New Study: Manmade Global Warming Contributing To Increase In Wildfires
New Study: Manmade Global Warming Contributing To Increase In Wildfires
A common right-wing argument about why global warming isn’t a problem is that it may have positive benefits for the earth:
“When it’s not even clear that the warming we’ve seen is hurting us — many argue that it’s a boon, citing its benefits to agriculture and its potential to make severe climates more hospitable.” [Jason Lee Steorts, National Review, 6/6/06]
A new study to be published today in the journal Science, however, concludes that recent increases in Western wildfires may be a result of global warming. While “part of the increase may be attributed to natural fluctuations, evidence also links it to the effects of human-induced climate warming,” according to Dan Cayan, a co-author of the paper and director of the climate research division at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
The AP reports on the study:
An analysis of data going back to 1970 indicates the fires increased “suddenly and dramatically” in the 1980s and the wildfire season grew longer, according to scientists in Arizona and California. … Beginning about 1987, there was a change from infrequent fires averaging about one week in duration to more frequent ones that often burned five weeks or more, they reported. The length of the wildfire season was extended by 78 days.
“So far in 2006, more than 3.8 million acres have burned in the United States — double the 10-year average for this time of year,” according to the Interagency Fire Center. In 2000, fires burned 7.4 million acres across the West and more than 20 people died.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bah. What do a bunch of scientists know about science. They just hate America, obviously.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:26 pmIsn’t there actually more evidence showing that an ice age is coming? So wildfires may be here now, but it will get colder soon.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:29 pmWhat? Seixon have made a great job convincing us that all this was pure crap. I am sure scientist are wrong. (Sarcasm)
July 6th, 2006 at 1:42 pmAs is the case with Florida and other gulf coast states, the western states that suffer from the effects of global warming via forest fires tend to support politicians whose policies run contrary to measures that could reduce the threat of the phenomenon (with the exception of California of course). Seriously, you have people dying in droves thanks to fires, floods, high winds, homes destroyed, entire regions traumatized…I mean, what does it take to make these people get it? Oh wait, they think God did it because he’s mad about homosexuality and abortion being legal in America. Silly me, what was I thinking.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:48 pmA new “fact-packed” documentary “Who killed the Electric Car?” is making it’s way to “select” theatres near my favourite progs. All the usual suspects from the Hollyweird Left impart their environmental wisdom. (I’m starting to understand why your side of the aisle are such a DOUR bunch – spending your “entertainment” $$$ on “An Inconvenient Truth” and this latest “epic….) You’d think they would put programming like this on C-SPAN or PBS so as to reach as many progs as possible.
Have a great time!!
July 6th, 2006 at 1:48 pmThanks for saying nothing Mighty! Have fun at Superman! Meaningless comments are fun!
July 6th, 2006 at 1:54 pmRead a book, mighty. Oh, I forgot, why if you already know everything? Do not comment in the Global Warming threads, please. You know nothing about science. Grab your banjo and sing: Glory, glory, aleluya…
July 6th, 2006 at 1:57 pmHey Mighty, have you ever considered that us leftards see movies for reasons other thna pure, mind-numbing, entertainment. I like slapstick comedy as much as the next guy, but sometimes it’s fun to engage one’s brain as well.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:00 pmThanks Amanda for once again proving that Think Progress is a factory for spin. Let’s just do a quick comparison between Think Progress and the actual report they are citing.
Think Progress: “Manmade Global Warming Contributing To Increase In Wildfires”
Source for TP: “Wildfires May Be Linked to Global Warming”
Wow!
With that said, it’s obvious that there will be more wildfires when it gets warmer. Duh. Yet once again, you still have to prove that humans are the main cause of this warming, rather than natural fluctuations. Does this study do that? No. It shows that wildfires have increased as temperatures increase, and uh, sorry but that is just pure common sense folks.
So in the next exclusive, the media will tell us the shocking story that due to hotter temperatures, the growing season for flowers has been extended! You know, or something else. Just pick something.
Is there any reason we should not immediately see the logic behind higher temperatures = more wildfires? Why waste time doing a study on that? I don’t get it.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:01 pmIt saddens me that even a progressive news source like this still perpetuates the myth that there is still some debate over global warming, whether or not it is anthropogenic (human caused), and whether or not the effects will be mostly negative.
One of the most devastating effects of global warming is going to be sea-level rise. Remember back in August when there were 15,000 refugees in New Orleans? There will be — this is not an opinion, but a fact — 10,000 TIME more environmental refugees because of sea-level rise over the next 44 years than there was from Hurricane Katrina. We are talking 150 MILLION lives at immediate risk.
This, of course, assumes that the major ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland will not contribute significantly to sea-level during this time. Melting along the margins of Greenland, though, is rapidly accelerating, and new feedbacks are being found that are speeding things up even faster. Antarctica is split between a huge, stable ice sheet, and a smaller, less stable one in the west. When the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) collapses, it will not happen gradually, but we will get a sudden 5 m (16 ft.) rise in sea level. If Greenland begins to melt faster, it could contribute an additional 7m (24 ft.).
Add to this the fastest land-animal extinction rate in 65 million years, more severe weather and storms, and a rapid rise in air-borne and insect-borne diseases, and you’ll begin to get a rough idea of what is in store over the next few decades.
It’s a shame that the wool is being pulled over American eyes just so the oil companies can make a few extra trillion dollars. But at what expense.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:08 pmAlexandra,
Seriously, you have people dying in droves thanks to fires, floods, high winds, homes destroyed, entire regions traumatized…I mean, what does it take to make these people get it?
That has happened since the beginning of time, my dear. There have always been fires, floods, high winds, homes being destroyed, etc. The only thing that has changed in the last 100 years is:
1. The population has increased from 1 billion to 6 billion.
2. The amount of people living in areas that get hit by natural disasters is up tremendously.
3. From having no global 24/7 news coverage we now have a saturated market of global 24/7 news coverage.
So the question is, do you get it? The reason why more and more humans are dying from natural disasters is due to the fact that there are now more humans than ever before, and because humans are basically challenging nature to kill them. You might as well go live on a volcano and then blame global warming when it erupts and kills you.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:09 pmSeixon,
These are the same people that want the Feds to spend billions on a satalite project to record pictures of melting glaciers and other global warming situations yet they are also the people that claim science has already come to the conclusion that Global warming exists. Seems like an even bigger waste of money to do a study that would prove something they already know to be true. Same with this study.
HEADLINE:
Warm temps create more fires!!!
My 8 year old could have told them that.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:12 pmAs long as the Dubya Dunce Decider is the despot dictator of America, the entire world’s environment is in deep trouble!
July 6th, 2006 at 2:16 pmSeixon,
Please provide your explanation for why the hottest 5 years on record have occurred in the last 14. Also, why are hurricanes stronger and more prevalent? Is that because there are more people? I am but a lowly liberal and cannot grasp the concepts you speak of.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:17 pmTodd Albert,
I was told that all that ice melting will actually cool down the Oceans which in turn will stop many of the Ocean Currents. In the end, places like Greenland will actually get much colder since it will have no Ocean currents pushing that nice warm water up to it anymore. This all just means that it will have more ice then ever before. Has the left decided this is now incorrect?
