Noonan: If Global Warming Is Real, Blame The Scientists
Noonan: If Global Warming Is Real, Blame The Scientists
In today’s Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan asks why all the top scientists can’t get together and decide if global warming is real:
During the past week’s heat wave–it hit 100 degrees in New York City Monday–I got thinking, again, of how sad and frustrating it is that the world’s greatest scientists cannot gather, discuss the question of global warming, pore over all the data from every angle, study meteorological patterns and temperature histories, and come to a believable conclusion on these questions: Is global warming real or not? If it is real, is it necessarily dangerous?
Actually, Ms. Noonan, that’s already happened. It’s called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which involves thousands of scientists from over 120 countries who develop detailed reports on climate change. Their most recent report (from 2001) was reviewed by more than 1,000 top experts, including so-called “climate skeptics” and representatives from industry. Here’s what they concluded:
There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
The IPCC predicts that global warming will increase temperatures worldwide between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit between 1990 and 2100 if no action is taken to reduce greenhouse gases. This amount of warming, according to the IPCC, could raise sea levels by as much as three feet. That’s extraordinarily dangerous.
Noonan also laments that, if global warming is real, scientists won’t tell us what we need to do in response. Actually, they’ve done that too. Here’s Noonan’s big finish:
If global warming is real, and if it is new, and if it is caused not by nature and her cycles but man and his rapacity, and if it in fact endangers mankind, scientists will probably one day blame The People for doing nothing.
But I think The People will have a greater claim to blame the scientists, for refusing to be honest, for operating in cliques and holding to ideologies. For failing to be trustworthy.
Actually, the blame should go to people like Peggy Noonan who give our leaders the political cover to do nothing in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
266 Responses to “Noonan: If Global Warming Is Real, Blame The Scientists”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The human race is out to make money while the polar caps are melting
July 20th, 2006 at 11:08 amMichael Crichton's book State of Fear showed that temperature increases are more strongly correlated to urban heat masses, and not global warming, so blame urbanization.
Burning fossil fuels is bad for pollution problems, so there is no need to create a myth of dramatic climate change. This myth drives away more supporters than it recruits.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:11 amMichael Crichton is a science fiction writer. Thousands of scientific experts disagree.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:14 amMichael Crichton’s book State of Fear showed that...
Scientists, fiction writers, same thing.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:15 amIt's raining here today, and God Dammit, and it's the weatherman's fault.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:15 am(NOT!!)
July 20th, 2006 at 11:15 am#2
One non-scientist interjects his opinion (based on what?) and you automatically discredit the consensus of the scientific community?
July 20th, 2006 at 11:18 amReply to #2 (Jason M. Hendler):
Michael Crichton’s book State of Fear showed that temperature increases are more strongly correlated to urban heat masses, and not global warming,
Michael Crichton’s book State of Fear is a work of fiction. Michael Crichton is a fiction writer.
How many times do we have to go over this???
so blame urbanization.
Actually, I think I'll blame you for trying AGAIN to derail the discussion by equating a work of fiction with the findings of the IPCC.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:18 amThe only debate is really going to be: Will the global warming kill us before the Bush Regime?
July 20th, 2006 at 11:18 amPeggy Noonan deserves the points of a thousand lightsticks up her ass.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:19 amAh, so it's the scientists' fault for not coming up with a "believeable" conclusion. They were right, but she didn't believe them. Therefore it's their fault and not hers.
If only scientists had ignored the problem, they would be as blameless as Peggy and her conservative cohorts.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:19 amThe best defense of their policies these wingnuts can come up with is based on a work of fiction. Unbelievable.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:19 amIf Noonan would talk to some scientists other than her fellow WSJ Op-ed writer Richard Lindzen, she would see that scientists have come to a conclusion.
See this post on Desmogblog: "Lindzen Keeps It Complicated -- And The Wall Street Journal Laps It Up!":
http://www.desmogblog.com/lindzen-keeps-it-complicated-and-the-wall-street-journal-laps-it-up
July 20th, 2006 at 11:19 amInteresting - if she had simply redirected whatever effort was required to writing this piece of garbage into researching the status of the global warming debate within the scientific community, she might actually have addressed the concerns she conveys in this weak piece of journalism.
