherwise that plant is being involuntarily subsidized by those who bear the cost of the pollution. Carbon emissions are a form of pollution that now receives a free ride. We pay the costs and our children and grand children will continue to do so. From an economic perspective that means that the cost of goods that produce carbon pollution is understated. Prices are artificially low as a result, and activities that produce pollution are happening at a greater volume than would be the case if all costs were embedded in the price.

That is all theory, but still true. The difficulty is in figuring out appropriate ways to internalize those costs and then to use the revenues generated to provide appropriate offsets to correcting the damage caused. Cap and trade is a simple approach for doing this. It is not perfect. However, I believe it is better than what we are doing now.

caryalsobrook
07-10-2010, 09:32 PM
You would be hard pressed to find any peer reviewed articles by qualified climatologists that question any of the basic science of global climate change. For that reason, there is little to argue.

As an economist by training, I believe that the free market cannot operate efficiently unless transactions are structured to internalize all related costs and benefits. Thus, a factory that pollutes should be required to bear the cost of eliminating its wastes or repairing all damages caused. Otherwise that plant is being involuntarily subsidized by those who bear the cost of the pollution. Carbon emissions are a form of pollution that now receives a free ride. We pay the costs and our children and grand children will continue to do so. From an economic perspective that means that the cost of goods that produce carbon pollution is understated. Prices are artificially low as a result, and activities that produce pollution are happening at a greater volume than would be the case if all costs were embedded in the price.

That is all theory, but still true. The difficulty is in figuring out appropriate ways to internalize those costs and then to use the revenues generated to provide appropriate offsets to correcting the damage caused. Cap and trade is a simple approach for doing this. It is not perfect. However, I believe it is better than what we are doing now.
I also have a mojor in economics not that is a necessary prerequesite for that discussion. Dr. Joseph Michael Finger retired economist of the World Bank and a long and dear friend ( I was in his wedding in Mobile Alabama in the mid 60's) visited me just this summer and we went fishing at Lake Guntersville Alabama. He was initially a Prof of ecomomics at Duke University and hed me lecture to the two courses that he taught while there. I considered that an honor but really hadn't thought of it until you told me a portion of your curiculum vitae.

Never the less you STILL avoid the the simplest of questions. You compare cap and trade to the system of today only. Simply stated- DO YOU KNOW OF OR ARE YOU AWARE OF OR CAN YOU PROPOSE ANY OTHER SOLUTION TO MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING OTHER THAN THAT WHICH HAS AS A MASSIVE CONSEQUENCE-INCOME REDISTRIBUTION. If I am quite interested if not I assume that you can't come up with another solution or income redistribution is a prerequisite to any solution .

T. Mac
07-11-2010, 04:23 PM
There was a fairly interesting article in today's local paper that would tend to indicate that this area goes through climate cycles (approx) every thousand years. The variation between wet and dry periods is indicated by the presence of trees killed by drowning as the waters of the lake rose around them. Based on this data, the last wet cycle started around the mid 1200's. Earlier wet periods are indicated to begin around 0 BC and 1500 BC. As the lake is still full of water at present, this would indicate that we are still in a wet phase.
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/11/2882292/scientists-scan-tahoe-area-lake.html

Another interesting concept that I don't find to much discussion on, is that in looking at historic new world (American) civilizations, with the exclusion of some of the cultures in the four corner states, all of the advanced civilizations occured in central and south America. The Inca, Aztec, Ulmec, Mayan, etc. cultures all developed anf flourished here despite the fact that the northern areas were probably occupied first. In fact in the investigation of the four corner civilizations (Anasazi), many of the developements were formed around 800-1200 as climate in the four corners area was in a wet period. As this wet period ended around 1200 these developements were abandoned. Note that these time periods tend to inversely correspond to the dead tree cycle found in the Fallen Leaf Lake study.

T. Mac

subroc
07-11-2010, 08:10 PM
here is the whole article

my question is, what do they have to hide?



Climate Panel Urges ‘Distance’ From Reporters

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

Andy Revkin reports at Dot Earth that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, faulted in the past for a siege mentality, has urged its participating researchers to “keep a distance from the media” and send any press questions about their group work to supervisors.




http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/climate-panel-urges-distance-from-reporters/


http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/climate-panel-struggles-with-media-plan/?emc=eta1

Henry V
07-12-2010, 10:35 AM
Sorry it took a while to respond to your posts.
Thanks for pointing out my failure to differentiate between weather and climate. A mistake on my part which I would like to assume was carelesness. No matter the reason, it was certainly a mistake that I should not have made.

Correct if I am wrong. Climate will change if there is global warming. Climate may change and there may be no global warming. If you have no problem with this maybe you can assume that I understand the difference unless I show otherwise. Not differentiating between weather and climate was a mistake on my part and should reinforce in me to hold myself to a higher standard.
OK, but your lack of attention to detail gives clear insight into how you view this issue. Weather and climate are very different and recognizing the difference is critical for discussion of this topic.


Now to Yardly's statement ..., I have a simple question. If the arguement of global warming was the inappropriate arguement in determining environmental policy, why was that arguement put forth for more than 10 years. Are not these the same people who argued that now only was there global warming but that global warming is man made? I thought that the absolute FACT that global warming was resoundingly proved by the studies of Michael Mann who showed that the global temperature had remained relatively constant for the last 2000 years up until the industrial revolution and the advent of the internal combustion engine. As slow as I am, It took me quite some time to grasp his theory using data such as the rings on trees ect. I realize that this was not the only data that he used, I just cite it as one of the data he used.
Who ever said that “global warming” was the inappropriate argument? As I referenced in my earlier post, both terms have been used in the scientific community for many many years. It is another red herring. Why are you so hung up on one scientist? You act as if the entire body of evidence for global warming and climate change centers around one scientist and the tree ring record. This is complete nonsense.

Yardley pointed out that Penn State had cleared him of any violations of policy of Penn State, which I have no problem with. The comission composed entirely of Penn State professors as they stated found him innocent of any policy violations based on the preponderence of the evidence (51%) The deletion of e-mails was of little interest to me but the findings of the committee certainly gave me pause concerning his data. Let me quote from the comission. "Thus even though there are a number ofhighly sophisticated, physically sound models that are used to analize and predict various features of the earth's climate system, HUMAN JUDGEMENTS ARE INVARIABLY INVOLVED, AND A CERTAIN ABOUNT OF SUBJECTIVITY IS INTRODUCED." I may be wrong and maybe you should read he quote but it appears that they were talking about the introduction of subjectivity into the data. I certainly understand the introduction of subjectivity into any conclusions resulting from the data but I can't understand introducing subjectivity into data. It appears to me by doing so, one would lose any creditibility of any conclusions that might be drawn. Maybe I am wrong and the commission was not talking about Prof. Mann's data but I can't figure anything else that they might be talking since subjectivity in conclusions would be quite acceptable.
If you could read the comission report, I am sure you can find the quote and maybe there is a better explanation for it that I could see. I would like to know your opinion.
Where does it say anything about “the introduction of subjectivity into data”. The other part of the quote that you CAPITALIZED talks about “physically sound models”. Given the structure of the sentence and its context in the report, they are saying the models have some subjectivity built into them as does every single model out there to describe climate, weather, hydrology, etc. To calibrate a model a user has to input certain values for various variables and parameters. That input is subjective but based on scientific judgment.


Of the many charges leveled against Prof. Mann, the charges were reduced to about four. After questioning a number of witnesses who staunchly supported his innocence, all but one was dropped. Dr. Lindzen, a Prof. at MIT was called. Prof. Lindzen was quite upset when informed that all charges but one had been droped and he was to be question ononly the remaining charge. It appeared to me fron the transcript that Dr. Lindzen did not share the same opinion of Prof. Mann that all the previousl witnesses had of him.
Lidzen is a well known and cited by deniers. He does not, however, deny that climate change is taking place or that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible.
the public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. From what I have read he mainly believes that negative feedback from CO2-based forcing will moderate global temperatures (more water vapor, more clouds, more reflection)


Assuming man made golbal warming, or climate change or whatever the arguemant might be tomorrow, I would prefer an open, civil and honest discussion from Dr. Lintzen, Dr. Mann, and a host of renowned experts devoid of ridicule and political policy.
Yes. That’s what this post is intended to do.


