The Missing Link
The Missing Link
Here’s a bold prediction: For the next several days, a great many talking heads will be talking about this big news from today…
U.S. President George W. Bush resisted efforts by U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac to cooperate with European Union nations on cutting pollution blamed for global warming.
…and this big news from today…
Hurricane Dennis gathered strength with extremely dangerous 150-mph (240-kph) winds as it bore down on central Cuba on Friday and was on track for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico…
Dennis is the strongest Atlantic hurricane to form this early in the season since records began in 1851, the center said.
…and yet will never draw the connection between the two, which is this: a June 2005 study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which incidentally I found through this site, which is managed by the federal government:
Warmer oceans, more moisture in the atmosphere, and other factors suggest that human-induced climate change will increase hurricane intensity and rainfall, according to climate expert Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. His paper, “Uncertainty in Hurricanes and Global Warming,” appears in the Perspectives section of the June 17 issue of Science. [...]
The strongest links between hurricane intensity and climate change, according to Trenberth, are a long-term rise in ocean temperatures and an increase in atmospheric water vapor. Both processes are already under way and expected to continue, he says. [...]
“Computer models also suggest a shift in hurricane intensities toward extreme hurricanes,” says Trenberth.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
What do you expect from scientificaly-challenged people? Those who interpret the holy book and see the end of times nearing, and those who believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, well, they don’t see the problem. Or, there are others, part of the current US administration, who reap huge financial benefits from industry deregulation so they’re not keen on the environment. The cons, the neocons, and the proponents of unbridled capitalism believe that the market forces are the only ones we need, conveniently forgetting that the environment doesn’t belong to them to do as they please.
July 8th, 2005 at 2:54 pmAnd you say we let our politics cloud science? You ignore the info on that site that clearly refutes your preconceived notions. In fact in your post you point out that Dennis is not unprecedented, or do you think 1851 was a banner year for human induced climate change? From the link you provided, but ignored:
About the past: “Based on limited data, the observed variations in the intensity and frequency of tropical and extra-tropical cyclones and severe local storms show no clear trends in the last half of the 20th century, although multi-decadal fluctuations are sometimes apparent.”
About the future, as greenhouse gas concentrations rapidly increase over the next century: “There is little consistent evidence that shows changes in the projected frequency of tropical cyclones and areas of formation. However, some measures of intensities show projected increases, and some theoretical and modelling studies suggest that the upper limit of these intensities could increase. Mean and peak precipitation intensities from tropical cyclones are likely to increase appreciably.”
At the end of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season, many scientists, reporters and
policymakers looked for simple answers to explain the extent of the devastation, which
totaled more than $40 billion according to the National Hurricane Center. Some
prominent scientists proposed that the intense 2004 hurricane season and its considerable
impacts, particularly in Florida, could be linked to global warming resulting from the
emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (e.g., Harvard Medical School 2004;
NCAR 2004). But the current state of climate science does not support so close a
linkage.
Tropical cyclones can be thought of to a first approximation as a natural heat
engine or Carnot cycle (Emanuel 1987). From this perspective global warming can
theoretically influence the maximum potential intensity of tropical cyclones through
alterations of the surface energy flux and/or the upper-level cold exhaust (Emanuel 1987,
Lighthill et al. 1994, Henderson-Sellers et al. 1998). But no theoretical basis yet exists
for projecting changes in tropical cyclone frequency, though empirical studies do provide
some guidance as to the necessary thermodynamical and dynamical ingredients for
tropical cyclogenesis (Gray 1968, 1979).
Since 1995 there has been an increase in the frequency and in particular the
intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic.. But the changes of the past decade are not so
large as to clearly indicate that anything is going on other than the multi-decadal
variability that has been well documented since at least 1900 (Gray et al. 1997; Landsea
et al. 1999; Goldenberg et al. 2001). Consequently, in the absence of large or
unprecedented trends, any effect of greenhouse gases on the behavior of hurricanes is
necessarily very difficult to detect in the context of this documented variability.
Perspectives on hurricanes are no doubt shaped by recent history, with relatively few
major hurricanes observed in the 1970s, 80s and early 90s, compared with considerable
activity during the 1940s, 50s and early 60s. The period from 1944 to 1950 was
particularly active for Florida. During that period eleven hurricanes hit the state, at least
one per year, resulting in the equivalent of billions of dollars in damage in each of those
years (Pielke and Landsea 1998).
Globally there has been no increase in tropical cyclone frequency over at least the
past several decades (Lander and Guard 1998; Elsner and Kocher 2000). In addition to a
lack of theory for future changes in storm frequencies, the few global modeling results
are contradictory (Henderson-Sellers et al 1998; IPCC 2001). Because historical and
observational data on hurricanes and tropical cyclones are relatively robust, it is clear that
storm frequency has not tracked recent tropical climate trends. Research on possible
future changes in hurricane frequency due to global warming is ambiguous, with most
studies suggesting that future changes will be regionally-dependent, and showing a lack
of consistency in projecting an increase or decrease in the total global number of storms
Run chicken littles run, the sky is falling. LOL.