A journalist using her forum to lament the lack of awareness on an issue - ironic?
July 20th, 2006 at 11:20 amNow THAT's funny...Using Michael Crichton as an example of a Scientist is like using L. Ron Hubbard as someone who speaks the word of god.....Guess that South Park re-run is still on my brain...
July 20th, 2006 at 11:20 amIndeed.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:20 amthe blood of dead lebanese children is much more tart than that of iraqi children.
now, what were you saying? global what? whatever...
kisses,
ann
July 20th, 2006 at 11:22 amPeggy Noonan is another example of a person, many of whom are on the right, who do not understand the meaning of responsibility. The world is one big monopoly game to them....it isn't real. They feel that if they've scored in twisting the perception of an event or idea, they've won. They've won nothing of course. Reality trumps perception every time. The biggest thing I've learned about what has happened in our country is that people are lost. They have lost a basic sense of right and wrong, responsibility, and what makes a country great. They haven't a clue. It's all up for grabs and the Roves and Frat boys ( I won't dignify the Frat boy by giving IT a name ) have had a field day for 5 years. Are we ready yet to cut to reality and quit giving people like Noonan, Coulter, O Reilly, Limbaugh the respect they don't deserve?
July 20th, 2006 at 11:23 amReply to #9 (Jay Randal):
Good question....on the one hand, global warming is here to stay, and will be causing worldwide famine and disease within 100 years or so. It doesn't matter if we stop greenhouse gas production today...the damage is already done.
On the other hand, Bush and his fundie cronies are doing their best to solve the problem of global warming by kick-starting the Apocaplyse, so Jesus can show up and make everything better...his timetable looks to be measurable in months, if not weeks.
Will we survive an attempt by the fundamentalist world leaders to initiate Armegeddon long enough to see the horrors of global warming?
Interesting times, indeed.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:24 amwhat's the point in trying to get our point across about global warming - we know it, and those that refuse to acknowledge it, or simply don't care because they are all going to be "saved" by their god and will be leaving soon anyway, let them believe what they want. We can be prepared, they don't have to be. Let them live in la-la land. If they can't see the rhythms of their own planet - or see how everything relates to each other, well what can one really do about it? I suppose there is a reason some people have regressed instead of wanting to evolve, though for the life of me I don't know why.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:25 amPeggy is one of those people who will sue McDonalds cause they didn't tell her the coffee they just poured into her cup with the steam coming off of it, was hot.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:25 amI just posted a comment to Noonan's article and I suggest others do the same. We need to stop prliferating this false idea of a debate on this.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:25 amOnce again, I refer to Michael Crichton's data, analysis and graphs, which show much, much stronger correlation between temperature increases and urbanization than any myth of global warming, and you attack him for being a fiction writer. Liberals put far more value on "infallible sources" saying what they want to here, instead of being able to open their ears and hear truth and reason, regardless of the source - that is your ultimate weakness, and why you hold little to no federal power anymore.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:26 amMrs. Noonan here's a better suggestion. All the great psychologists of the world should get together and study people like YOU. They should study the likes of YOU, Limbaugh, Hannity, O Reilly and every other neo-nut media personality. We need to find out why your loyalty to Bushco supersedes your loyalty to the constitiution, human rights and even the planet itself. There is not a moment to spare. We need those psychologists to figure out how to deprogram you and your type before its too late.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:27 amif it is caused not by nature and her cycles
Nature's PMS.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:29 amYea Jason. Well I don't think its just the fact that hes a science fiction writer.
I think it has something to do with the fact that, oh gee, I don't know, HES NOT A SCIENTIST???
See, you're making the mistake all repuggy's make.