July 6th, 2006 at 2:17 pmJay Randal,
I didn’t realize that Bush is in charge of China’s and India’s environmental laws since those 2 coutries are far worse when it comes to emissions then we are. China currently uses a little over 3 times the amount of Co2 that we do to produce $1 of GNP. India is right with China. America is right in line with the rest of modern world on emissions. So, ask them while there Co2 to GNP ratio is far worse. While your at it, ask why China has 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world.
We all need to help, but those that are using the most Co2 per GNP $ are the biggests problems.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:22 pmThese are the same people that want the Feds to spend billions on a satalite project to record pictures of melting glaciers and other global warming situations yet they are also the people that claim science has already come to the conclusion that Global warming exists. Seems like an even bigger waste of money to do a study that would prove something they already know to be true. Same with this study.
As you and your tiresome ilk relentlessly proclaim, there are still gaps in the fossil recor …. ooops wrong right wing taking point, gaps in the data. Sensible people know that there is always more to learn, what is truly lamentable is how you people take laudable motives and use them as a stick to beat people with.
Besides are you convinced? Odds are your own persistent insistence that “it just isn’t so” is driving the research, so send that bill to yourself:-)
July 6th, 2006 at 2:22 pmChina currently uses a little over 3 times the amount of Co2 that we do to produce $1 of GNP. India is right with China.
The United States puts out more CO2 as a nation by far than any other nation on Earth, including China and India. Considering the relative populations (1 billion+ for each of China and India, 300 million US) the per capita emissions are many times those of either of these other countries. On top of that, this has been the case for the past 100+ years of CO2 pollution.
For the US to refuse to take any steps until India and China do exactly the same, is kind of like the fattest man at the table, apon the realization that the food is running out, continuing to eat more than anyone else and demanding the skinny people to cut back just as much and at the same time. There is no morally sane way to look at the emissions problem that does not place a greater burden on the worst polluter.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:25 pmoxillini,
Please provide your explanation for why the hottest 5 years on record have occurred in the last 14.
The key to this is that this is according to what we have recorded. Now, our coverage of the globe in recording temperatures has changed from 15% in the 1850s to 80% in the last decade. We only have recorded temperatures for the last 150 years, with fewer and and sparser measurements as you go backward through time. If 5 of the hottest years on the record happened within the last 14 years, that means 9 of them did not. I cannot offer you an explanation for this, as I will not pretend to know with 100% certainty why the Earth’s atmosphere does anything at all. What I can say, though, is that the temperatures across most of the globe in the past decade are not unprecedented as far as the past 100 years go.
Also, why are hurricanes stronger and more prevalent?
They’re not. We only have accurate and complete records of hurricanes since the advent of the satellite back in the late 1960s to the 1970s when measuring hurricanes started to become regular. As the NOAA and most other hurricane experts say, the pattern for hurricane activity follows a cycle, and the last time we had as many strong hurricanes as we do now was before we had satellites. Even then, other records show us that the hurricanes that we were able to measure back then were comparable to the ones we have seen in the last few years.
There is not a single hurricane expert who will tell you that hurricanes have become more prevalent – not even Kerry Emanuel. Some scientists, such as Emanual, claim that hurricanes may be getting stronger due to global warming, yet as I and actual hurricane experts point out, there is no basis for this due to the fact that our limited data set for hurricanes will not provide a conclusive answer to this. You can’t prove that global warming is causing stronger storms when you only have complete data going back to 1970.
I am but a lowly liberal and cannot grasp the concepts you speak of.
No, you seemingly just believe everything Al Gore tells you and don’t think about it critically. To etablish trends, you have to have enough data to do so. With hurricanes, we do not. With temperatures, it is much of the same, but not to the same degree.
There is a correlation that many people never think about: the fact that our technological advances over the past century made us increasingly able to measure weather phenomena as time went on. You will most likely see the same trend with measurements of earthquakes and other such things. Us humans are spread more across the globe now than ever, and have more technology than ever to record and keep track of such events.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:32 pmThis is for those who claim China and India are worse CO2 emitters than US. http://www.pnl.gov/aisu/pubs/sinusko04/conti.pdf
July 6th, 2006 at 2:36 pmNow remember how many citizens are in China and INdia, please divide those emissions with these number of citizens. mmmm…US still first place…God bless America!
Seixon, do you know what demostrate all your lenghty posts? Only one thing: you’re payed by the word.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:36 pmRoss Gelbspan on hurricanes :
http://www.desmogblog.com/lindzen-keeps-it-complicated-and-the-wall-street-journal-laps-it-up
July 6th, 2006 at 2:37 pmBrian Coughlan,
Like I have said before, it is a poor way to look at emissions when based on population. You have to base it on emissions to GNP. The reason is simple. If we in America reduce our economy our emissions would drop accordingly. The problem is that the rest of the world still needs that economic production we gave up so some other country will take it over. This is where the issue lies. America is in line with the rest of the world. We spend roughly the same amount as everyone else in emissions to produce $1 of GNP. China produces 3 times as many emissions to get $1 of GNP and India is a close second.
World economic output will always stay fairly constent. The questions, for starters, is which country would you like that economic output to happen in (because it will happen whether we like it or not)? Would you choose a place that uses a standard amount or emissions to produce it or use a country like China that uses 3 times more to produce the same thing?
July 6th, 2006 at 2:41 pmOh dear …. this is out of order Sexion. You are just rehashing the same stuff we have been through. No one here is an expert, least of all you. So we not go to http://www.realclimate.org/ and get a proper spanking?
I’m not going to indulge you tonight I’m afraid, you’re still welcome to pop over though:-)
July 6th, 2006 at 2:41 pmBTW,
I fully believe in Global Warming Brian.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:43 pmJJ,
Ross Gelbspan is a global warming hack. You know that, I know that. As you show with the cherry-picked facts, everything has increased since the mid-1970s. Duh. The hurricane cycle was at the bottom in the 1970s, so there’s absolutely no reason to believe that there would have been strong hurricanes then as there are now. Since they don’t have any data prior to the 1970s, they’re left with doing little more than speculating based upon an incomplete dataset. Which is what I already said.
Juan C,
The US emits about 45% of the world’s CO2 emissions, India and China are behind this. Of course, the ones who have been increasing their CO2 emissions the fastest are China and India, while the US has been fairly stable. Not to mention the fact that pollution standards in the US are much better than in China or India.
Evil Spaniard,
Thanks for ignoring the facts and substance of my comments by alleging I am paid to post here. You took the page right out of Al Gore’s book. I believe the chapter title is “How to Avoid Discussion – Claim Others are Paid by [Insert diabolical nemesis here]“
July 6th, 2006 at 2:44 pm#23 No way Ben. Economic output is definitely not constant. If it were the Dow would still be at 3,000. But here’s the real flaw in the “pollution intensity by GDP” model. One, the earth doesn’t care what the economic output is. Pollution would be allowed to grow in step with the economy. If we hit a recession, and economic output goes down, under Bush’s intensity model companies would be required to reduce their emissions. Is that healthy economically? Is that good policy? Will that shorten or prolong a recession?
July 6th, 2006 at 2:46 pmSome fun reports on the most wasteful nation in the world:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_15/b3928070.htm
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/07/content_380099.htm
Again, they use more Co2 per $1 of GNP then anyone else in the world (3 times more).