Just a little extra food for thought- let's assume that man made global warming, climate change whatever is a fact and man is so drastically affecting our environment as to be flirting with self destruction is an fact not refutable. Do you believe that the cap and trade tax is the only solution. If you don't think that it is the only solution, can you think of any other. Put on your thinking cap Yardley and Henry V. I sincerely would like to know your thoughts.
No, cap and trade is not the only solution. Many have been looked at and will continue to be looked at. Cap and trade is a market-based approach to reduce pollution. It has been implemented and works. You may recall that the US used this approach quite successfully to reduce emissions responsible for acid rain. The world did not come to an end and significant reductions in emissions were observed (see http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading)



"Prof. Jones told the BBc yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues the he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is not as good as it should be.
The data is crucial to the famous hockey stick graph used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Prof. Jones also conceded the possibility that the world ws WARMER in medieval times than now-suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said for the past 15 years there has been no stistically significant warming.
But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and he said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made."
I understand that raising uncertainty about the science is an effective tactic but do you have any evidence that the scientist had falsified data or come to conclusions not scientifically supported? Do all scientists with messy offices have their science equally discredited? Einstein does come to mind. Perhaps they need to ask him whether he still beats his wife too? You do realize that 1988 and 1989 were the warmest ever recorded in modern times and this affects statistical significance.


Now I would not question that there are creditable arguemants of anything from insignificant to significant man made global warming. But what I would like to see is other independent verification by other scientists using other models that might concur with Dr. Jones' beliefs. Yes, there are many thousands of credible arguments. There are also many models that are not dependent on one persons beliefs. The literature is rich, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.


.... As I said in the previous post, given that global warming if a proven fact, the solutions such as cap and trade are political policy. I suggested that there might be other solutions if the only interest is reducing the impact of global warming. When the only proposal is cap and trade then I become concerned that preserving the environment may only be a part of the political policy. A contend that there are other possible solutions to cap and trade that may focus only on preserving the environment given the fact of global warming and those who advocate cap and trade have political agendas reaching far beyond environmental protection.
Do you have any evidence that this is the only system under consideration? What are your preferred solutions?

You might believe that the earth has never experienced periods of time warmer that today but even Dr. Jones is reluctant to make such a statement. What evidence on these forums led you to believe that any of us are naive enough to think this? Are you stereotyping or throwing in another diversion? How about some science to back your point of view instead.

Henry V
07-12-2010, 10:52 AM
....
Never the less you STILL avoid the the simplest of questions. You compare cap and trade to the system of today only. Simply stated- DO YOU KNOW OF OR ARE YOU AWARE OF OR CAN YOU PROPOSE ANY OTHER SOLUTION TO MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING OTHER THAN THAT WHICH HAS AS A MASSIVE CONSEQUENCE-INCOME REDISTRIBUTION. If I am quite interested if not I assume that you can't come up with another solution or income redistribution is a prerequisite to any solution .
I know that this was not directed at me, but could you please explain and present evidence of why you think that cap and trade is a scheme to redistribute income? On a per capita basis, folks with less income pay far more for energy as a proportion of their income and wealth compared to folks with more income. Are you concerned that the poor are going to be disproportionately affected or that the wealthy will not be affected enough?

Henry V
07-12-2010, 11:17 AM
my question is, what do they have to hide?

Yes, quite the smoking gun that refutes all the scientific evidence.
"...send any press questions about their group work to supervisors."
LMAO.

Gerry Clinchy
07-12-2010, 01:45 PM
Do you believe that the US will be able to consume dramatically more energy per capita than the rest of the world forever? I don't. What do you believe are the implications of having India and China achieve standards of living comparable to those of the other developed economies of the world?

Let me answer it this way:
When you started your own business, you created wealth. When you hired employees, you raised their standard of living. Did you envision that you would have to directly deduct their increase in living standard by a reduction in your own?

The self-employed work long & hard to make a business succeed. When they hire employees they do so by giving some of their income to another employee, who will, they anticipate, increase the overall company income & allow the business to grow. This growth will increase the employer's standard of living ... and also that of the employee (with a fair-minded employer).

So, if real wealth is generated in a world-wide economy, should the increase in Chinese standard of living dictate that other economies must automatically reduce their own?

As human ingenuity and innovation finds alternative energy sources and ways to make less energy do more through efficiencies ... new wealth is created allowing the lesser standards of living to rise, without dragging down the standards of others (as long as the latter also continue to contribute to the generation of wealth).

Henry V
07-12-2010, 04:14 PM
Gerry, take a look at this article which relates to your questions. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5230
The economic theories of the past have always assumed cheap and abundant energy supplies and usually have externalized some of the true costs to society or to future generations. In my experience, humans become much more ingenious only after they recognize there is a problem and usually that takes a crisis (e.g rivers are burning, maybe we should do something). Given our total reliance on fossil fuels in every aspect of our everyday lives and their finite supply, IMHO we better get moving now to find alternatives since they are likely to take a generation to develop.

Here also is a good article about China's coal consumption http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/6700#more

YardleyLabs
07-12-2010, 04:46 PM
Let me answer it this way:
When you started your own business, you created wealth. When you hired employees, you raised their standard of living. Did you envision that you would have to directly deduct their increase in living standard by a reduction in your own?

The self-employed work long & hard to make a business succeed. When they hire employees they do so by giving some of their income to another employee, who will, they anticipate, increase the overall company income & allow the business to grow. This growth will increase the employer's standard of living ... and also that of the employee (with a fair-minded employer).

So, if real wealth is generated in a world-wide economy, should the increase in Chinese standard of living dictate that other economies must automatically reduce their own?

As human ingenuity and innovation finds alternative energy sources and ways to make less energy do more through efficiencies ... new wealth is created allowing the lesser standards of living to rise, without dragging down the standards of others (as long as the latter also continue to contribute to the generation of wealth).
Your private company analogy is not really accurate. What we have instead is a very large, powerful, established company competing against a number of newer start-ups with fewer fixed costs and lower production costs. They are competing with us head to head and winning in more and more markets. I agree that one outcome of this competition will be improvements in productivity that will benefit everyone. However, in the short term we will see significant price increases as demand outpaces supply for some resources. By investing now, we can get ahead of the curve and possibly gain some long term leverage by developing more effective ways to meet future energy needs. However, we have stuck our collective heads in the sand.

Gerry Clinchy
07-12-2010, 06:16 PM
Your private company analogy is not really accurate. What we have instead is a very large, powerful, established company competing against a number of newer start-ups with fewer fixed costs and lower production costs. They are competing with us head to head and winning in more and more markets. I agree that one outcome of this competition will be improvements in productivity that will benefit everyone.

Sounds like the private company analogy still works ... large companies who don't plan for the start-ups who will compete, will be like the U.S. car companies who didn't pay attention to the Japanese car companies. So, if the currently more advanced economies screw up, nobody but themselves to blame.


However, in the short term we will see significant price increases as demand outpaces supply for some resources. By investing now, we can get ahead of the curve and possibly gain some long term leverage by developing more effective ways to meet future energy needs. However, we have stuck our collective heads in the sand.

My post:

new wealth is created allowing the lesser standards of living to rise, without dragging down the standards of others (as long as the latter also continue to contribute to the generation of wealth).

Global warming, climate change ... yes or no ... our fossil fuel supplies are finite, regardless.

I just don't we should approach the problem from the perspective that in order for other economies to grow, the already-successful economies must shrink. Whether the powers that be fail to recognize the problem is different.