July 8th, 2005 at 3:05 pmThose who interpret the holy book and see the end of times nearing, and those who believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, well, they don’t see the problem.
It funny you bring up religion, because your takes on climate change have more in common with a religion than science. At least you guys have some kind of faith. Wow.
July 8th, 2005 at 3:11 pmmore from your link:
Looking to the future, global modeling studies suggest the potential for relatively
July 8th, 2005 at 3:14 pmsmall changes in tropical cyclone intensities related to global warming. Early theoretical
work suggested an increase of about 10% in wind speed for a 2o C increase in tropical sea
surface temperature (Emanuel, 1987). A 2004 study from the Geophysical Fluid
Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., that utilized a mesoscale model downscaled
from coupled global climate model runs indicated the possibility of a 5% increase in the
wind speeds of hurricanes by 2080 (Knutson and Tuleya 2004; cf. IPCC 2001). Michaels
et al. 2005 suggest that even this 5% increase may be overstated and that a more realistic
projection is on the order of only half of that amount. Even if one accepts that the
Knutson and Tuleya results are in the right ballpark, these would imply that changes to
hurricane intensity on the order of 0.5-1.0 m/s may be occurring today. This value is
8
exceedingly small in the context of the more than doubling in numbers of major
hurricanes between quiet and active decadal periods in the Atlantic (Goldenberg et al.
2001). Moreover, such a change in intensities would not be observable with today’s
combination of aircraft reconnaissance and satellite based intensity estimates, which only
resolves wind speeds of individual tropical cyclones to – at best – 2.5 m/s increments.
You need to READ the post fake. The info. you bring up is on the (fed. managed)site in which he was surprised to find the content of his post. Details be damned, right fake? Try again, and I know you will.
July 8th, 2005 at 3:15 pmFake,
You are not too swift with probability
July 8th, 2005 at 3:30 pmand uncertainty are you?
I can see why science bothers you as
it takes some time for trends to
be statistically significant
and complex systems like weather
are extremely difficult to model.
We are well beyond consensus on
the science behind global warming but
the exact ramifications are
somewhat unknown.
The relationship between the energy
in a system and potential storm
strength is pretty clear, i.e., the
3 sigma storms are likely to be
more common.
Scientist deal well with these sorts
of problems – it is what makes things
interesting. Problems arise primarily
by people without understanding and
those who are paid not to understand.
Fake but Accurate:
The text you are quoting from is not the National Center for Atmospheric Research report. It is from the report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). You might have heard of that document — it’s one of the many that now-Exxon employee Philip Cooney was accused of doctoring.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0608-05.htm
July 8th, 2005 at 3:30 pmConclusions
To summarize, claims of linkages between global warming and hurricanes are misguided for three reasons. First, no connection has been established between
greenhouse gas emissions and the observed behavior of hurricanes (IPCC 2001; Walsh 2004). Yet such a connection may be made in the future as metrics of tropical cyclone
intensity and duration remain to be closely examined. Second, a scientific consensus exists that any future changes in hurricane intensities will likely be small in the context of observed variability (Knutson and Tuleya 2004, Henderson-Sellers et al 1998), while the 10
scientific problem of tropical cyclogenesis is so far from being solved that little can be said about possible changes in frequency. And third, under the assumptions of the IPCC,
expected future damages to society of its projected changes in the behavior of hurricanes are dwarfed by the influence of its own projections of growing wealth and population
(Pielke at al. 2000). While future research or experience may yet overturn these conclusions, the state of knowledge today is such that while there are good reasons to
expect that any connection between global warming and hurricanes is not going to be significant from the perspective of event risk, but particularly so from the perspective of outcome risk as measured by economic impacts.
Yet, claims of such connections persist (cf. Epstein and McCarthy 2004; Eilperin 2005), particularly in support of a political agenda focused on greenhouse gas emissions
reduction (e.g., Harvard Medical School 2004). But a great irony here is that invoking the modulation of future hurricanes to justify energy policies to mitigate climate change may prove counterproductive. Not only does this provide a great opening for criticism of the underlying scientific reasoning, it leads to advocacy of policies that simply will not be effective with respect to addressing future hurricane impacts. There are much, much better ways to deal with the threat of hurricanes than with energy policies (e.g., Pielke and Pielke 1997). There are also much, much better ways to justify climate mitigation policies than with hurricanes (e.g., Rayner 2004).
who is “scientificaly-challenged ” now?
July 8th, 2005 at 3:32 pmI love lying out my ass.
HA HA.
July 8th, 2005 at 3:33 pmNice try. See #5-7.
July 8th, 2005 at 3:34 pmFake-
Are you cutting and pasting your rambling posts, or do you really have a difficult time typing?
Your posts are more difficult to read (structurally) than they are to read (informationally).
July 8th, 2005 at 3:35 pmfake – you do realize you are giving bushies a bad name putting out your crap. Phaux News isn’t the level you should be shooting for here, we all read. more than you apparently.
July 8th, 2005 at 3:44 pmfake reminds me of a “friend” we refer to as “Vortex”. He gets all caught up in way too much info that ends up so far away from the topic at hand, one loses sight of where the hell they were, are, and thought they were going.