July 6th, 2006 at 2:46 pmWe only have recorded temperatures for the last 150 years, with fewer and and sparser measurements as you go backward through time.
Putting it charitably, this is uninformed. As usual, I have to do your research for you.
We have tree ring analysis, we have ice core samples, we have a whole array of measures of previous temperatures.
That you have not bothered to learn anything about this is telling. How else would the IPCC have gathered the data for this graph of temps and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm
Seixon, if I didn’t know any better, I’d say you dropped out of college like your twin George Deutch.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:47 pmChina produces 3 times as many emissions to get $1 of GNP and India is a close second.
Yes, because they are developing countries. We spent the last 100 years screwing the environment even more comprehensivley.
I repeat :
For the US to refuse to take any steps until India and China do exactly the same, is kind of like the fattest man at the table, apon the realization that the food is running out, continuing to eat more than anyone else and demanding the skinny people to cut back just as much and at the same time. There is no morally sane way to look at the emissions problem that does not place a greater burden on the worst polluter. Thats YOU.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:48 pmThese are the same people that want the Feds to spend billions on a satalite project to record pictures of melting glaciers and other global warming situations yet they are also the people that claim science has already come to the conclusion that Global warming exists. Seems like an even bigger waste of money to do a study that would prove something they already know to be true. Same with this study.
We’re not out to prove it exists, we’re out to learn more about it so we can find a solution, with or without your moral support.
One could just as well ask, why monitor North Korea if you’re already convinced they have nukes? Because if you see a dangerous situation, it is wise to watch it more closely, not less.
Seriously.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:49 pmDid you guys know that the correlation between the US national debt and the global mean temperature has a higher p value than the correlation between CO2 emissions and the global mean temperature? Pretty weird.
For 1958-2002, the correlation values are:
0.815 for global population vs. temperature
July 6th, 2006 at 2:50 pm0.836 for CO2 vs. temperature
0.860 for US national debt vs. temperature
I fully believe in Global Warming Brian.
Ooops apolgies if I attacked in ignorance. Sometimes it gets feisty:-)
July 6th, 2006 at 2:52 pmI want the democratic candidate in ‘08 to run as the global warming candidate. If this issue is so important to libs, I know the people on this site can make it happen. Sign petitions if you have to. Hold protests until you get what you want. America needs to wake up this problem. We all need this to happen. GW in ‘08!
July 6th, 2006 at 2:53 pmKermit,
You misunderstood me. I said that world economic output is fairly stable. That is not to say it isn’t growing. BTW, The DOW is not showing us world economic output, it barely shows American Output let alone countries outside its scope. What I am trying to point on is that the world will always need what we have today in terms of economic output (and it will grow). Currently, America (emissions wise) would be a better choice then China, which is obvious as our amount of emissions per #1 of GNP is vastly better then theres.
This all is not to say that we don’t need to change. We absolutely need to change, but change will not happen today or tommorrow but down the road as we aren’t even close for a replacement fuel for Gas. Once the market finds a fuel that is equally powerful, useable, and is equal or cheaper then gas, we will change. While it is fun to day dream about years from now and what that fuel may be, I prefer to look at the picture today and what needs to be done.
With this info, I think it is very fair that the world turns most there attention to China and India. We need to pressure them to get there Co2 emissions in line with the rest of the world as they are currently using 3 times more then we are to produce the same thing.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:54 pmComment by Seixon — July 6, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
Really, this is just crap to post all this stuff again. No one here is a climatologist, and neither are you. You are not going to convince anyone, just piss everyone off, so why do it? Seriously?
July 6th, 2006 at 2:55 pmJJ,
Wow, talk about dishonest. You know very well that tree rings and all of that is highly inaccurate compared to actual temperature readings, which are only available for the last 150 years. The National Academy of Sciences released a report that Think Progress distorted which said that the only reconstructions they had high confidence in were ones going back 400 years.
You might as well claim that carbon-dating is completely accurate. Sheesh.
We have tree ring analysis, we have ice core samples, we have a whole array of measures of previous temperatures.
Yes, and none of them are as accurate and reliable as the measurements of temperature we have for the past 150 years. All of them are susceptible to problems and taints, but recordings of temperature for the past 150 years are not.
Not even the scientists would claim that ice core samples are any where close to being as accurate and reliable as temperature readings, but here you are acting the fool.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:55 pmRoss Gelbspan is a global warming hack. You know that, I know that.em>
Who’s a hack?
Gelbspan didn’t write those papers, scientists did. Reason from facts, not ad hominem attacks. Gelbspan is a Pulizer prize winner, by the way.
Scientists have every reason to suspect warm waters for hurricanes. If you knoew something about science, you’d know that. Warm waters absorb warmth from the atmosphere and a 30% CO2 level causes warming in the atmosphere.
Cite your support that hurricane strength doesn’t come from warm water. Oh, you don’t have that? I’m not surprised.
George Deutch would be proud….
July 6th, 2006 at 2:56 pmSexion,
Is it or is it not true, then that much of the data you stated was not recorded can be deduced through analysis of ice cores? As technology develops, won’t humans better be able to not only uncover what has happened, but also what will happen based upon the insight gained from history? Thinking critically, I’m not seeing the flaws in the body of global warming evidence that you see.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:57 pmJJ, I’ve recently read that it’s likely a “category 6″ will be required to categorize hurricanes in the future.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:57 pmWith this info, I think it is very fair that the world turns most there attention to China and India. We need to pressure them to get there Co2 emissions in line with the rest of the world as they are currently using 3 times more then we are to produce the same thing.
Comment by Ben — July 6, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
The best way to do that is for us to do it first, and then sell them all the technology. There are plenty of WTO instruments that could be brought to bear further down the road, once we have our house in order.
To expect them to tighten their belts as much as we tighten ours is morally indefensible, and likely to cause deadlock. That is why Kyoto gave them that wiggle room. We need to start, and it starts with us.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:00 pmRandy,
I want the democratic candidate in ‘08 to run as the global warming candidate.
His name is Al Gore.
Kermit,
We’re not out to prove it exists, we’re out to learn more about it so we can find a solution, with or without your moral support.
No, you’re first claiming that everything you say about it is correct, and then you want billions of dollars to research what you already said is proven. That makes no sense. If it’s already proven, why would you need to spend billions of dollars researching it? I support researching it as much as possible, because I don’t believe it is proven that human activity is what is the major cause of warming in the past few decades..
July 6th, 2006 at 3:00 pmEvil Spaniard,
Thanks for ignoring the facts and substance of my comments by alleging I am paid to post here. You took the page right out of Al Gore’s book. I believe the chapter title is “How to Avoid Discussion – Claim Others are Paid by [Insert diabolical nemesis here]â€
Comment by Seixon — July 6, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
Your “facts” have been repeteadly debunked in this blog, today, yesterday and a couple days before, in fact in every ecology thread that has been posted in this blog, because you think you’re an authorized and reputed scientist, but we already know that you’re a computer programmer, 22 years old. You know it and we know it. You only come here repeating the same thoughts of yours that have been already debunked a couple times, in the hope of captivating some audience for your talking points between the new comers, rightwingers or not enough educated ones here.