The problem with trading carbon credits is that the energy suppliers simply pass along their costs of the taxation to the consumer. The consumer has no choice in heating their homes or using electricity, but it is the consumer that will pay the price.

caryalsobrook
07-12-2010, 09:03 PM
NEREThank you for your post. My lack of attention to datail concerning the use of the term weather was indefensible and I assure you that in the future I may make a similar mistake but it won't be in the use of the term "weather"

While talking about paying attention to detail, let me contest your statement "act like". If I was trying to pay attention to detail and wanted to be accurate and were in your shoes, I would have said that I had neglected to reference any other scientific studies. And paying attention to detail I would have responded "I did that deliberately so it wouldn't be a contest of gottcha, you name a study and I'll name a study. You can correct me if I am wrong but the term act means something done and does not imply something said. For that matter I may have been watching TV or having sex(not hardly:)), when I wrote the post.
The post was precipitated by Yardley's post of Prof. Mann's exonoration by Penn State., which I was unaware of( their findings made public only a few days ago). I was interested and read them. For years I have heard the arguement "because of man made global warming, cabbon emissions must be reduced". Until the summer of 2008, I had never heard anyone say "bbecause of climate change, carbon exissions must be reduced." I have never heard of any studies saying "because of climate change, carbon emissions must be reduced.
I may be wrong but I thought Prof. Mann's study proving a relatively constant global temperature for the last 2000 years lasted up until the industrial revolution, which certainly would be an argument for man made global warming, was a centerpiece in the advocacy of man made global warming. That's why I was so interested in the examination of Prof. Mann's research. You can read my quote of Dr. Phil Jones concerning the temperature during medieval times concecerning the global temperature during medieval times. I was careful to include his advocacy of man made global warming in the quote(attention to detail). Nowhere have I EXPRESSED not have I ACTED here my opinion as to the truth or fiction of global warming. It does not take a genious to know that man affects the environment. My opinion is that that is a given. The volcanic eruption of Mt St. Helens(1980?) gave rise to predictions of its effect in gradients of miles as to when we could expect to see bacterial life, plant life, and animal life. It turned out to be a wonderful natural laboratory and showed how wrong we can be. I am not disparaging scientists nor research but that certainly showed how wrong we can be. It also gave us a wonderful insight to nature. I don't pretend to understand the effects of man on the environment, especially the degree of his effects. I know there are advocates of significant man made global warming and there are opponents of significant global warming and I feel that both sides should be heard. The results are monumental either way. This is the first time I have expressed my opinion on the subject on this forum. You say that I have "acted" as if no other scientific studies advocating global warming existed. As I said the discussion was started concerning the exonoration of Prof. Mann.
On your last quote concerning periods of time warmer than today, there was another clerical mistake on my part(lack of attention to detail). I must have left out the phrase "in the last 2000 years". Note my refering to Dr. Jones concerning the temperature during the medieval period. That statement was refering to Yardley's statement about temperatures back to the dinasaur period.

Lastly and I hope I haven't missed answering any of your questions concerning my post. I did not(NERVER) said that capp and trade would not reduce carbon emissions. I only said that it would generate income redistribution. As I am sure you are aware of, the demand curve like food and health care of energy is highly inelastic. Obviously President BO is also aware of this since he said that "if my cap and trade policy is implemented energy costs will skyrocket". I'll add since you must raise the price of energy drastically to lower the use of energy in small amounts. Surely, not wanted to be "MEAN SPIRITED" the government will have to subsidize energy for those who can't afford it, result, income redistribution. So I ask you do you not ieve that cap and trade will not result in income redistribution or do you believe it will. That's one question for you, not if you advocate it but do you believe that it will. Not asking your opinion on income redistribution. And AGAIN AND AGAIN do you know of a method of reducing carbon emissions that will not involve income redistribution or not. Either you do and can state it or you don't. The question is not to impune your intelligence. There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know". I think I have said "I don't know many times in this post.
Lastly, I did reference you in one of the previous posts in the hopes you would respond. Think you for your response. I'm sure I have learned from it.

caryalsobrook
07-12-2010, 09:14 PM
Ah Henry- not paying attention to datail, I missed responding to the quote about subjectivity and modeling made by the Penn State Commission. You are absolutely right when you say that modeling contains subjectivity. You can correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that modeling was created when raw data was inadaquate for the research and necessarily required subjectivity. If data is sufficient then medeling is not necessary and hence no subjectivity was necessary. Another question which my show my ignorence. Is modeling necessary if there is no need to introduce subjectivity? If this is true then why was it necessary for the commission to make such a statement? If they were refering to modeling then it seems that the statement would be unnecessary. I must admit the statement was perplexing to me.

YardleyLabs
07-13-2010, 07:44 AM
Ah Henry- not paying attention to datail, I missed responding to the quote about subjectivity and modeling made by the Penn State Commission. You are absolutely right when you say that modeling contains subjectivity. You can correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that modeling was created when raw data was inadaquate for the research and necessarily required subjectivity. If data is sufficient then medeling is not necessary and hence no subjectivity was necessary. Another question which my show my ignorence. Is modeling necessary if there is no need to introduce subjectivity? If this is true then why was it necessary for the commission to make such a statement? If they were refering to modeling then it seems that the statement would be unnecessary. I must admit the statement was perplexing to me.

Not to be picky, but your comment about modeling is inaccurate. Data means nothing in the absence of theories (models) that allow data from a known past/present condition to be used to predict an otherwise unknown future. While the development of theories is a subjective process, well defined models are always subject to objective validation. However, models remain an abstraction. When a model that has worked historically begins to fail, it does not necessarily mean the model was wrong. Usually, it means that factors that were not important before have become important for reasons that were not incorporated into the original model.

The more complex the system, the more likely that such problems will arise over time. In weather models, a fundamental problem is that there is no experiential data for analyzing the effect of increases in carbon levels as large as those we now have. Similarly, we have little information on the effects of losing massive amounts of polar ice. Our ignorance in these areas should make us nervous, not make us feel better.

Gerry Clinchy
07-13-2010, 08:03 AM
Our ignorance in these areas should make us nervous, not make us feel better.

I know this does sound cavalier, but I do wonder if today's routine weather predictions are any better than the old Farmers' Almanac.

I wonder if anyone has bothered to analyze how Farmers' Almanac weather predictions have varied over time. I'd guess they've been around for about 100 years or so. That period of 100 years might also roughly correlate to the Industrial Revolution and to the CO2 levels.

YardleyLabs
07-13-2010, 09:05 AM
I know this does sound cavalier, but I do wonder if today's routine weather predictions are any better than the old Farmers' Almanac.

I wonder if anyone has bothered to analyze how Farmers' Almanac weather predictions have varied over time. I'd guess they've been around for about 100 years or so. That period of 100 years might also roughly correlate to the Industrial Revolution and to the CO2 levels.
The answer is that current, short term weather forecasts are infinitely better than anything in the Farmer's Almanac. However, the Farmer's Almanac gives daily predictions a year ahead of time. Today, few would consider that to be a worthwhile exercise. Weather prediction is an effort to forecast the short term likelihood of local conditions based on current conditions in a much wider area. The methods used for short term forecasts have little relationship to the methods used to predict long term climate trends. Weather forecasts are actually pretty accurate. However, people forget that they are probabilistic. I say there is a 90% chance of overcast skies with a 30% chance pf precipitation. The local paper shows a cloudy sky with no rain, but a note saying 30% chance of precipitation. It rains, and everyone says they were wrong because of the picture.

In 1996, my neighborhood suffered one of the worst floods in its history. Not only was it not predicted, it wasn't even reported as it happened. What happened was that an itinerant storm that was expected to pass through the area producing "scattered heavy showers" decided to sit directly over my very small town for several hours. The areas located 2-3 miles from my house in any direction received no rain at all. We received 11 inches of rain, that promptly flowed downhill to my neighborhood, which was the lowest point in the affected area. I had five feet of water on the street in front of my house, eight feet of water in my basement, and had to abandon ship by wading out through waste deep water. Two people died in a town with only 2000. 25% of the town was underwater. Was that a failure of weather prediction? I'm not sure that we will ever have a model that will provide advance notices of freak conditions affecting only a few square miles of the earth's surface. It's equivalent to trying to predict whether a tornado will land on your house or your neighbor's.

subroc
07-13-2010, 11:38 AM
I read a lot of this stuff.

agree with it or not, but this is a pretty good twist.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/07/12/the-big-green-lie-exposed/

Henry V
07-13-2010, 02:30 PM
Ah Henry- not paying attention to datail, I missed responding to the quote about subjectivity and modeling made by the Penn State Commission. You are absolutely right when you say that modeling contains subjectivity. You can correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that modeling was created when raw data was inadaquate for the research and necessarily required subjectivity. If data is sufficient then medeling is not necessary and hence no subjectivity was necessary. Another question which my show my ignorence. Is modeling necessary if there is no need to introduce subjectivity? If this is true then why was it necessary for the commission to make such a statement? If they were refering to modeling then it seems that the statement would be unnecessary. I must admit the statement was perplexing to me.
You are under the wrong "impression" of modeling. In fact, based on your words you do not seem to understand it much at all. Models are based on empirical data input and are calibrated retrospectively to provide output consistent with the historical record. They can then be used to to predict what would happen in the future with a variety of inputs. Perhaps take a look at this website to better understand climate models. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cm101-grid-resolution.
I will stand by my first response to your question about this issue.