Turns out that he has Attention Deficit Disorder.
July 8th, 2005 at 3:46 pmIf warmer waters don’t feed hurricanes, then fake has successfully debunked the methods used to predict hurricane paths and intensity. Hear that Florida? No need to evacuate, fake has shown the science of hurricanes is all wrong!
July 8th, 2005 at 3:47 pmwas accused of doctoring.
Comment by Nico
accused = guilty? By a greenie website at that, well how can I argue with that? Lol.
The email adress’ for all who authored that report are right there, ask them why they put their names to a paper that was changed without their ok. As for the personal attacks on me, ha ha ha, I ‘m really hurt. Not.
July 8th, 2005 at 3:51 pmRename the hurricane in his honor.
Aren’t hurricanes just liberal propaganda scare tactics anyway? Was it the Dems or the Repubs who championed the fight against gender-biased naming of hurricanes? Perhaps fake can enlighten us?
July 8th, 2005 at 3:53 pmNot is soo 90’s fake.
July 8th, 2005 at 3:54 pmnow i don’t have to worry about boarding up my windows
July 8th, 2005 at 3:55 pm#15: Short term memory loss, fake?
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/06/08/1118123895478.html?from=top5&oneclick=true
July 8th, 2005 at 4:02 pm#15: Fake, check the link again. It’s not from a “greenie” site. It’s a reprint from the New York Times. Here’s the straight link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print
July 8th, 2005 at 4:05 pmHmm, let’s see what science has to say…
after all, we do want to find the truth, don’t we? That’s right! So, how many scientists don’t accept that human activities have contributed to global warming?….. Ah, I see, just a handful, who are on the payroll of the biggest poluters!
The fact is, no one can dispute this (using reason and scientific data), that carbon emissions have increased thousand-fold in the last 100 years. Fossil, rock, seabed samples show that this is unprecedented! The sea absorbs most of the carbon, which in turn alters the acidity of the water… it affects the temperature,and current circulation! This is due EXCLUSSIVELY to human activity, not any cycle the earth might go through. This are the facts!
Of course, anyone can blaber about anything, confuse (intentionally?) the issues, or can rest knowing that superman, the Xmen, and the rest of the superheros will intervene to save earth and fix the problem…….. whatever!
We do know that burning fossil fuels (oil, coal) have adverse effects on our planet, like we knew that certain gases destroyed the ozone layer in the atmosphere.
But, some people don’t want to admit the problem because they don’t want to deal (and pay) for the solution.
July 8th, 2005 at 4:08 pmYou want some typing, well, here you go. I was an environmentalist in my youth, in the 80’s and 90’s. I have since realized a simple fact about our relationship to the Earth. Mankind is part of nature, not separate from it, therefore what we do, make plastics, drill for oil, build nuclear weapons, is as natural as a bee making honey, or a bird building a nest. To say otherwise is ridiculous. When you want to save the world from mankind you seek to save the world from itself, something you can’t do. So you all want to take a snapshot of nature now and do whatever it takes to keep the Earth at that spot, ignoring the fact that the Earth has always changed, and those changes are bad or good based on your viewpoint alone, and are out of your control. I’m not saying we should trash the Earth, or just kill off species, but get some perspective here. Climate change alone is to complex to say either side has the absolute answer, and that is my point. Nico looked past the data that did not support his preconceived notion of the relationship between hurricanes and climate change, and the facts do not support the assertion. Let the personal attacks continue….
July 8th, 2005 at 4:11 pmman is part of nature, therefore it is ok that we pollute and ruin it for other species and future generations? is that what you mean? I can honestly say that is the 1st time i’ve heard that argument from anyone. that is rich.
July 8th, 2005 at 4:16 pmSo maybe you should name it after Bush since it’s his hurricane. Chirac would stop up, but mean old Bush. You guys are nuts.
July 8th, 2005 at 4:17 pmThe climate changed before green house gasses, the climate would change if we stopped today. Some species benefit some are hurt, we do not need to stop human progress to try to hold on to a fleeting instant. Don’t go out of your way to pollute, but lets not lose sleep over it either.
July 8th, 2005 at 4:21 pmFake, you’re making such a ridiculous argument….You subscribe to the gaia notion, that all is an oranism, including human…. But due to evolution, humans have the power & ability to alter the physical environment like no other species before. Unfortunately, intelligence hasn’t advanced at the same rate as our power (as it’s evident here and throughout our history)…. “When you want to save the world from mankind you seek to save the world from itself, something you can’t do.” Obviously, some people are condemned to having nonsensical minds…. with circular arguments and false logic….
The perspective you asks us to have is that since we know we are affecting the environment, we should do something about it, having a wider perspective that extent beyond our nose and into the future….
This is what science tells us today. I think it’s wise to limit polution, destruction of rainforests, etc. Even if we are wrong. If somehow science tells us tomorrow that we play no part in the earth’s climate, I would still be happy with our efforts to curb harmful emissions into the atmosphere! And this is the point!