And, you receive a benefit for publishing here, because you direct people to your own blog, by your posts or by the link in your signature. I don’t know if you receive a weekly check from the Republican party, or you want to earn hits for your webpage (the basic unit to get money from internet advertisers), or you do it in the hope of being hired by the Republican party or some software developer. But you aren’t an anonymous poster expressing his thougts honestly.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:00 pmSeixon owes me a new mouse… my scroll wheel just overheated from bypassing all his raging nonsense, which is surely nothing more than regurgitated ad hominems and a sole mad scientist who ‘believes’ that Global Warming is a fluke…
July 6th, 2006 at 3:06 pmBrian,
I never said that the USA doesn’t have to reduce our emissions. I simply said that China is the bigger problem. The USA IMO needs to quickly get rid of the nasty Coal Plants and replace them with Nuke Plants, Solar Plants (where possible), and Wind Farms (where possible). Ethanol is also something we should look into more. I have heard mixed reviews about it. I personally don’t see how it is much better for the environment then gas, but others here seem to think it is close to emission free (somehow). If Ethonal is truly good for the planet emissions wise we need to switch to it ASAP. Doing all that would have a major impact on our emission output to say the least.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:07 pmThe National Academy of Sciences released a report that Think Progress distorted which said that the only reconstructions they had high confidence in were ones going back 400 years.
Again proving that you and George Deutch both need to go back to school. From the report:
However:
The authors accurately note that, despite those uncertainties, the key conclusions reached by those studies (i.e., that hemispheric-scale warmth in recent decades is likely unprecedented over at last the past millennium) have been substantiated by many other studies, and the confidence in those conclusions appears greater, not lesser, after nearly an additional decade of research
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/
Of course, that does not fit Seixon’s predrawn conclusions, and he’d rather play video games than actually study something, so Seixon ignore it. As I’ve said before, Seixon procedes by ignoring, at any cost, the context of anything that supports his arguments.
While he plays video games, everyone else has to do his research for him. Then he’s off to type his next session of sloppy emptiness.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:08 pmEvil Spaniard,
Name a single thing I have said that has been debunked. Thanks.
because you think you’re an authorized and reputed scientist, but we already know that you’re a computer programmer, 22 years old
Another strawman. I have never claimed to be an authorized scientist, but I am fully able to read scientific studies and understand their content. Doing so helps debunk Think Progress spin all the time, since they constantly distort the meaning and content of the science they claim to be citing. As for my age and occupation (part of which you have wrong), what does that have to do with anything? The majority of people commenting here have absolutely no credentials in science either. So why do you make a big fuss about me not being a scientist, while everyone else gets a pass? Horseshit.
And, you receive a benefit for publishing here, because you direct people to your own blog, by your posts or by the link in your signature.
I only direct people to my blog when they ask me to discuss something I have already gone over in detail on my blog. I guess you feel that when an author or science study points someone to a book or another source, they are trying to make money by having people buy their books.
Where is a link to my blog in my signature? I took it away a week ago, not that it matters at all, since many of the other commenters here do the exact same thing, but once again you don’t allege they are hounding for money. It’s funny how many double standards you erect to apply to me.
But you aren’t an anonymous poster expressing his thougts honestly.
Well thanks to Think Progress goons, I am no longer anonymous when posting here, quite correct. However, I am here expressing my thoughts honestly, and the fact that you are once again harassing me about just about everything other than the content of my posts shows that you, like many others, aren’t out to discuss things but simply insert ideas into peoples brains and then bash anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
It’s dispicable is what it is. Either “debunk” what I am saying, or shut up.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:11 pmThe intelligence of leftards is intended to “dazzle” – although they fail to illuminate.
When Brain Cough-lin weighs in with his usual “America-bash” he might gain a tad of credibility if he noted:
July 6th, 2006 at 3:12 pma.) There are more CO2 eating trees in North America than during the time George Washington was a humble surveyor.
b.) The “energy-hog” US produces what percentage of the world’s good and services?
c.) What effect did the natural phenoms of Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Pinotubo have on the ozone layer? How could man have stopped those occurences??
d.) How has the air quality in Los Angeles changed in the last 25 years?
a.) There are more CO2 eating trees in North America than during the time George Washington was a humble surveyor.
Yet we have still managed to up the CO2 by 30%.
b.) The “energy-hog†US produces what percentage of the world’s good and services?
Yes, good point, so let’s produce some products that produce less CO2. Oh, the oil companies wouldn’t like that? OK, let’s continue on our merry way to melting Greenland and the icecaps.
c.) What effect did the natural phenoms of Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Pinotubo have on the ozone layer? How could man have stopped those occurences??
Ozone depletion and greenhouse gasses are completely different problems. (Smarter trolls, please, for the love of God.)
d.) How has the air quality in Los Angeles changed in the last 25 years?
For the better, thanks to unleaded gasoline, CAFE standards, and catalytic converters. Oh, did I mention this was because of legislation?
July 6th, 2006 at 3:19 pmJJ,
OK, let’s continue on our merry way to melting Greenland and the icecaps.
Greenland is not melting, only some coastal areas of Greenland are. The icecaps are also not melting, with much the same situation as Greenland being the case there too. You’re full of half-truths.
For the better, thanks to unleaded gasoline, CAFE standards, and catalytic converters. Oh, did I mention this was because of legislation?
Yes, because pollution is actually a proven and irrefutable problem. Smog does actual harm to people, last I checked, CO2 doesn’t.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:28 pmHAARP! HAARP!
July 6th, 2006 at 3:30 pmSeixon, let’s put aside for the moment that you are unlikely to have studied the science of environmental issues nearly as carefully as the scientists who are warning about the consequences of the continuation of current emissions levels as well as general human neglect of the environment. Let’s also forget the fact that I personally have been studying these issues and learning about these issues for most of my life, and will hopefully be able to make some positive impact on them soon enough. Why are you objecting so strenuously to the suggestion of taking some sort of action to ameliorate our behavior? Maybe you don’t see a link between the destruction of the environment and human activity, but try telling that to the people in Greenland, where entire ice sheets and glaciers have become nothing more than rivers, and to people living on tiny islands that are growing ever higher as sea levels are rising. So maybe we’re not 100% certain about exactly what current destructive activity will result in say, 100 years down the line. In the face of what evidence we do have though (and please don’t try to say we don’t have any) isn’t it worth it to try to take some action to guard against what could be catastrophic consequences?
July 6th, 2006 at 3:30 pmHAARP!
July 6th, 2006 at 3:31 pmSexion can find no evidence that CO2 traps heat, or that trapping heat is harmful. We can all rest easy now. Let’s hear no more about this global warming, lest he ridicule us again.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:32 pmWhich is it, JJ – The ozone layer is depleting rapidly due to greenhouse gases or NOT?? Have you ever noticed that the more legislation and taxes, the happier a prog seems to be??? What do you think of Oregon’s proposal to tax by the mile – complete with a monitor on your car. (They’ll EVEN know when you’re in or out of state – how thrilling!!!!!) Tax-wise progs see the reduction of taxes collected as drivers go to more energy efficient autos or reduce the amount of driving. Judicious driving by a gas-HOG SUV could pay less tax than a fuel efficient Prius. Leave it to progs to screw up a reward system for the conscientious….