It is difficult to tell if your other post is directed at me. If so, I think I answered your questions in a previous post. You seem to want to discuss Mann's "hockeystick" graph. Google hockeystick graph and go to the wikipedia page. It provides a history and also provides references for other independent studies that are consistent with his results.
Regarding cap and trade, google "cap and trade alternatives" and you will get about 321,000 results. I am not sure which ones have implications for wealth redistribution. If you find out, please report back. I do not buy your assertion that cap and trade will result in redistribution and will stick to the facts I presented in my previous response. You seem to assume that it will result in wealth redistribution because the government will disproportionately subsidize the cost of energy to lower income people. There is an argument to be made that this already occurs now, that lower income folks still use a disproportionately larger amount of their income on energy than those with higher incomes, and the gap between rich and poor continues to grow.

caryalsobrook
07-13-2010, 11:12 PM
You are under the wrong "impression" of modeling. In fact, based on your words you do not seem to understand it much at all. Models are based on empirical data input and are calibrated retrospectively to provide output consistent with the historical record. They can then be used to to predict what would happen in the future with a variety of inputs. Perhaps take a look at this website to better understand climate models. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cm101-grid-resolution.
I will stand by my first response to your question about this issue.

It is difficult to tell if your other post is directed at me. If so, I think I answered your questions in a previous post. You seem to want to discuss Mann's "hockeystick" graph. Google hockeystick graph and go to the wikipedia page. It provides a history and also provides references for other independent studies that are consistent with his results.
Regarding cap and trade, google "cap and trade alternatives" and you will get about 321,000 results. I am not sure which ones have implications for wealth redistribution. If you find out, please report back. I do not buy your assertion that cap and trade will result in redistribution and will stick to the facts I presented in my previous response. You seem to assume that it will result in wealth redistribution because the government will disproportionately subsidize the cost of energy to lower income people. There is an argument to be made that this already occurs now, that lower income folks still use a disproportionately larger amount of their income on energy than those with higher incomes, and the gap between rich and poor continues to grow.

If you are under the wrong impression that based on my own words, then enlighten me using myt own words. Based on the statement made by the commission investigating Prof. Mann being aplied to modeling which you also aserted, I thought that I agreed with both the comission and you. I also said that if subjectivity was introduced to raw data be that empirical or measurable, then I felt that that was a problem. I could give you examples but I feel sure that you know what I am talking about. I did not say that Prof. Mann had introduced subjectivity only that the commission had made a statement that I thought was a given. Looking back at your posts, I belileve you asserted that the statement may very well be refering to the modeling and not the data. Empiracle data is certainly acceptable data in scientific research. You can correct me if I am wrong but introducing subjectivity in empirical or stystical data without acknowledgeing it may well be considered improper. Then I would be concerned about his data not to mention that he has up to this point to my knowledge released his data. I believe you described his office as unorganized or could that be lack of detail? As I said, I have read the report of the commission of Penn State and did nott in any way offer or imply any criticism of it. I only offered the apparent dissatisfaction ot the professor from MIT.with the procedures they used. I dno't even know the details of his basis for criticsing them but his tenor seemed to express dissatisfaction.
Now to cap and trade and income redistribution. The term "scheme" is yours not mine. You imply something that I have neither said nor expressed. Income is a policy, a social policy which you may agree or disagree. I have not tried not to put any ulterior motives on what you say so try not to put any ulterior motives on my part.
Food, shelter, energy, clothing, transportation and some will say healthcare are considered by many to be non discressionary expenses. You can adjust the lis if you like just so we agree that energy is one of those included. Given normal spending habits, empiracle data would sopport the conclusion that the poor and the working low income would spend far higher percentage on non discretionary items than the rich. And it would show that middle income people would spend a higher pecentage income on these items than the rich but a smaller percentage on these items than the poor and working poor. I am sure that you would be hard pressed to find anyone on this forum who is not aware of this or would disagree with this. You will find people on this forum who advocate income redistribution as a policy because of this fact. You will find people on this forum who would reject income redistribution as a policy regardless of this fact. President BO stated that if his policy of "cap and trade were implemented then electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket." Some people have estimated(I don't know what data or modeling if any they used to come up with this figure) that electric bill for the average household would increase by as much as more that $4000.00 oer year. Yes, income income redistribution already exists as a result of government policy and yes some agree and some disagree with this policy. Asuming that the President is right and the price of electricity skyrockets as a result of cap and trade, don't you believe that unless income redistribution by the government is implemented, that the discretionary income of the poor and working low income may very well be less than the increase in the cost of their electric bills. You may assume that their consumption of electricity will be reduced enough that their costs will not rise, but I don't and I would predict that government redistribution of income will take place. No one wants anyone to die from freezing or heat stroke. Who will pay for this? Certainly the rich will reduce their discretionary spending to cover the added cost but that reduction will be a smaller percentage than that of the middle class. The middle class will suffer the greatest reduction of discretionary income as a percentage of their income. You may disagree but I think I am right. You may even agree that this is a desirable role of government.

You may think that stating that there are 300,000 alternatives to cap and trade that can be googled on the internet is an answer to my question. I do not intend to read all of them nor do I suspect that you have read them either. What I do know is that you have not answered the question and after putting the question I am becoming convinced that you can't or won't answer it.

caryalsobrook
07-13-2010, 11:33 PM
HenryV I just saw the thread about civility and the reaction of some of those who post here. We don't know each other but I hope you feel that I have been both respectful and civil in my discussion with you in every way. I assure you that I have meant no disrespect and that had I not considered you worthy of a discussion then I would not have entered in one with you. My sister who I dearly love has views that seem to be quite similer to yours (please don't think that I am trying to create any misconceptions of your views). If you feel it is necessary then by all means answer my last post but given the circumstances of the rampant feelings of those here, I feel it best to avoid POTUS in the future. Thank you for your time and knowledge.

Gerry Clinchy
07-14-2010, 12:57 AM
Asuming that the President is right and the price of electricity skyrockets as a result of cap and trade,

As deregulation of electricity takes places here in PA, our area experienced a 30% increase in rates. While this area serviced by PP&L was among the least expensive previously, customers with electric baseboard heat saw electric bills as high as $500 a month this winter (per our local newspaper). I have a thermal storage system with a heat pump, and I definitely experienced the sticker shock, even with a well insulated home.

Many landlords convert their multi-unit rental units to electric baseboard heat because it is easier or them to separate the utility costs (and let the tenants pay utilities), and electric baseboard is relatively easy and inexpensive to install. The renters in older units are likely to have lower incomes, and the older living units are likely to have less insulation for conserving heat.

Now, if cap & trade were passed and increased these rates even further it would be devastating to the lower income population. Somehow, that slack will have to be picked up.

An increase of $4000/year is HUGE! For a working family unit earning $40,000 that is 10% of their gross for electric & heating. That is probably more than double the costs for those items for the average household now (in my area).


unless income redistribution by the government is implemented, that the discretionary income of the poor and working low income may very well be less than the increase in the cost of their electric bills.

Seems like a logical outcome.


You may assume that their consumption of electricity will be reduced enough that their costs will not rise,

Does not seem possible that a household could reduce its consumption by half!

T. Mac
07-14-2010, 01:51 AM
Income redistribution is already alive and well in the billing of some energy suppliers. In California, utility companies must offer discounted rates to "income-qualified households" of 30% or more!
http://www.pge.com/myhome/customerservice/financialassistance/care/index.shtml
http://www.sce.com/residential/income-qualified/
http://www.smud.org/en/pay/Pages/eapr.aspx

ducknwork
07-14-2010, 07:21 AM
This article is proof positive that we are doing everything possible to fight global warming. I truly mean everything.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/science/earth/14australia.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

I would love to see some graphs on this, Henry!:D;-)

Henry V
07-14-2010, 12:03 PM
Here you go. As always, nothing but the facts.
http://www.esr.org/outreach/climate_change/mans_impact/co2_3a.jpg

ducknwork
07-14-2010, 12:06 PM
I was actually hoping for something that said 'Cattle Belches'.:D

Henry V
07-14-2010, 12:23 PM
That's the best I could do. Here is a report http://www.epa.gov/methane/pdfs/Methane-and-Nitrous-Oxide-Emissions-From-Natural-Sources.pdf

Henry V
07-14-2010, 12:28 PM
Income redistribution is already alive and well in the billing of some energy suppliers. In California, utility companies must offer discounted rates to "income-qualified households" of 30% or more!
http://www.pge.com/myhome/customerservice/financialassistance/care/index.shtml
http://www.sce.com/residential/income-qualified/
http://www.smud.org/en/pay/Pages/eapr.aspx
Ahh yes, wealth redistribution is the socialist master plan for cap and trade. Now I see it. Forget the goal of reducing CO2 and other GHG emissions.
Since we already did cap and trade for acid rain related pollution, and it worked to reduce pollution, could someone tell me the net result in income redistribution from this trial implementation of "the plan".
Tighten the tin foil hat regards.........