So, I can go upstate to the Adirondack Park and not see whole mountains with blighted trees, and be able to eat the fish from the lakes and streams!
Nico,
July 8th, 2005 at 4:27 pmYou can’t just convince people who don’t want to listen. Even in the face of irrefutable evidence, they seek to find a speck of uncertainty or incoclussive evidence as an excuse to shot down whatever they don’t like. (ie. evolution!)
if you think that progressives are nuts, why do you come here? I never said anything about bush, but it is a fact that his policies favor polluters over everyone else. maybe you could move near a superfund site and you can experiance “nature”
July 8th, 2005 at 4:27 pmFake is wrong about a number of things. But I think this is the big one.
The earth does not need saving, it will be he long after were gone. the question is what kind of enviroment are we going to be living or not living in?
July 8th, 2005 at 4:41 pmFake, even animals know enough not to shit where they live.
July 8th, 2005 at 4:41 pmfake is part of the Party of No, the Know-Nothings. Climate is too complicated, we can’t possibly understand it, so therefore don’t even think about it.
Progressives are doing all the work on this issue. Conservatives can do nothing but sit back and criticize.
Ask them this: What is the ideal climate, and how do we maintain it?
fake brings up an interesting talking point: that the climate changed long before industiralization. That is true. What is always left out, is climate changed very slowly, over thousands of years, not over a hundred years. And the changes have always resulted in mass extinctions. After such climate changes, new species arise tens of thousands of years after the climate stabilizes at its new equilibrium.
Is that what Republicans want?
July 8th, 2005 at 4:45 pmAndros, limiting pollution and making outragous claims about the relationship between greenhouse gasses and hurricanes are two differant things. I said not to lose sleep over it, not ignore it altogether. Show me “irrefutable evidence” that hurricanes are worse today than in 1851? 1481? Prove it.
Amanda, this thread was started to draw a link between the hurricane now headed this way and Bush rejecting Kyoto. Then you act as though I denied there is a hurricane at all? Where did you pull that out of, it stinks? The report I posted was signed by several scientists, who would have withdrawn their names from the report if they didn’t agree with it, or did Rove get to them as well? hmmmmm.
July 8th, 2005 at 4:48 pmi think you mean some ex-hippie, i never said that.
I also never said there was irrefutable evidence that hurricanes are worse. warming MAY be responsible for increased intensity of storms. i personally don’t think we have enough data to conclude that, but it is a possibility.
July 8th, 2005 at 4:56 pmA few support the paper you have cited fake, however a majority of scientests support the global warming theory. I for one believe we should err on the side of caution and conservation when it comes to our pollution. The biggest resistors of pollution laws are the companies that will see a small amount of the bottom line disappear if they are forced to clean up.
July 8th, 2005 at 4:57 pmfoolishness…some of this.
the earth is warming.
carbon dioxide is trapping heat in our atmosphere. (fact)
carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for, what could be decades. (fact)
if ‘global warming’ is real, us stopping now is not going to do anything. It will not slow the problem at all. We have 50 years of carbon dioxide via humans in the atmosphere, which could take another 50 years to clear up.
global warming is real…the time in which it will happen is debatable…but it is looking bad.
i can’t believe my weather man when he says it will be sunny for 3 days…much less 50 years away.
i do my part…and if our govts would invest some money in alternative energies…we wouldnt be where we are today.
lets not mention the Hemp car Henry Ford was interested in manufacturing…before global warming became an issue.
July 8th, 2005 at 4:58 pmWhat is always left out, is climate changed very slowly, over thousands of years, not over a hundred years.-ippy
really? Volcanoes take thousands of years to change the climate? Idea, go chain yourselves to an erupting volcano.
Kyoto is flawed because India and China are left out of the formula, even the EU is totally off it’s targets, it is bullshit. As for all the name calling, that is what you call debate?
July 8th, 2005 at 4:59 pmi think you mean some ex-hippie, i never said that
Comment by amanda  July 8, 2005 @ 4:56 pm
now i don’t have to worry about boarding up my windows
Comment by amanda  July 8, 2005 @ 3:55 pm
July 8th, 2005 at 5:02 pmI think Fake and a few others were sick on the day they showed the fruit fly experiment in 7th gtrade science class. Overpopulation eventually leads to environmental degradation and we can see it.
July 8th, 2005 at 5:08 pm“fruit fly experiment”
huh…we are not fruit flies. lol
this earth is not ‘overpopulated’…we use to much cr8p to run our vehicles, heaters…etc.
do you know how much EARTH is still untouched?
July 8th, 2005 at 5:12 pmfruit fly experiment�
huh…we are not fruit flies. lol
this earth is not ‘overpopulated’…we use to much cr8p to run our vehicles, heaters…etc.
do you know how much EARTH is still untouched?
I fear for our schools if this is truly an educator.
July 8th, 2005 at 5:27 pmGreat. Now you’ve done it. That will be the next government organization to lose funding, if they haven’t already been terminated for printing facts that don’t match Our Leader’s vast wisdom.