July 6th, 2006 at 3:34 pmWhich is it, JJ – The ozone layer is depleting rapidly due to greenhouse gases or NOT??
Good job, you’ve disproven something that nobody ever said. If you don’t know the difference between CFCs and greenhouse gases, you should probably move on to another topic.
Have you ever noticed that the more legislation and taxes, the happier a prog seems to be???
Just a few posts back you said how pollution is down and that is a good thing. Does that make you a prog?
What do you think of Oregon’s proposal to tax by the mile – complete with a monitor on your car. …Judicious driving by a gas-HOG SUV could pay less tax than a fuel efficient Prius. Leave it to progs to screw up a reward system for the conscientious….
That is a conservative proposal, not a progressive one.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:38 pmRealclimate is not an objective source
Well, these are the contributers. Read their bios:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10
Who are your sources?
…as can be seen by reading the actual review by the NAS which said that the Mann conclusions, with other supporting evidence, still only received a “plausible†rating for everything prior to 1600, with a few reconstructions in fact not supporting Mann’s conclusions.
Here’s a quote from the NAS report:
This is a vindication of Mann’s work. You can’t read it any other way. Further, if we had a time machine and kidnapped Mann before he published his work, you’d still have a strong case because of all the other supporting data.
Oh, and I haven’t played a video game in 2 weeks.
Well, I’m happy for you. Now if we can just get you to study some science and use basic reasoning before you post comments.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:42 pmI never said that the USA doesn’t have to reduce our emissions. I simply said that China is the bigger problem.
Anyway, I’m sure the US _does_ have greener production than both India and China. The problem in the US is not the production, but the consumption. This consumption is also what drives the production of CO2 in India and China, as they produce the goods exported to the US. If US consumers would cut down and/or switch to greener goods, the emissions from these countries would be affected as well.
The USA IMO needs to quickly get rid of the nasty Coal Plants and replace them with Nuke Plants, Solar Plants (where possible), and Wind Farms (where possible).
Agreed
Ethanol is also something we should look into more. I have heard mixed reviews about it. I personally don’t see how it is much better for the environment then gas, but others here seem to think it is close to emission free (somehow). If Ethonal is truly good for the planet emissions wise we need to switch to it ASAP.
I’ve heard pro and con and I’m warming to it now. Sweden does a lot with ethanol as does Brazil, they especially seem to have leveraged some significant economic gains. Plus it’s an employment gain which can potentially rejuvenate agricultrure world wide. Finally it is carbon neutral because the plants while growing suck CO2 out of the air, this is then released when the ethanol is burned. You could even argue it’s CO2 negative, because the CO2 is “sequestered” during the growing cycle.
Doing all that would have a major impact on our emission output to say the least.
I’m down with THAT:-)
July 6th, 2006 at 3:44 pmNo, you’re first claiming that everything you say about it is correct, and then you want billions of dollars to research what you already said is proven. That makes no sense. If it’s already proven, why would you need to spend billions of dollars researching it?
Good lord did I not just say why? Once you recognize a problem it is important to learn more about it. Nobody is saying we know everything that can possibly be known about global warming. The more we know, the better equipped we can be.
Besides, if you insist on stopping research once we reach a conclusion, I can simply point out people like yourself who are not convinced need the additional data.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:44 pm“That is a conservative proposal, not a progressive one.” – Comment by Permit the Progressive Prog
July 6th, 2006 at 3:46 pm*****Nice try!! But wrong….
Greenland is not melting, only some coastal areas of Greenland are. The icecaps are also not melting, with much the same situation as Greenland being the case there too. You’re full of half-truths.
Links?
I have one:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1120-03.htm
July 6th, 2006 at 3:48 pm“That is a conservative proposal, not a progressive one.†– Comment by Permit the Progressive Prog
*****Nice try!! But wrong….
Comment by mighty aphrodite
Are you a progressive? No? Then you are not qualified to say what a progressive is. That proposal encourages inefficiency and is therefore definitely not progressive.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:50 pmI’m so tired of researching for Seixon. I’m going to sign off this thread…
July 6th, 2006 at 3:50 pmAlexandra,
try telling that to the people in Greenland, where entire ice sheets and glaciers have become nothing more than rivers, and to people living on tiny islands that are growing ever higher as sea levels are rising
If you have actually studied this issue, as you claim, there’s no way you would make up ridiculous things as you have done here. Only coastal areas of Greenland have experienced any melting, and this melting is not unprecedented. Tiny islands are not experiencing anything, as the sea level has only risen a few millimeters over the past 3 decades. The IPCC says the sea level will probably rise 0.1 to 0.9 meters within 2100. Do you know of any islands that would be done for with even 0.9 meters raise in sea level? Hmmm.
As for your wider questions: I fully support reducing our use of fossil fuels and being more efficient and cleaner with our energy use. I support this for geopolitical reasons. I also support hunting down and taking care of real pollution as far as we can. But you won’t find me being convinced by Al “We’re All Going To Die” Gore and the rest of the gang. You have just shown that you are one of these people, who talks about glaciers becoming rivers and islands being sunk. That is horseshit and you know it.
JJ,
Who are your sources?
Hmm, the scientists? The NAS? The IPCC? I mean, that’s a start. Realclimate represents the Global Warming Alarmist Lobby.
This is a vindication of Mann’s work. You can’t read it any other way. Further, if we had a time machine and kidnapped Mann before he published his work, you’d still have a strong case because of all the other supporting data.
So “plausible” is a “vindication” of his conclusion? Wow. Never mind that other reconstructions did not agree with it… oh well. You’re just toeing the Realclimate line from start to finish here. There really isn’t anything you wouldn’t see as a vindication of Mann’s work. If the report said “slight possibility”, my guess is you’d think that was a “vindication” as well.
Well, I’m happy for you. Now if we can just get you to study some science and use basic reasoning before you post comments.
Basic reasoning? Does that include claiming that saying something is “plausible” passes for saying that it is probable, likely, or even a fact? It is “plausible” that it will hail here tomorrow. Likely? No, but it is plausible.
Oh, and let’s just leave out all the ways in which the study took Mann’s study to task for problems in methodology and data use. *Whistles past graveyard*
July 6th, 2006 at 3:53 pmJJ,
You’re doing little more than cherry-picking the science as you see fit. Let’s just excerpt from your “research”:
Ah! Could! Well that settles that! 500 years for Greenland to melt, if everything in the world stays the same as right now. We all know that things in nature continue in a straight line upwards. Never do things in nature follow a sine curve, nope, never.
JJ, Realclimate shill, knows better than nature! Speculation is fact! Lovely. A scientific study deemed “plausible” is a “vindication”! Yeah! That’s the ticket!
Give me a break JJ.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:02 pmWho are your sources?… Hmm, the scientists? The NAS? The IPCC?
OK then, what did those NAS scientists say in their report to Geroge Bush?