T. Mac
09-02-2010, 07:58 PM
Just came across this video and thought this would be the best place to share it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

depittydawg
09-02-2010, 10:54 PM
As deregulation of electricity takes places here in PA, our area experienced a 30% increase in rates. While this area serviced by PP&L was among the least expensive previously, customers with electric baseboard heat saw electric bills as high as $500 a month this winter (per our local newspaper). I have a thermal storage system with a heat pump, and I definitely experienced the sticker shock, even with a well insulated home.

Many landlords convert their multi-unit rental units to electric baseboard heat because it is easier or them to separate the utility costs (and let the tenants pay utilities), and electric baseboard is relatively easy and inexpensive to install. The renters in older units are likely to have lower incomes, and the older living units are likely to have less insulation for conserving heat.

Now, if cap & trade were passed and increased these rates even further it would be devastating to the lower income population. Somehow, that slack will have to be picked up.

An increase of $4000/year is HUGE! For a working family unit earning $40,000 that is 10% of their gross for electric & heating. That is probably more than double the costs for those items for the average household now (in my area).



Seems like a logical outcome.



Does not seem possible that a household could reduce its consumption by half!
Sounds like the same scam they pulled off on the West coast a few years ago. Remember Enron?

Gerry Clinchy
09-03-2010, 03:08 PM
Sounds like the same scam they pulled off on the West coast a few years ago. Remember Enron?

The difference is that PP&L is very sound financially, and has been making solid profits for decades.

Anyone notice that another volcano blew its top recently? Had been inactive for 400 years. I wonder how much less energy we'll have to use to offset this :-)

depittydawg
09-03-2010, 08:51 PM
The difference is that PP&L is very sound financially, and has been making solid profits for decades.

Anyone notice that another volcano blew its top recently? Had been inactive for 400 years. I wonder how much less energy we'll have to use to offset this :-)

Yeah maybe. I do remember Enron was thought to be very sound at the time they were scamming the West Coast. Couple years later, well, you know the story.

T. Mac
09-10-2010, 03:20 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39100046/ns/technology_and_science-science/

dixidawg
10-09-2010, 09:28 AM
Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society

http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html


Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

caryalsobrook
10-09-2010, 10:16 AM
Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society

http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html


Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

Don't you know that this just another of those idiotic incompentent nuts along with 200 of his other idiotic incompent friends who have the audacity to question global warming(climate change or whatever they will acll it tomorow- maybe global cooling) as a proven fact with no discussion or questioning allowed?? God forbid such heresy.

Gerry Clinchy
10-09-2010, 11:16 AM
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010_09_01_archive.html

I found this blog pretty interesting.

YardleyLabs
10-09-2010, 11:55 AM
Don't you know that this just another of those idiotic incompentent nuts along with 200 of his other idiotic incompent friends who have the audacity to question global warming(climate change or whatever they will acll it tomorow- maybe global cooling) as a proven fact with no discussion or questioning allowed?? God forbid such heresy.
Just so we understand, this is a man who worked a long and fruitful career focusing on nuclear weaponry and reactor safety, and who has been retired since the early 1980's. He is now almost 90 years old. He has never had any involvement in climatology at all.

caryalsobrook
10-09-2010, 12:36 PM
Just so we understand, this is a man who worked a long and fruitful career focusing on nuclear weaponry and reactor safety, and who has been retired since the early 1980's. He is now almost 90 years old. He has never had any involvement in climatology at all.

You make my case perfectly. Surely we should not listen to anyone who might question the unalterable fact of global warming::p Surely at 90 dementia has set in and any understanding of scientific methodology he might have had is gone. Surely his chairmanship studying the effects on climate in the event of a nuclear war are either forgotten or are not applicable to the effects of carbon fuels. Besides, the 200 other scientists who signed the petition must also be idiots or suffer from dementia.
He has to have dementia for resigning his membership in such a society for so silly a reason.

By the way, did you look up the LAW OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE? Does it not show that differences of wages between the countries is not the determining factor of who produces what but only the relative efficiency of goods and services are the determing factor?

YardleyLabs
10-09-2010, 01:03 PM
You make my case perfectly. Surely we should not listen to anyone who might question the unalterable fact of global warming::p Surely at 90 dementia has set in and any understanding of scientific methodology he might have had is gone. Surely his chairmanship studying the effects on climate in the event of a nuclear war are either forgotten or are not applicable to the effects of carbon fuels. Besides, the 200 other scientists who signed the petition must also be idiots or suffer from dementia.
He has to have dementia for resigning his membership in such a society for so silly a reason.

By the way, did you look up the LAW OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE? Does it not show that differences of wages between the countries is not the determining factor of who produces what but only the relative efficiency of goods and services are the determing factor?
Actually, I never suggested dementia. However, I would place more weight on the opinions of scientists working within an area in which they have actually studied in the relatively recent past. While he is an accomplished scientist, it is in a completely different arena and is by no means recent. The more relevant question might be why you appear to value the opinion of an elderly, retired nuclear physicist over the opinions of many more active climatologists. I suspect that you are basing your valuation solely on his support for an opinion you prefer rather than on any objective assessment of either the qualifications of the proponents on both sides or any direct assessment of the evidence. There are, by the way, 47,000 members of the APS, of whom 160 joined in Harold Lewis's protest. Also, his protest was not against global warming per se but against the use of the term "incontrovertible" in the APS statement. Not exactly a strong challenge.....

With respect to the "law of comparative advantage", I assume you are referencing my posts concerning my opinions on our job competitiveness in a global market. I do not need to "look up" comparative advantage; it has not changed in concept since I studied economics in graduate school. It also has no particular relevance that I can see to any of my comments. I would be interested in your analysis indicating otherwise. For now, our areas of greatest comparative advantage, form an employment perspective, are in agriculture, and goods and services that are non-portable by their nature (e.g., mining coal or serving meals in restaurants), or where the labor component is small relative to the cost of shipping. Our historic advantages in the areas of education and productivity have eroded dramatically over time which is why the differential between our labor costs and the labor costs in other countries is coming under pressure. The items I mentioned could reduce our effective labor costs by 30%+ without reducing actual salaries.

caryalsobrook
10-09-2010, 02:27 PM
Actually, I never suggested dementia. However, I would place more weight on the opinions of scientists working within an area in which they have actually studied in the relatively recent past. While he is an accomplished scientist, it is in a completely different arena and is by no means recent. The more relevant question might be why you appear to value the opinion of an elderly, retired nuclear physicist over the opinions of many more active climatologists. I suspect that you are basing your valuation solely on his support for an opinion you prefer rather than on any objective assessment of either the qualifications of the proponents on both sides or any direct assessment of the evidence. There are, by the way, 47,000 members of the APS, of whom 160 joined in Harold Lewis's protest. Also, his protest was not against global warming per se but against the use of the term "incontrovertible" in the APS statement. Not exactly a strong challenge.....

With respect to the "law of comparative advantage", I assume you are referencing my posts concerning my opinions on our job competitiveness in a global market. I do not need to "look up" comparative advantage; it has not changed in concept since I studied economics in graduate school. It also has no particular relevance that I can see to any of my comments. I would be interested in your analysis indicating otherwise. For now, our areas of greatest comparative advantage, form an employment perspective, are in agriculture, and goods and services that are non-portable by their nature (e.g., mining coal or serving meals in restaurants), or where the labor component is small relative to the cost of shipping. Our historic advantages in the areas of education and productivity have eroded dramatically over time which is why the differential between our labor costs and the labor costs in other countries is coming under pressure. The items I mentioned could reduce our effective labor costs by 30%+ without reducing actual salaries.