Even if pollution didn’t directly cause more/stronger hurricanes, it still has a strong negative impact on us all. We are producing massive amounts of poison and releasing it into the environment. Those of you so enthusiastically supporting pollution, wash down your next meal with a nice glass of mercury since its so safe. For being the party of personal responsibility, why is it that you never actually take any? The GOP should be renamed to the Party of Selfishness. POS for short.
July 8th, 2005 at 5:37 pmShow me “irrefutable evidence� that hurricanes are worse today than in 1851? 1481? Prove it.
Good Lord, buy yourself some reading comprehension skills. This is the worst early hurricane recorded since we began keeping records in 1851. That does not mean there was a bigger one in 1850 or before.
Volcanoes take thousands of years to change the climate?
Yes. The climate changes that have been caused by volcanic activity have been the result of large scale activity over time, not one volcano.
And no, two bad hurricane seasons in a row are not proof of global warming, but you cannot deny the following facts:
1) CO2 is a heat-trapping gas. This can be demonstrated by easy experiment.
2) Warm water gives hurricanes more strength.
So regardless of what you think about your weatherman, imagine if last year’s “anomoly” becomes the “norm” in 100 years.
Think about how long ago 1905 was. 2105 isn’t that far off, historically speaking.
July 8th, 2005 at 5:40 pmHere’s our point fake (quite appropriate name btw),
we KNOW CO2 has increased because of burning fossile fuels. We KNOW that increased CO2 levels increase the temperature.
We are at a point were we can do something about it. How much? We don’t know. We think doing something is better than doing nothing.
You who don’t want to do anything, base it strictly along financial reasons. Additional profits mean more than the quality of life on the planet for future generations. That is truely sad. thought we were supposed to leave a BETTER world for our kids and grandkids, not a bigger bank account.
Do you know what will happen to our coastline if the ocean raises 1 foot? How about 2 feet? You know we lose Florida if it goes up 10 feet. Are you willing to lose a red-state like that?
Please, let’s not lose Florida. I don’t want all those folks moving out here to CA.
July 8th, 2005 at 5:46 pmVolcanoes take thousands of years to change the climate? Idea, go chain yourselves to an erupting volcano.
What? Asteroids will change the climate quickly also, so why not use that weak agruement as well, fake? You are grabbing at ANY straw you can to try to debunk the facts of the matter. Is 154 years of hurricane records not enough info accumulated for you? How much more do you need?
For someone who frequents this site as often and as snide as you do, why cry so loud as you have recently when other dish it right back at you?
July 8th, 2005 at 5:50 pmImagine how angry people will be in the Carribean if they all drown. If you think we have a problem with boat people now…
The science shows that temperatures have risen. Whether last year and this year’s hurricanes correspond to that change, or just unusually large upticks in normal activity, it is too soon to tell. We won’t be able to say unless the next five or ten hurricane seasons in a row are just as bad. By that point, I think Floridians will be moving out of the state.
And the projected 1 meter (3 feet) rise in sea levels is based on thermal expansion (another well-known quantity. The projected increase in hurricanes is based on the same princple they use to predict landfall. That’s pretty accurate.
So comparing the projected rise in sea levels and hurricane activity to your local weatherman is simply specious.
Hey, there will always be people in denial. They will refute any evidence of global warming, deny we can do anything about it, act like oil is an infinite resource.
These are not the people who invent things like airplanes, computers, solar energy, etc. So we’ll have to put up with their noise regardless.
July 8th, 2005 at 5:56 pmOh yeah, look at the root of the words ‘conservation’ and ‘conservative’. As far as original meaning, where/when did the egregious disconnect happen?
July 8th, 2005 at 6:01 pmEducator, better go back to school.Your education is dated. The earth is estimated to be at carrying capacity at 3-4 billion people, we are well past that. There is rocket fuel in every mothers breast milk for gods sake. I live in the country and there is nitrate pollution in the ground water from over-farming. Nitrates are suspected of causing cancer.ETC.,ETC.
July 8th, 2005 at 6:01 pmYou remind me of Archie Bunker types that live in the city with millions of people, take a trip, see a few trees and say,” we have plenty of room”, never realizing how many acres of land it takes to support one person.
I bet you think when you flush your toilet your stank just goes away because you can’t see it anymore..
1). So many of them says they fear this message.
2). Fear of the message causes them to flock here to fight it.
3). In attemting to fight the message, they demonstrate their weaknesses, and actually help demonstrate the strength of the message they fear and flock here to fight.
What is the moral of this story? Do you see a pattern here? Whenever these tools fear something, like fire, they fight it with the wrong tools and methods and it spreads.
July 8th, 2005 at 6:34 pmThe issue isn’t whether or not global warming exists. Its a fact, even fake acknowledged that when he said people shouldn’t get all lathered up about it. The issue is mass polluters lying that global warming doesn’t exist so that they can lobby the government not to make tighter pollution laws.
July 8th, 2005 at 7:28 pmYou want to reduce pollution? Tell Michael Moore to stop driving his fat ass around in a gas guzzeling suv. Maybe John Kerry could trade in his fleet of Yukons for a fleet of civics.