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3713&method=full
OK, this is getting silly. I’m off.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:05 pmJJ,
And as I’ve been saying, the role of the Sun is largely absent from much of this, due to the fact that scientists still don’t understand exactly what the Sun is doing:
That’s also from the NAS report, the one from 2005, not the one from 2001 which you cited. Also from the report:
Gosh, that’s exactly what I’ve said on this thread, with people attacking me. How strange.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:18 pmBrian Coughlan,
You actually brought up some interesting points. You said, If we reduce our consumption of “stuff” in America, it will reduce the emissions of China and India. This is agree with, but it is problematic. Basically, your proposel will simply reduce their economies which could have grave consequences for their local populations. As a whole world, it would in fact lower emissions and I need to give it more thought.
As far as your points on farming and using plants for Co2 traps. The farms in America are black dirt (or dead plants waiting to be harvested) all but 4 months of the year (June through August). I am not sure if that is really a good source to trap Co2. Furthermore, if we switched to 100% Ethonal it would probably mean we need more corn farms which would mean even more reductions in Forests and CRP land. Both would mean less year round plants (which is bad when discussing Co2 emissions).
The plus side is that Ethanol on a big scale would definetly increase the price of corn. This would mean that the government could end there massive wasteful subsidies to farmers and let the market decide how much corn is worth. Of course this whole Ethanol discussing would mean much higher food prices for us consumers as the farmers crops would cost much much more since the government wouldn’t be there to artificailly deflate the price. If the end result is an end to our dependence on foreign oil and a huge reduction of Co2 gas, I would be happy however.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:25 pmSeixon owes me a new mouse…
July 6th, 2006 at 4:33 pmComment by unbelievable — July 6, 2006 @ 3:06 pm
Ha ha ha!
Sexion,
I applaud your efforts here but it is a lost cause. I truly believe that the sun and recent volcanic activity, are causing most of the global warming we have been seeing. Liberals are running with this issue like it was the holy grail. Past history tells us that it will fade away like many of the other “crisises” that they claimed at the time needed our immediate and undying attention. They and the MSM are just praying that this year’s hurricane season tops last year’s. Just look at the frenzy Alberto put them in and that was just a tropical depression.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:40 pmam not sure if that is really a good source to trap Co2
Nope, you are of course right about that. However, if you are already growing the plants its simply another positive outcome.
This would mean that the government could end there massive wasteful subsidies to farmers and let the market decide how much corn is worth
Exactly, although I think you slightly contradict your earlier point vis a vis clearing forests etc. The US and EU give 10’s of billions in subsidies to farmers each year to grow stuff we don’t need, and we have hundreds of acres of land lying fallow. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could allow the market to regulate agriculture again? Plus it’s labour intensive, and the developing world could also get in on the market. No man, the more I think about this, the more it looks win piled on win.
Basically, your proposel will simply reduce their economies
July 6th, 2006 at 4:51 pmNot if they are producing a whole generation of new devices and vehicles to replace the inefficient ones. We could actually see a front loaded intense burst of industrial activity which short term generates more CO2, but drops off sharply as the gains bite.
They and the MSM are just praying that this year’s hurricane season tops last year’s.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:54 pmComment by Randy — July 6, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
Any exergy analyses will tell you that if you change the composition of the environment (the reference state), you will produce changes in every habitat. But I guess, neither you nor Seixon understand a thing of what I am writing. So, keep pushing your foot on the gas pedal until it hits the ground. “Scientists” are communists that want to forbid you the use of your wheels, puppy.
did not read other comments but they need to provide an actual link otherwise its just a big post hoc
July 6th, 2006 at 4:58 pmBen, Why do you assume switching to ethonal would lower CO2. It is still combustion and will still emit CO2, as will anything else you ignite. It is also 10 percent less efficient, which I would assume would mean 10 percent more CO2 per mile driven.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:03 pmBrian,
I live up in Farm land and the land the government gives us to “not farm” doesn’t sit fallow. Most of it is turned into CRP land by farmers signing contracts that say they will never farm it. They get paid to do nothing!! The land is very good for hunting upland birds though :).
As far as the third world getting into farming, I highly doubt it especially if we choose corn as the fuel of choice. Most of the Third World is not on land or in a climate that remotely supports corn growth. While they could grow corn, they couldn’t even come close to the corn belts of the Midwest and even into Canada. We are topping 320+ bushel per acre corn these days. They would be lucky to get 40 bushell per acre.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:03 pm#75 I do not assume it would lower CO2. If you read my post, I actually said that I doubt it would. I have just heard many people on this blog claim that it is much much better for the environment. I have yet to actually see why that is as I can’t get past the fact it would still be using combustion just like you said.
Again, I was just hoping they were actually telling the truth (which is in short supply on political blogs from both sides LOL).
July 6th, 2006 at 5:06 pmBen, Why do you assume switching to ethonal would lower CO2. It is still combustion and will still emit CO2, as will anything else you ignite. It is also 10 percent less efficient, which I would assume would mean 10 percent more CO2 per mile driven.
Comment by Tom — July 6, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
Tom, it’s a cycle. You grow the corn pulling CO2 out of the air (it’s what plants breathe) you burn the ethanol putting the CO2 back into the the air. While the corn is growing and being processed the CO2 is sequestered, which means ethanol actually reduces CO2!! You could do that a million times over and not add a single milligram of CO2 to the atmosphere, better still millions of tonnes of CO2 are locked up in your unprocessed corn and unburnt ethanol. It’s gorgeous really.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:10 pmI highly doubt it especially if we choose corn as the fuel of choice. Most of the Third World is not on land or in a climate that remotely supports corn growth.
I must confess I’m fairly ignorant about agriculture. Perhaps everyone can grow the corn who can, and the developing majority world countries could grow the stuff that the ethanol production has pushed out?
Either way, we are going to see a big spike in farming which has got to be good for the majority world.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:14 pmMost of it is turned into CRP land by farmers signing contracts that say they will never farm it. They get paid to do nothing!!
Exactly the same in the EU. Freaks me out, it’s total bullshit. Maybe this will finally eliminate that kind of scandalous waste.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:16 pm[...] Some scientists in Arizona and California think so (via Think Progress): The increase in the number of large western wildfires in recent years may be a result of global warming, researchers say. [...]
July 6th, 2006 at 5:17 pmVery well put Brian. But could we not just plant the corn(or tree etc…) and keep burning gas. Same effect, there is plenty of grass land lacking trees… But your argument is appealing. (scratching my head thinking) Hmmmm…
July 6th, 2006 at 5:27 pmI truly believe that the sun and recent volcanic activity, are causing most of the global warming we have been seeing.
Comment by Randy — July 6, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
Here’s part of your problem… Science isn’t a ‘blief’ system. It’s an ‘accept’ or ‘not accept’ system. Believing is not part of the equation.
Secondly, you ‘believe’ this based on ignorance, because no one who is informed on the matter ‘believes’ that kind of nonsense when there are reports to dispute both solar and volcanic contributions.
Thirdly, you see the reality you wish existed instead of the one that does. Take off your blinders and go read some books.
I could keep going, but you’ve already proven yourself to be significantly in denial by merely supporting Seixon’s junk Science rubbish. You don’t need my help in making that point any clearer…
July 6th, 2006 at 5:28 pmSeixon, MA, Ben,
I get a sense that you three are coming at this with different motivations. Seixon is pro-industry and believes that to mean the same thing as anti-environment. MA is anti-left and believes that global warming is a ‘liberal’ idea and must be fought for that reason alone. And Ben sounds like somebody who’s just been listening to the wrong people way too much (Rush Limbaugh or Daddy).