First your assumption that I value his opinion concerning global warming more that other reputable scientists is totally false. His opinion and criticism of both the scientific methodology and bias in the money spent on research is what I value. As far as the validity of global warming is concerned, I have no opinion. As far as global warming go, i want good honest research by scientists who are not affraid of their work being questioned and are willing to defend their research withgood scientific methodology and data, not ridicule those scientists who question their work. There is no doubt in my mind that there are good honest scientists on both sides. Dr. Lewis pointed out the disgrassful conduct of Prof. Michael Mann and his research at Penn State University and after reading the report of the University Commitee, I must agree. The committee found him of no wrongdoing that would justify termination but it certainly did not praise him in his work.
I went to a liberal college whichtaught me that patience in opposing viewpoints was highly valued and the VIEWPOINT was the issue, not who proposed the viewpoint. I see that sorely missing today.
I asked you about the Law of Comparative Advantage because if there is free trade between two countries, both countries benefit economically when labor, capital and natural resources are allowed to move freely. Granted those areas where people work where that particular country is at a comparative disadvantage, will suffer and some will have to change their work to areas where there is a comparative advantage. The point is that the overall standard of living of both countries is increased. So even if one country has a higher overall cost of labor it will benefit from trade. As an example, the claim that the US has a higher overall labor cost of China is irrelevant. Only the comparative advantage that each country has in each good and service is rellevant.
You brought up the cost of shipping. If that contry which had the comparative advantage in shipping and were allow to transport goods, then the effect of the cost of shipping would be less. But restrict shipping by quotas, tariffs, labor contracts and laws and artificially inflate the cost of shipping then agricultural goods will suffer. I will mention The presidency of Jimmy Carter when he put an embargo on grain shipped to the Soviet Union when they invaded Afganistan. That one thing probably caused more damage to agriculture than anything since.

I am politically a libertarian. As such I do not like the policies of the current administration. I could ridicule our president by saying that until he became president and is running the executive branch of the federal government, he had not run so much as a lemonade stand. Instead, I would rather point our his predictions of the unemployment rates if the stimulus was not passed, and his prediction of healthcare premiums if the health bill was passed, and his prediction of credit card interest and fees if the finantial bill was passed. All his predictions have beed false.
Again, an open critique of global warming research is what I want not a closed mind. An open discussion of solutions based on the merits of the research and alternatives is what I want. To me, you appear to have missed the point of Dr. Lewis resignation.

YardleyLabs
10-09-2010, 02:49 PM
First your assumption that I value his opinion concerning global warming more that other reputable scientists is totally false. His opinion and criticism of both the scientific methodology and bias in the money spent on research is what I value. As far as the validity of global warming is concerned, I have no opinion. As far as global warming go, i want good honest research by scientists who are not affraid of their work being questioned and are willing to defend their research withgood scientific methodology and data, not ridicule those scientists who question their work. There is no doubt in my mind that there are good honest scientists on both sides. Dr. Lewis pointed out the disgrassful conduct of Prof. Michael Mann and his research at Penn State University and after reading the report of the University Commitee, I must agree. The committee found him of no wrongdoing that would justify termination but it certainly did not praise him in his work.
I went to a liberal college whichtaught me that patience in opposing viewpoints was highly valued and the VIEWPOINT was the issue, not who proposed the viewpoint. I see that sorely missing today.
I asked you about the Law of Comparative Advantage because if there is free trade between two countries, both countries benefit economically when labor, capital and natural resources are allowed to move freely. Granted those areas where people work where that particular country is at a comparative disadvantage, will suffer and some will have to change their work to areas where there is a comparative advantage. The point is that the overall standard of living of both countries is increased. So even if one country has a higher overall cost of labor it will benefit from trade. As an example, the claim that the US has a higher overall labor cost of China is irrelevant. Only the comparative advantage that each country has in each good and service is rellevant.
You brought up the cost of shipping. If that contry which had the comparative advantage in shipping and were allow to transport goods, then the effect of the cost of shipping would be less. But restrict shipping by quotas, tariffs, labor contracts and laws and artificially inflate the cost of shipping then agricultural goods will suffer. I will mention The presidency of Jimmy Carter when he put an embargo on grain shipped to the Soviet Union when they invaded Afganistan. That one thing probably caused more damage to agriculture than anything since.

I am politically a libertarian. As such I do not like the policies of the current administration. I could ridicule our president by saying that until he became president and is running the executive branch of the federal government, he had not run so much as a lemonade stand. Instead, I would rather point our his predictions of the unemployment rates if the stimulus was not passed, and his prediction of healthcare premiums if the health bill was passed, and his prediction of credit card interest and fees if the finantial bill was passed. All his predictions have beed false.
Again, an open critique of global warming research is what I want not a closed mind. An open discussion of solutions based on the merits of the research and alternatives is what I want. To me, you appear to have missed the point of Dr. Lewis resignation.
I have no argument with your stated ideals. The problem with labor, as I noted previously, is that it does not move as freely as capital both for legal and cultural reasons. As barriers to capital movement and trade have declined, the barriers on movement of labor have worked to the disadvantage of our economy. Our economy, as measured by GDP, will continue to do relatively well. However, our working population is not necessarily benefiting from that success. This has been evidenced by incomes for the bottom 80% of our population that have lagged far behind the growth in the economy. It is also evidenced by the persistently slow growth in employment over the last decade even during periods of strong economic growth, which was the focus of the discussion in the thread on september jobs (as distinct from this thread on global warming). I should probably add that I do not favor using GDP as or primary measure for the economy. In my opinion, the most relevant measure is median income and, by that measure, we have not done well for a long time.

caryalsobrook
10-09-2010, 03:32 PM
I have no argument with your stated ideals. The problem with labor, as I noted previously, is that it does not move as freely as capital both for legal and cultural reasons. As barriers to capital movement and trade have declined, the barriers on movement of labor have worked to the disadvantage of our economy. Our economy, as measured by GDP, will continue to do relatively well. However, our working population is not necessarily benefiting from that success. This has been evidenced by incomes for the bottom 80% of our population that have lagged far behind the growth in the economy. It is also evidenced by the persistently slow growth in employment over the last decade even during periods of strong economic growth, which was the focus of the discussion in the thread on september jobs (as distinct from this thread on global warming). I should probably add that I do not favor using GDP as or primary measure for the economy. In my opinion, the most relevant measure is median income and, by that measure, we have not done well for a long time.

Sorry to use this thread not only concerning Dr.lewis but you didn't respond to my original post which you seem to do to most. Define the barriers to labor movement and agree that they should be removed and we would probably agree whole heartedly. As far as median income, I would disagree, Job satisfaction is much more than income and should be considered.

It also appears we have come to some agreemant about discussing global warming and what do you know, not a bit of ridicule or disparaging remarks:)

YardleyLabs
10-09-2010, 03:45 PM
Sorry to use this thread not only concerning Dr.lewis but you didn't respond to my original post which you seem to do to most. Define the barriers to labor movement and agree that they should be removed and we would probably agree whole heartedly. As far as median income, I would disagree, Job satisfaction is much more than income and should be considered.

It also appears we have come to some agreemant about discussing global warming and what do you know, not a bit of ridicule or disparaging remarks:)
Legal barriers to movement of labor are primarily in the form of national work visas limiting the ability if workers to cross borders to obtain work. Absent those, fewer jobs would have moved outside the US; lower cost workers would have come in. Cultural barriers include the fact that workers are generally reluctant to move -- whether the distances are across national borders or just across state lines -- and language and cultural variations make it difficult for migrating workers to become fully productive. I'm not arguing that such limits should simply be eliminated. However, eliminating barriers to capital and trade without eliminating barriers for labor causes the types of economic distortion we are now seeing.

Obviously, at an individual level, job (or life) satisfaction is what we would all prefer. However, I don't really think that the stagnant growth in our median income is the product of a small number of people really wanting to be wealthy while the lower 80% have decided they would rather giv up money for the satisfaction of working at McDonalds.:rolleyes:

T. Mac
10-10-2010, 05:48 PM
But one still has to ask, if Global Warming is an excepted liberal concept, why is San Francisco studying the developement of Treasure Island? Note the mean elevation of the island has to be around 10' above sea level! Granted it is in the bay, but wont the bay water levels also rise if the dire predictions of global warming hold true?

http://gliving.com/san-franciscos-green-treasure-island-development/

subroc
10-10-2010, 06:55 PM
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

YardleyLabs
10-10-2010, 07:00 PM
http://blogs.telegraph.cHarold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.o.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/)
See post 148 and following. We already went through Hal's contributions to the world of nuclear reactor safety before his retirement 25 years ago.

subroc
10-16-2010, 01:56 PM
a worthwhile read...

http://blogs.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/2010/10/15/denying-the-catstrophe-the-science-of-the-climate-skeptics-position/?boxes=opinionschannellatest

depittydawg
10-16-2010, 02:29 PM
a worthwhile read...

http://blogs.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/2010/10/15/denying-the-catstrophe-the-science-of-the-climate-skeptics-position/?boxes=opinionschannellatest

This article seems political in nature. Not scientific. I'd take it with a pretty large dose of salt.