July 8th, 2005 at 8:46 pmBig-
You just accounted for what? 10 vehicles possibly? Why don’t you complain about Bush and his fleet of hundreds of gas sucking Suburbans? Or how about the lack of compliance with a bill pased years ago that required the government to have a substantial percentage of government vehicles be energy friendly?
Oh, that’s right…because your a conservative scumbag who only whines about the things that Democrats and liberals do, while your own Republicans and conservatives do it tenfold.
Is it possible for you degenerates to post anything that doesn’t:
A) Make you look like a fool
B) Make you look like a hypocrite
I wait with bated breath…
July 8th, 2005 at 8:56 pmPBS had a show on about the West Antartic
ice shelf sliding into the ocean. They
measure the movement over the years and
they say it will happen in 5 to 20 years.
It accelerating every year. They showed
a map of Florida and most of the state
will be under water from Okachobe lake
Soouth. They didn’t use any depth numbers
but it must have been about ~100 ft.
This would mean most of the worlds small
islands will be gone and most of the large
cities (ports) will not exist. Cape Cod
etc. Tuvalu is being evacuated now.
Forget Bangladesh.
This is the largest fresh water resevoir
on the planet and is about 2 miles thick.
I can’t wait to see what happens. Get your
July 8th, 2005 at 10:31 pmboat now.
The highest water temp. ever recorded in the N. Atlantic was reported yesterday.
July 8th, 2005 at 11:16 pmIts a fact, even fake acknowledged that when he said people shouldn’t get all lathered up about it.
Comment by JG
Wrong, I acknowledge pollution should be reduced, but on global warming caused by humans the data is not conclusive. I’m not saying it is not happening, just that it has not been proven. I don’t think Kyoto is the answer. Look I rode a bike exclusively for years because I was a true believer, making sacrifices most of you have never or would never make. My “green” credentials are extensive, but when you get past trying to panic the populus, and when efforts like MTBE are implemented without studying the full effects, you realize that no matter how good the intentions are, you have to look at all ramifications. The US has reduced pollution drastically in my lifetime, though you never hear a word about the success stories because the groups like Sierra could lose funding unless they paint things as black as possible. But when you guys put up info on a hurricane and try to link that to the president not signing Kyoto, a treaty that is more about wealth redistribution than pollution reduction you are asking for it.
And John S, you talk a big talk on the keyboard, what do you do in your daily life to reduce pollution, besides defending a bunch of learjet liberals who are no better than those who you condemn. Hell kerry lied about what he drove, Huffington bitches and moans then jets off to Aspen to pollute the valleys of Colorado, and you call us hypocrites? LOL.
July 9th, 2005 at 12:04 amDetermining changes in extreme weather events from our limited data is mostly
not possible. Remember that we have global coverage now, but this is a relatively
recent development, so when we compare Dennis to hurricanes back to 1851 we
are comparing to only *land-falling* hurricanes. In other words, it is quite possible
that there have been a few strong hurricanes like Dennis this early in a few past years which just did not reach land.
As a climate scientist, I am always frustrated with just this sort of post as this on
July 9th, 2005 at 12:32 amThink Progress (which I mostly find truly excellent). The state of the science is just not that good. Climate models are not clear about what will happen regionally as C02
increases, and there is not yet enough data to tell what the “normal” variation of
hurricanes (or other extreme weather events) really should be. The general physical
point (that warmer water means a greater energy source for hurricanes) is correct, but
hurricane formation is not solely a function of water temperature.
fake@22;
I was an environmentalist in my youth, in the 80’s and 90’s.(…)Mankind is part of nature, not separate from it, therefore what we do, make plastics, drill for oil, build nuclear weapons, is as natural as a bee making honey, or a bird building a nest. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
building nuclear weapons is as natural as bees making honey?
When you want to save the world from mankind you seek to save the world from itself, something you can’t do.
unbelievable… one of most confused rants I’ve ever seen.
July 9th, 2005 at 2:06 amfake @ 32:
Kyoto is flawed because India and China are left out of the formula,
this rw mantra is flawed, because what underlies it is they don’t give a rip… they would do nothing, regardless. The west created current situation, not China & India. And the west is trying to fix it, sans GWB’s religious neocon culture of life constituency.
Toles captured the sentiment well:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/comics/images/Toles/20050217.gif
or http://shorl.com/gedrumyjebigi
And let’s not even start talking about the “personal responsability” thing. (GEEEEEzzzzusss…) Rw bullshit has become more trippy than United Airlines.
July 9th, 2005 at 2:18 amAnd John S, you talk a big talk on the keyboard, what do you do in your daily life to reduce pollution, besides defending a bunch of learjet liberals who are no better than those who you condemn. Hell kerry lied about what he drove, Huffington bitches and moans then jets off to Aspen to pollute the valleys of Colorado, and you call us hypocrites?