What they all have in common is that they absolutely have no freakin’ idea what the scientific explanations about global warming mean, and they absolutely refuse to expend any effort to understand them.
MA: That has happened since the beginning of time, my dear. There have always been fires, floods, high winds, homes being destroyed, etc. The only thing that has changed in the last 100 years is:
1. The population has increased from 1 billion to 6 billion.
2. The amount of people living in areas that get hit by natural disasters is up tremendously.
3. From having no global 24/7 news coverage we now have a saturated market of global 24/7 news coverage.
Oh. So we’ve really had the same number of hurricanes per year all along, and the hundreds of square miles of ice shelves have been breaking off like that for ages, and levies have been breaking and flooding coastal cities in the U.S. constantly. We just didn’t hear about it before, because we didn’t have cable news networks. I’m sure that’s it. You are so clever to figure that out, MA. I’m impressed.
I was told that all that ice melting will actually cool down the Oceans which in turn will stop many of the Ocean Currents. In the end, places like Greenland will actually get much colder since it will have no Ocean currents pushing that nice warm water up to it anymore. This all just means that it will have more ice then ever before. Has the left decided this is now incorrect?
Ben, why would the ice be melting? Warmer climate. What would a warmer climate do to the oceans? Warm them. Ocean currents stopping: good thing or bad thing? Bad thing. Is Greenland warming because of “nice warm water” being pushed up to it? No.
“I was told…”– Who was the person who told you all that silly stuff, Ben?
We only have accurate and complete records of hurricanes since the advent of the satellite back in the late 1960s to the 1970s when measuring hurricanes started to become regular. As the NOAA and most other hurricane experts say, the pattern for hurricane activity follows a cycle, and the last time we had as many strong hurricanes as we do now was before we had satellites. Even then, other records show us that the hurricanes that we were able to measure back then were comparable to the ones we have seen in the last few years.
Hold on just a second there, Slick. We don’t know that the hurricanes were stronger before the late 60s, because we didn’t have complete records back then? But, somehow we do know that they follow a cycle and we did have strong hurricanes before there were satellites? You’re going to have to pick one: either we can’t say hurricanes are stronger now because we didn’t have a way to record them before the late 60s, or we can say hurricanes were just as strong in the past because we apparently did have some way to record them back then. Which is it? You’re wrong either way, but at least try to be logical and consistent with your arguments.
If you people can’t be intellectually honest, at least try to show us a flash of intellect.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:31 pmBut could we not just plant the corn(or tree etc…) and keep burning gas.
Two problems.
1) Fossil fuels are finite, and have other uses that are more productive than burning them for energy. Worse still there are critical industries that rely on oil based products for which there is no convenient replacement. The good news is that these industries use teeny tiny amounts of oil compared to energy generation. We should husband the resources for those uses.
2) Your grass land would eventually fill up, the corn would degrade and die (I suppose) returning the CO2 to the atmosphere. So you need to get into a proper full fledged agricultural cycle to really get the benefit.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:32 pmEither way, we are going to see a big spike in farming which has got to be good for the majority world.
Comment by Brian Coughlan — July 6, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
I’m sure the corporate world will find a way to screw this up as well… it’s inherently their nature. But still, who’d've thought that we’d ever see the day that Corporate America would be supporting the growth of plants rather than the testosterone-charged urge to clear-cut them and erect enormous steel and glass phalluses for the Corporate gods of money?
July 6th, 2006 at 5:34 pmBut still, who’d’ve thought that we’d ever see the day that Corporate America would be supporting the growth of plants rather than the testosterone-charged urge to clear-cut them and erect enormous steel and glass phalluses for the Corporate gods of money?
Indeed, but even CEO’s have kids eh? The more I think about it, the more this has the feel of a global war. With all the full production and complete employment benefits, but without all the inconvenient killing and destruction. Could be good for us a species:-)
July 6th, 2006 at 5:40 pmBrian,
I like the idea of this cycle with Corn, but I see a problem. We already plant and harvest most of the fields in the US. Sure, some sits as CRP land, but more then 95% of it is still farmed to this day. What I am trying to say is why will Ethanol change anything when it comes to the actually planting and harvesting of crops? If America went 100% Ethanol, we really wouldn’t be planting that much more crop each year, maybe 1%-2%. I still like Ethanol, but I am curious how it will all shake out.
For starters, can these ethanol plants use any type of plant to produce it? I cannot imagine that all the corn in the USA would be even close to enough to produce the Gas we need. Furthermore, our Cattle eat most of it right now, so is there an equal replacement of food for our cows and pigs? How about humans that enjoy corn? Obviously prices for it will go through the roof and it won’t be usuable as a food for humans or cattle in the long run. Maybe I am wrong about it and we have way more corn then we actually need right now. I am just guessing that we can’t possibly have enough corn for everything we would use it for. I know today, E-85 is priced at $2.30 per gallon while regular octane 87 gas is right at $2.90 so I can see an economic savings right in front of me. My only concern is if this is actually emission friendly.
TO JIMB:
Whoever the hell you are, bite me. I simply asked a question. I never once inferred that I knew or agreed with it. I have actually read that many many times through out the last few years. No I don’t think having the ocean currents stop is a good thing, who would? Either way, lay off the drugs and go socialize a little.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:48 pmActually,
“Corp. America” is the largest farmer in the USA right now as they control the largest percetage of the farms. So, you don’t need to look to the future to see when the corporations and CEO’s will care about planting things. They have beening doing it for many many years.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:51 pmBen those are a bunch of questions I do not know the answers to. I know the EU and US have lots of fallow land, and subsidise farmers, and from Ireland, to France to Minnesota farmers are constantly moaning about how agricultrure is dying. So there is significant capacity available for more agriculture. If ethanol only accounted for 10% of fuel needs, it would be a big gain.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:54 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel
here yah go, pro’s and con’s
July 6th, 2006 at 5:59 pmjimb,
Hold on just a second there, Slick. We don’t know that the hurricanes were stronger before the late 60s, because we didn’t have complete records back then? But, somehow we do know that they follow a cycle and we did have strong hurricanes before there were satellites? You’re going to have to pick one: either we can’t say hurricanes are stronger now because we didn’t have a way to record them before the late 60s, or we can say hurricanes were just as strong in the past because we apparently did have some way to record them back then. Which is it? You’re wrong either way, but at least try to be logical and consistent with your arguments.
I guess I need to give it to you with a tea spoon. Before 1970 and use of satellites, we were only able to measure hurricanes that humans were close to, or that struck land. In other words, to make a reading on the barometric pressure, we’d need someone with a barometer close enough to the hurricane to get a reading. As you may know, not all hurricanes hit land, thus before 1970 and satellites, many hurricanes went unrecorded.
At the same time, some hurricanes did hit land and we were able to measure those hurricanes. If there was a ship out in the water around a hurricane, we’d also be able to measure it, although this would be essentially hit and miss.