The scientific publications, organizations, and the vast majority of research accepted in the scientific community are pretty much in agreement. We need to stop what we are doing, or, at the very least, we are flirting with forces we have no way of controlling should things go wrong. What is the risk we take by ignoring the body of science that predicts disastrous outcomes? We have alternatives. Why shouldn't we use them?

subroc
10-16-2010, 03:44 PM
...We need to stop what we are doing...

What have you personally stopped doing? I don’t want to hear about want some little insignificant change you made. What major change have you made that actually creates a burden on you and yours in an attempt to adhere to some theoretical need that will impact climate change? Don’t tell me you went from double ply to single ply toilet paper, give us something tangible that maybe costs you money or/and creates some burden on you and yours?

M&K's Retrievers
10-16-2010, 04:27 PM
What have you personally stopped doing? I don’t want to hear about want some little insignificant change you made. What major change have you made that actually creates a burden on you and yours in an attempt to adhere to some theoretical need that will impact climate change? Don’t tell me you went from double ply to single ply toilet paper, give us something tangible that maybe costs you money or/and creates some burden on you and yours?

"Thinking" comes to mind.:rolleyes:

depittydawg
10-16-2010, 07:17 PM
What have you personally stopped doing? I don’t want to hear about want some little insignificant change you made. What major change have you made that actually creates a burden on you and yours in an attempt to adhere to some theoretical need that will impact climate change? Don’t tell me you went from double ply to single ply toilet paper, give us something tangible that maybe costs you money or/and creates some burden on you and yours?

First of all, this debate isn't about me. Nice try to deflect the debate away from the issue and personalize it. But since you asked. I support legislation that comes forward to limit the United States dependence on fossil fuels and their products. This is important not only for limiting the consumption of fossil fuels, but I also think it has implications to our national security. I support the leadership that is trying to change the direction of this country to join the rest of the world in moving forward. We are already way behind. Europe and China are rapidly developing the technologies and capturing the markets in these new industries while we wallow in useless debate.
On a personal level I have reduced my driving. I've purchased economy cars even though I can afford luxury cars. I, and my wife recycle everything, we also go out of our way to not purchase items that have a higher carbon footprint. Whenever possible I repair, instead of replace. I say NO THANK you to all the plastic that grocery stores want to package their products in. I purchase local products whenever possible especially food. We also recycle her parents waste as although they are well intentioned, they don't get it done. Two weeks ago we went to a lecture at the local University on how climate change has impacted India. (turned out to be one of the most boring speakers I've ever heard).
At some point in the future, when we can swing it financially we will install Solar Panels on our home. I would estimate withing the next 5 years.
Granted, my carbon footprint is still probably way to high. But at least I recognize the problem and I'm open minded to change my lifestyle because of it.
So maybe you can answer the same question. What are you doing to combat global warming? Same question to you MK. Since you responded to Subroc's question by taking another unsolicited jab at me.

subroc
10-16-2010, 09:19 PM
...So maybe you can answer the same question. What are you doing to combat global warming?...

Absolutely nothing to "combat global warming."

I do recycle everything, but my reasons have nothing to do with global warming, and everything to do with conservation of waste.

It turns out you are doing very little more for conservation than someone that doesn't even believe in manmade global warming, other than bluster. Being "open minded" to a problem that you rant and rave about but fail to act on in my view is criminal. You are not willing to make the hard choices. You are not willing to create a burden of cost for you and yours. You just want to pontificate from on high.

rant away. yeh, "we" have to do something but "you aren't willing to do it.

depittydawg
10-16-2010, 10:15 PM
Absolutely nothing to "combat global warming."

I do recycle everything, but my reasons have nothing to do with global warming, and everything to do with conservation of waste.

It turns out you are doing very little more for conservation than someone that doesn't even believe in manmade global warming, other than bluster. Being "open minded" to a problem that you rant and rave about but fail to act on in my view is criminal. You are not willing to make the hard choices. You are not willing to create a burden of cost for you and yours. You just want to pontificate from on high.

rant away. yeh, "we" have to do something but "you aren't willing to do it.

Guess you win dude. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you on your subjective perception of what one person can or can't do to change the world.

Gerry Clinchy
10-19-2010, 04:07 PM
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/science/earth/19fossil.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

This makes a great deal of sense! You do not have to "buy into" the concept of global warming to be highly motivated to implement conservation and renewable sources of energy ... that will automatically reduce dependency on fossil fuels (lower the carbon footprint) and make each national entity more energy independent.

The govt (as usual?) saw "tax" as a way to solve the problem, when positive motivation really is a better way to truly conserve energy (rather than just shift usage from one company to another). By instituting a "tax" govt gets the money that might better be used to implement alternative energy projects ... and, surprise, actually create jobs.


Jerry Clasen, a grain farmer in Reno County, south of Salina, said he largely discounted global warming. “I believe we are going through a cycle and it is not a big deal,” he said. But his ears pricked up when project workers came to town to talk about harnessing wind power. “There is no sense in our dependency on foreign oil,” he said, “especially since we have got this resource here.”

Mr. Clasen helped organize a group of local leaders to lobby the electronics and energy giant Siemens to build a wind turbine factory in the area. When the company signed a deal in 2009 promising to create as many as 400 local jobs, it stirred a wave of excitement about the future of wind power.




“Whether or not the earth is getting warmer,” he said, “it feels good to be part of something that works for Kansas and for the nation.”

subroc
10-21-2010, 11:49 AM
obama takes credid for former President George W. Bushs' effort to erect wind farms.

note source:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39759042/ns/business/

Gerry Clinchy
11-22-2010, 09:27 AM
And then there's coal ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/world/asia/22fossil.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a22

China & India are using coal hand-over-fist, because it is the cheapest way to grow their economy.

But who said they were dumb? The coal China & India can get from Montana burns cleaner than the low-grade coal in their own deposits. It's cheaper to ship coal from Montana, than it is to drag it out of central China to their cities on their coastal areas.

So, the logical step, which we have been following is to now try to regulate coal mining out of existence so that nobody can burn it :-) since it's not good for the planet. The logic is that we shouldn't burn coal ... and neither should anyone else.

Ironically, probably some of that coal is being burned to fuel the plants that are building solar panels that China exports to the rest of us ... China now being the largest producer of solar panels in the world.

Here we are trying to become more independent of fossil fuels, and independent of the countries who control the supply ... but we are making ourselves dependent on China for solar panels?

Why shouldn't we burn some of that coal ... for now ... to produce solar panels? And sell some of that to ourselves & other countries who are buying them from China? Oops, China's labor costs are so low. Maybe our wages wouldn't have to be as high as they are if the cost of heating our homes did not continue to increase? (and the cost of energy impacts everything in our daily life, not just heating.)



Even as developed countries close or limit the construction of coal (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/coal/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier)-fired power plants out of concern over pollution and climate-warming emissions, coal has found a rapidly expanding market elsewhere: Asia, particularly China (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/china/index.html?inline=nyt-geo).




Traditionally, coal is burned near where it is mined — particularly so-called thermal or steaming coal, used for heat and electricity. But in the last few years, long-distance international coal exports have been surging because of China’s galloping economy, which now burns half of the six billion tons of coal used globally each year.

As a result, not only are the pollutants that developed countries have tried to reduce finding their way into the atmosphere anyway, but ships chugging halfway around the globe are spewing still more.

And the rush to feed this new Asian market has helped double the price of coal over the past five years, leading to a renaissance of mining and exploration in many parts of the world.



“This is a worst-case scenario,” said David Graham-Caso, spokesman for the Sierra Club (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/sierra_club/index.html?inline=nyt-org), which estimates that its “Beyond Coal” campaign (http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/) has helped to block 139 proposed coal plants in the United States over the last few years. “We don’t want this coal burned here, but we don’t want it burned at all. This is undermining everything we’ve accomplished.”