1. I do not drive a gas-guzzling monster
2. I do not support politicians that don’t give a farthing about the economy
3. I regularly participate in beach clean-ups in my area
4. I recycle
5. I try not to use disposable and landfillable prodcuts
I could go on and on, but what is the point really? Are you seriously insinuating that John Kerry, Arianna Huffington and myself are responsible for global warming? You duplicitously try to compare a small number of people’s effect on the environment with the greater effect on the environment by:
1. Those who make policy
2. Those who are in power
3. Those who pollute the most heavily (corporations)
You are a hypocrite, and a deranged one to boot. That much is fairly clear to anyone with an IQ over 75 that peruses this board and subjects themselves to your brand of ranting which you attempt to pawn off as a rationale thought.
Now run along and play with the other children…
July 9th, 2005 at 9:46 amYou are a hypocrite, and a deranged one to boot.
Ain’t that the truth.
July 9th, 2005 at 11:08 amTo #57 I would add using canvas shopping bags and living close to work even though I could get a nice place further away. As for cars, I have a little 4-cylinder that gets good mileage and takes me where I want to go. Anything more than that is just jerking off.
Learjet liberals, that’s a good one. Yes, everyone in California has a 3-car, 1-learjet garage. Not like those noble sons of the earth offroading through the swamp.
July 9th, 2005 at 2:45 pmI’d like to add one thing about a common line of argument. Yes, it is true that one or two or ten bad hurricane seasons are not in themselves a sign of global warming. However, the science is pretty clear that warmer oceans will in general breed stronger hurricanes.
So the question Floridian Republicans need to ask themselves is this: What if last year becomes known as a typical hurricane season a hundred years from now? 1905 wasn’t that long ago, 2105 isn’t that far off. Your grandchildren will see it.
July 9th, 2005 at 2:48 pmcould go on and on, but what is the point really? Are you seriously insinuating that John Kerry, Arianna Huffington and myself are responsible for global warming? John S.
No your right, it’s just us conservatives, what a freaking stupid ass statement. You people are using solar power off grid or what, what a bunch of crap. Ted is that you? For the rest of your BS, I’m sure you do, and good for you. Now you live the life you want and want the rest of us to live the life you want as well? FU. By the way, I note the only person on here who is qualified to comment on climate change and is a liberal agreed you are flawed in your correlation between Dennis and Kyoto. Didn’t have much to say about that did you? I’ll be here as often as I like until the leftists ban me in the tradition of their forefathers, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, etc…..
July 9th, 2005 at 7:35 pmLearjet liberals, that’s a good one. Yes, everyone in California has a 3-car, 1-learjet garage. Not like those noble sons of the earth offroading through the swamp.
So the question Floridian Republicans need to ask themselves is this: What if last year becomes known as a typical hurricane season a hundred years from now? 1905 wasn’t that long ago, 2105 isn’t that far off. Your grandchildren will see it.
Comment by cynical ex-hippie
First of all you people still pump gas right? You still burn gas right? Use electricity? You don’t have to, you choose to, how selfish of you. I didn’t burn a drop that wasn’t public transportation for years, you guys are just doing as much as you are willing to, but you want to set the level of environmentalism for everyone? How leftist of you. Now people can’t drive in the swamp if you say so? See you are so sure you know what’s best you don’t give a crap about other peoples rights. Property rights? No, you have to bend over backwards for a freaking cavebug, or else. And yes kerry and huffy are learjet liberals, how you read that to say the state of California I will blame on the blotter acid of yesteryear. You traded your brownshirts for green; )
July 9th, 2005 at 7:48 pmYou traded your brownshirts for green
Never doubt a conservative to jump to invoking the cry of “Nazi” when he has nothing to say.
At least nothing worth listening to…
Unless raving lunatics are your bag.
July 9th, 2005 at 8:07 pmcould go on and on, but what is the point really? Are you seriously insinuating that John Kerry, Arianna Huffington and myself are responsible for global warming? John S.
.
At least nothing worth listening to…
Unless raving lunatics are your bag.
Comment by John S.  July 9, 2005
Why are you speaking for the hippy now? I responded to your claim liberals don’t pollute. See 61. What no comment? As for the nazi comment it is not conservatives who think the whole country is community property and they can tell you what you can do with it in the name of imaginary mice, or take your home in violation of the fifth amendment. DailyKos just purged its boards of not conservatives, but liberals who didn’t tow the party line, Uncle Joe is smiling over that one. The little commie even called it a purge, so it’s off to the electronic gulag, LOL. That’s your guys. abortion of imperfect babies, euthanasia, conformity of opinion, anti-Semetism, Earth worship, all very much in the tradition of hitler and stalin.
Daily Kos: The conspiracists.
So I banned these people, and those that have been recommending diaries like it. And I will continue to do so until the purge is complete, and make no mistake  this is a purge.
This is a reality-based community. Those who wish to live outside it should find a new home. This isn’t it.
July 9th, 2005 at 9:49 pmhttp://dailykos.com/story/2005/7/8/114856/8349
July 9th, 2005 at 9:49 pmCHUGWATER, Wyo.  After six years of regulations and restrictions that have cost builders, local governments and landowners an estimated $100 million, new research suggests the “threatened” Preble’s mouse in fact never existed. It instead seems to be genetically identical to the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse, which is considered common enough not to need protection.
http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservation/news/2004/0615/1822685.html?partnersite=espn
July 9th, 2005 at 9:54 pmMETHYL tertiary-butyl ether, more commonly known as MTBE, is a chemical Janus. It benefits air quality by making gasoline burn cleaner, thus reducing automobile emissions. But it can also find its way into groundwater supplies and give drinking water an unpleasant taste and odor. At present, more than 20 public drinking water wells in California have ceased water production for this reason. Worse yet, the health effects of MTBE are uncertain-the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency currently classifies MTBE as a possible human carcinogen.