Therefore, as I tried to explain, we know that there were hurricanes earlier on that were as strong as the ones we’ve just had. Due to the fact that we are now able to monitor all hurricanes with our satellites, we cannot make a good estimation of the trend of the frequency of hurricanes due to the fact that we obviously were not able to track all hurricanes before we had satellites.
We cannot give a good finding on the frequency of hurricanes as far as a trend over the past century namely because we do not have enough data from before 1970. Yet the data we do have shows that there were in fact hurricanes back then that were as strong as the ones we have now.
Was that so hard? You’d have figured it out yourself if you weren’t so caught up in trying to make me seem like an idiot. Saying I’m wrong either way doesn’t make much sense when you don’t even say how or why I am supposedly wrong. The hurricane experts agree with me because, well, I’m just citing what they’ve said. I have no idea who you’re listening to.
If you people can’t be intellectually honest, at least try to show us a flash of intellect.
Flash of intellect, is that what they call having a mind that can only comprehend a binary signal? “Well either we could measure hurricanes or we couldn’t!” LOL
July 6th, 2006 at 6:59 pm#84 – “…MA is anti-left and believes that global warming is a ‘liberal’ idea and must be fought for that reason alone….What they all have in common is that they absolutely have no freakin’ idea what the scientific explanations about global warming mean, and they absolutely refuse to expend any effort to understand them.” Comment by limb
*****I LOVE it when progs play pyscho”babble” (but they are often SO good at it that it might be a shame to ruin their elitist fun.) You are correct in noting I am anti-socialist. As a philosophy, I find it “anti-human nature”. It is very degrading to the human spirit NOT to have effort and results rewarded. It is very degrading to do for others what they can and should do for themselves. This does not mean that we are not good neighbours or should lend assistance to those in their time of need. It does mean I am apalled that those who profess to love freedom want an entire group of people reduced to subservience. This is the very essence of robbing someone of dignity, the dignity the left professes to promote – but does not.
I do not doubt the earth is experiencing a warming trend just as I was scared to death of polar ice caps when I was a little kid. What is flagrantly egocentric is the notion that humans can postpone or halt natural evolutions (there have been many) of the environment. I understand the scientific rationale of the environ-alarmist community, and I do not disagree with the findings. But as the earth has warmed and and cooled to the point of freezing throughout the history of the planet, I believe trying to subvert a naturally occurring phenomenon is a mix of egocentricity, secular humanism and politically necessary alamism.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:09 pmJIMB, I have to side with Ben on this one. He’s open minded. He’s asking good questions. He’s willing to learn more about an issue instead of just spewing nonsense. My kind of troll. :) (no insult intended, Ben, by my use of the word “troll”)
July 6th, 2006 at 7:10 pmJuan C,
But I guess, neither you nor Seixon understand a thing of what I am writing. So, keep pushing your foot on the gas pedal until it hits the ground. “Scientists†are communists that want to forbid you the use of your wheels, puppy.
What have you written, other than personal attacks and ad hominem? I haven’t seen you make a single post with substance – ever. As for pushing my foot on the gas, I haven’t driven a car since the end of July 2005. Scientists are not communists, but a select few most likely are. Juan C, you’re not listening to the scientists, you are listening to Al Gore and the media passing off the opinions of a few scientists as the opinions of all.
It’s funny that you’d plaster me with the label of someone who drives the pedal to the metal and that’s why I have the stance that I do – especially since it is almost 100% certain that you emit far more CO2 than I do.
July 6th, 2006 at 7:22 pm(I’m starting to understand why your side of the aisle are such a DOUR bunch – spending your “entertainment†$$$ on “An Inconvenient Truth†and this latest “epic….)
a.) There are more CO2 eating trees in North America than during the time George Washington was a humble surveyor.
pearls of ignorance from Mighty Hypocrite
Strange, Mighty, but you never struck me as a fun person to be around, either. Too much misplaced anger and venom. Incidentally, I like good comedies and musicals, but I’d rather spend my money now and then to see something educational than see Tom Cruise in another car chase.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:44 ama) is probably the stupidest comment you’ve made yet. In addition to more CO2 eating trees in North America than during the time (of) George Washington…in North America, there are also many more people–not to mention CO2-emitting automobiles, polluting factories, and various other things that didn’t even exist in his days–something that one doesn’t have to be a scientist or an “attorney” who can’t spell “breach” correctly to know or notice.
Dear Lala – We have SOMETHING in COMMON!! Who knew?? You don’t make “the List” of people I would elect to spend my free time with – and I wouldn’t spend a nickel to see Tom Cruise in anything except a padded cell. I do have a suggestion – you might consider volunteering as a spelling tutor in your nearest public school – I’m certain they would welcome your keen eye and fine assistance.
FYI – Carbon MONOxide is the deadly emission from autos, trucks – CO2 is emitted from a variety of sources including respiration. (But you knew THAT….)
July 7th, 2006 at 1:16 pmCarbon MONOxide is the deadly emission from autos, trucks – CO2 is emitted from a variety of sources including respiration. (But you knew THAT….)
Comment by mighty hypocrite
Yes, respiration–that’s part of the point; the North American human population is now several times what it was in George Washington’s days.
July 7th, 2006 at 6:22 pm#98 – “Yes, respiration–that’s part of the point; the North American human population is now several times what it was in George Washington’s days.”
July 7th, 2006 at 8:05 pm*****I KNEW progs hated people. PROGS have lauded female infanticide in China for decades – all the while calling themselves feminists. (More abortions anyone??) A population growth of “several times”??? Try a hundred times.
#99 Leave it to Mighty Hypocrite to twist a concern about global warming into progs’ supposed hatred for people (all the while he/she regularly writes hate-filled posts). Mighty Hypocrite, can you cite which “progs have (specifically) lauded female infanticide in China for decades?” And don’t bother coming up with one obscure figure as you did on another post in mentioning a Juliette Malveaux’s hatred of Clarence Thomas. I’d never heard of her and googling her name produced virtually nothing. So much for her “fame” and “influence.”
July 7th, 2006 at 9:14 pm“Several times, a hundred times”: so you don’t think a significant population increase–not to mention polluting factories and cars, things that didn’t exist in George Washington’s times — has had an effect on global warming?
Also in #97, by recommending that I volunteer to be a spelling tutor at a public school, you have inadvertently admitted that your spelling level is not above the level of a schoolchild. But we all knew that anyway.
I also noticed that you couldn’t find anything “clever” to write in defense of your “tough-on-terrorism president” on the thread about the closing of the CIA unit devoted to Osama bin Ladin (been who?). Still, since you say you wouldn’t pay to see a Tom Cruise movie, I suppose there is some hope for you.
If you don’t think HAARP has been causing the mondo bizarro weather over the past few years, you’re being deceived.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:33 pmKaylee
When you do the right thing, enjoy it! When you take positive actions, enjoy them. After all, they are leading you toward positive results. Pat yourself on the back. Truly enjoy the fact that you’re making positive progress, and the negative temptatio…
March 15th, 2008 at 12:20 amSidney
As soon as you accept the idea that you are in control of your thoughts you will be able to create your own happiness.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:22 pmfarmer’s market
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:04 pmAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:05 pmbecome debt debt free reduction services
April 4th, 2008 at 4:02 pmYoung Girls Young Teens Angus Young
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 4:56 pm