So, even the Sierra Club realizes that as long as China & India don't buy into this global climate change enough to stunt their economies, we are whistling in the wind? And how would they propose we "compel" them to do otherwise? Heck, China deflates their money to stay competitive for their exports, but they (& others) chastise us when we do the same (the Fed's recent actions). Everyone has seemingly "looked the other way" as China has subsidized their solar panel industry to make them the most competitive source for that commodity.



The deal points to the love-hate relationship many wealthier countries have with coal: while environmental laws have made it progressively harder to build new coal-fired power plants, they do not restrict coal mining to the same extent.

That is partly because emissions accounting standards focus on where a fuel is burned, not where it is dug up; because the coal trade is a lucrative business; and because the labor-intensive mining industry creates jobs.


And it would seem that China & India are more concerned with creating jobs in their countries (via using coal), than they are with the rest of the planet's damage from their coal-burning.



Last year, the United States exported only 2,714 tons of coal to China, according to the United States Energy Information Administration. Yet that figure soared to 2.9 million tons (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/html/t7p01p1.html) in the first six months of this year alone — huge growth, though still a minuscule fraction of China’s coal imports.




Environmental groups will be there to oppose the port, noting that policies in both states effectively block new coal-fired plants and that both have plans to close the few that remain. “It’s one step forward, 10 steps back if we allow coal export in our region,” said Brett VandenHeuvel, executive director of the environmental group Columbia Riverkeeper (http://www.columbiariverkeeper.org/).


By all means, stop sending coal to China ... it might actually benefit our balance of trade with China & create some jobs here. It's just not nice to burn coal.



For Australia, coal exports to China grew to $5.6 billion from $508 million between 2008 and 2009, government statistics show. While it still sends more coal to its longtime customers Japan and Korea, that balance could shift as Australian coal giants sink billions into new projects like China First.




Julia Gillard (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/julia_gillard/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Australia’s newly elected prime minister, promised during her campaign to “put a price on carbon” — in other words, make companies pay in some way for excessive carbon dioxide emissions. But environmentalists say that such laws will be meaningless if the country continues its nascent coal rush and “exports global warming (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) to the world,” as one group, Rising Tide Australia (http://www.risingtide.org.au/), puts it.


Seems like the environmental group in Australia is, indeed, on the same wavelength as the Sierra Club.

subroc
11-23-2010, 03:34 AM
Gore: Ethanol wa a mistake.

Hey Al, did you get anything else wrong?

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE6AL0YT20101122?sp=true

subroc
11-28-2010, 12:11 AM
an article on the impact of the global warming movements effect on the environmental movement.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/can-environmentalism-be-saved-from-itself/article1815408/

subroc
12-22-2010, 07:28 AM
article on the coming mini ice age:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.html

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/years-global-cooling-coming-say-leading-scientists/

Uncle Bill
12-23-2010, 07:40 PM
Shucks Joe, can't get any responses from all the GW advocates? Guess it is hard to argue for that when most of them are up to their tookus in snow, rain, or mud. Even the most ardent are having trouble coming up with a new spin for Ma Nature's offerings. Go figure eh?

UB

menmon
12-24-2010, 11:23 AM
Shucks Joe, can't get any responses from all the GW advocates? Guess it is hard to argue for that when most of them are up to their tookus in snow, rain, or mud. Even the most ardent are having trouble coming up with a new spin for Ma Nature's offerings. Go figure eh?

UB

I'm late to this debate, but I have to admit; Houston's climate has been very dry for the last 10 years. It has not rained in 3 months and we are behind 20" this year. La Nina or what ever they are given reason too, but Houston is suppose to be a marsh or rice field and something has changed it. Winters are colder and summers/winters are dryer.

When Global Warming first was mentioned, they warned of the effects these third world counties would have on the climate if modernized. I sure hope they were wrong.

Uncle Bill
12-27-2010, 11:08 AM
This writer pins the GW alarmists with exactly what they are. But like so many socialists, their mind is made up, and only when EVERYONE is into equal suffering, will they be rewarded in their accomplishments.

This article tells it like it is, and certainly tells us what Algore and his parasites are in it for.

UB


http://www1.ibdcd.com/images/eTables/px.gif (http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/ibd.news/articleprint;sub=0;tile=1;pos=leader;sect=news;sz= 728x90;ord=5669547036005244?)
http://www1.ibdcd.com/images/Icom_Logo.png (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/../Default.aspx)




The Abiding Faith Of Warm-ongers


Posted 12/22/2010 07:07 PM ET

http://www.investors.com/image/ISSa1223_ph101222_345.jpg.cms (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?path=ISSa1223_ph101222.jpg&docId=557597&xmpSource=&width=2287&height=3516&caption=Freezing+weather%3a+Just+another+example+o f+global+warming%3f) Freezing weather: Just another example of global warming? View Enlarged Image (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?path=ISSa1223_ph101222.jpg&docId=557597&xmpSource=&width=2287&height=3516&caption=Freezing+weather%3a+Just+another+example+o f+global+warming%3f)

Climate: Nothing makes fools of more people than trying to predict the weather. Whether in Los Angeles or London, recent predictions have gone crazily awry. Global warming? How about mini ice age?
The sight of confused and angry travelers stuck in airports across Europe because of an arctic freeze that has settled across the continent isn't funny. Sadly, they've been told for more than a decade now that such a thing was an impossibility — that global warming was inevitable, and couldn't be reversed.
This is a big problem for those who see human-caused global warming as an irreversible result of the Industrial Revolution's reliance on carbon-based fuels. Based on global warming theory — and according to official weather forecasts made earlier in the year — this winter should be warm and dry. It's anything but. Ice and snow cover vast parts of both Europe and North America, in one of the coldest Decembers in history.

A cautionary tale? You bet. Prognosticators who wrote the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, global warming report in 2007 predicted an inevitable, century-long rise in global temperatures of two degrees or more. Only higher temperatures were foreseen. Moderate or even lower temperatures, as we're experiencing now, weren't even listed as a possibility.

Since at least 1998, however, no significant warming trend has been noticeable. Unfortunately, none of the 24 models used by the IPCC views that as possible. They are at odds with reality.

Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, "falsifiable." That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it's false. That's what scientific experimentation and observation do. That's the essence of the scientific method.

Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It's global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it.
Nothing can disprove their thesis. Not even the extraordinarily frigid weather now creating havoc across most of the Northern Hemisphere. The Los Angeles Times, in a piece on the region's strangely wet and cold weather, paraphrases Jet Propulsion Laboratory climatologist Bill Patzert as saying, "In general, as the globe warms, weather conditions tend to be more extreme and volatile."

Got that? No matter what the weather, it's all due to warming. This isn't science; it's a kind of faith. Scientists go along and even stifle dissent because, frankly, hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants are at stake. But for the believers, global warming is the god that failed.
Why do we continue to listen to warmists when they're so wrong? Maybe it's because their real agenda has nothing to do with climate change at all. Earlier this month, attendees of a global warming summit in Cancun, Mexico, concluded, with virtually no economic or real scientific support, that by 2020 rich nations need to transfer $100 billion a year to poor nations to help them "mitigate" the adverse impacts of warming.

This is what global warming is really about — wealth redistribution by people whose beliefs are basically socialist. It has little or nothing to do with climate. If it did, we might pay more attention to Piers Corbyn, a little-known British meteorologist and astrophysicist who has a knack for correctly predicting weather changes. Indeed, as London's Mayor Boris Johnson recently noted, "He seems to get it right about 85% of the time."
How does he do it? Unlike the U.N. and government forecasters, Corbyn pays close attention to solar cycles that, as it turns out, correlate very closely to changes in climate. Not only are we not headed for global warming, Corbyn says, we may be entering a "mini ice age" similar to the one that took place from 1450 A.D. to 1850 A.D.

We don't know if Corbyn's right or not. But given his record, he deserves as much attention as the warm-mongers whose goal is not to arrive at the truth but to reorganize society in a radical way.

menmon
12-27-2010, 11:17 AM
It's entertaining to see this debate. The positive side of this argument is that I will be dead and gone before any climate change really changes my life, so I can rest easy on this subject. However, I'm pretty sure that we have upset the balance no matter what you call it. So not acknologing a problem is just stupid. The fact that we can't really do any about it is reality.

subroc
12-27-2010, 07:02 PM
everything is global warming:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=557597

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html?_r=2&ref=opinion