Since 1992, MTBE has been the compound of choice for U.S. oil refineries required by the federal Clean Air Act to add an oxygenate to gasoline to help reduce air pollution. However, some MTBE has appeared in drinking water wells throughout the U.S. This discovery has sparked a national controversy between the need to reduce air pollution (especially in heavily populated areas) and the necessity to safeguard precious water resources from contamination. In an effort to resolve this controversy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) formed a 14-member panel of MTBE experts from government, the oil industry, academia, regulatory agencies, and environmental groups to explore the environmental and public health effects of MTBE and make policy recommendations by July 1999.
http://www.llnl.gov/str/Happel.html
Junk science of the left, but you meant well right?
July 9th, 2005 at 9:56 pmYawn.
July 9th, 2005 at 11:53 pmYawn.
Comment by John S.
July 10th, 2005 at 2:58 amsee you are surrender monkeys. What has that bs, wanting to debate on stage blah blah blah. Big talk, now go ask your professor for your mommys money back,trust fund revolutionary LOL. By the way, if global warming is making more and worse storms in the Alantic, why is the Pacific so dead? Global warming? That’s right you guys only see evidence that supports your position.
Capitulation, it’s not just for the french any more.
Surrender? LOL
Oh no…I am perfectly content to sit back and have a Coke and smile while you spin yourself wildly out of control, much to the delight of myself and the majority of others reading your tripe.
I also won’t engage you in an embroiled debate over the grass being green, the sky being blue or the world behing spheroid, but feel free to tackle this topics as well.
I look forward to your next installment…
July 10th, 2005 at 11:38 am“I am perfectly content to sit back and have a Coke ”
I hope that is a free range coke you got there, is it all natural? Not producing any green house gasses except the hot air of liberal rhetoric today? Did you walk to the Coop to get it? I’m sure youre real proud of this thread, you guys made an assertion you could not back up, but what else is new.
July 10th, 2005 at 1:02 pmWhat are you babbling about fake? You make a lot of assertions you can’t back up. The fact is, California is one of the lowest per-capita energy users in the country. If the rest of the country followed our example, we’d go a long way down the road to sustainability.
And you brag about taking the bus? So did I. My main transportation was bicycle for years. Big deal. Small potatoes. The federal government needs to force industry to clean up after itself. Period.
And these right wingers are like children when you tell them to clean up the room. Waaaa! There’s too much pollution, we can’t clean it now! Waaaa! It will wreck the economy! Waaaa!
Ask Toyota and GM if environmental technology wrecks their economy.
Portland is on track to exceed the Kyoto targets. They’re doing just fine.
Or did you just come here to insult people?
July 10th, 2005 at 1:40 pm” You people are using solar power off grid or what, what a bunch of crap.”
Actually, solar power works best on-grid. Look it up.
July 10th, 2005 at 1:41 pmAs long as the hurricanes hit red states then I’m totally cool with them.
July 11th, 2005 at 10:55 am[...] Another bold prediction from ThinkProgress: [...]
July 29th, 2005 at 2:58 pmSome of the coments remind me of a George Carlin skit once. He said:
The Earth does not need saving. It will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. The Earth isn’t going anywhere…..
WE ARE!
I don’t think the arguement should be about Earth, but US ! The future of mankind, the health of the human race. If it gets too hot, or too cold, or if we can’t eat the fish or other resourses become limited, the future of mankind will be in jepordy, and then Thomas Malthus’, “the dismal philosopher”, theory will be put to the test. The population will be limited to the resourses of the earth by WAR or STARVATION or PLAGUE.
Wouldn’t it be RIGHT to get a JUMP on the decline of the Earth’s resourses? How long is TOO LATE.
I fear we are either there or near there, because of the amount of time it would take to correct it.
August 2nd, 2005 at 12:55 pm[...] but it’s tough to argue with the numbers. “The five named tropical storms recorded in July were the most on record for that month, and worldwide it was the second warmest July on record,” AP reports. [...]
August 16th, 2005 at 3:13 pm[...] but it’s tough to argue with numbers like these. “The five named tropical storms recorded in July were the most on record for that month, and worldwide it was the second warmest July on record,” AP reports. 3:44 pm | Comment (0) [...]
August 16th, 2005 at 3:45 pmMarkus…
It was quite useful reading, found some interesting details about this topic. Thanks….
December 8th, 2006 at 5:16 amDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 4:55 pmGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 4:26 amJack
. The TrackBack specification was created by Six Apart, who first implemented it in their Movable Type blogging software in August
March 27th, 2008 at 6:06 amEric
Great post. I have added you to my digg bookmark
March 28th, 2008 at 7:56 pm