You're confusing Science, with Science Fiction.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:29 amClubber - just like the scientologists - their leader was none other than L. Ron Hubbard, a mediocre science fiction writer.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:31 amAnd BTW Jason, even if he were a practicing scientist, which he's NOT, then he would still be just one scientist against THOUSANDS of TOP SCIENTISTS in the field, from over 120 different countries.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:32 amMichael Crichton is a science fiction writer. Thousands of scientific experts disagree.
Comment by Judd — July 20, 2006 @ 11:14 am
It scares me a little that you had to point this out...
July 20th, 2006 at 11:33 am#23
One science fiction writer vs. thousands of expert scientists. Get a clue dude!
t-mac
July 20th, 2006 at 11:33 amwell...
in peggy noonan's defense, she does have a spectacular rack.
that has to count for something?
July 20th, 2006 at 11:34 amJason-- Yes, those charts and graphs look awfully pretty there in that piece of beach reading. But have you ever heard of peer review?
July 20th, 2006 at 11:35 am#22
I just posted a comment to Noonan’s article and I suggest others do the same. We need to stop prliferating this false idea of a debate on this.
Comment by KingdoK — July 20, 2006 @ 11:25 am
Good call - done and done.
#23
Once again, I refer to Michael Crichton’s data, analysis and graphs, which show much, much stronger correlation between temperature increases and urbanization than any myth of global warming,
Jason, this data that you speak of has gone through the rigors of peer review of the scientific community?
July 20th, 2006 at 11:35 amI just read Jason's post about insisting on Michael Crichton, medical school drop-out truned SciFi writer, as a valid source. I cannot believe this person is allowed to drive, vote or purchase a handgun.
My personal defense alert just moved up to orange...
July 20th, 2006 at 11:36 amJason, I refer you to the sound debunking of Chriton's cherry-picked stats and data. Anyone still have that link handy? We only have to trot it out a dozen times a day...
Let's talk about something more productive, like how the DaVinci Code overturns a thousand years of Catholic dogma.
Or what insight can Le Carre give us about international espionage?
If you want well-researched, study ancient mythology by reading the Harry Potter series.
If you want a contrarian view, check out what Stephen King has to say about the supernatural.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some dinosaur clones running amok in my back yard again. I think I'll release the super-intelligent apes and watch them duke it out. With any luck a satellite will come crashing down and infect them all with a deadly virus.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:36 amThese are the people we LISTEN TO:
UCS is an independent nonprofit alliance of more than 100,000 concerned citizens and scientists. We augment rigorous scientific analysis with innovative thinking and committed citizen advocacy to build a cleaner, healthier environment and a safer world.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:36 amJason: "Once again, I refer to Michael Crichton’s data, analysis and graphs..." What, no pie charts? I gotta have pie charts, Jason. You can't have a meaningful debate on numbers without a pie chart. MULTIPLE pie charts. In color!
July 20th, 2006 at 11:36 am#26, flacidus worfeus,
You needn't be a scientist to apply scientific method, reason and analysis to a topic. Crichton first approached his book with the presumption that there was solid evidence of global warming, but after sitting down and reviewing with "scientists" the data he needed to support his novel, he found very shoddy data and analysis from them, with often weak or conflicting results. After pouring through it himself, he could only find a real correlation between urban heat masses and temperature increases, which is discussed in the novel. He went on to expose "gulf stream" environmentalists, who, much like "limosine democrats", are hypocritical in their support of the environment, when they charter private gulfstream jets to their global warming conferences.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:37 amWith any luck a satellite will come crashing down and infect them all with a deadly virus.
Comment by Kermit the Freedom Frog — July 20, 2006 @ 11:36 am
I can't stop laughing...
July 20th, 2006 at 11:37 amJason, this data that you speak of has gone through the rigors of peer review of the scientific community?
Comment by Lupeyg2 — July 20, 2006 @ 11:35 am
Yes.
And they're still laughing.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:38 amPeer review by real scientists? Around the world? Nobel lauriates? Not by Crichton's wife and his editor at his potboiler FICTION publishing house? (And did we mention it was fiction?)
July 20th, 2006 at 11:38 am#39: "With any luck a satellite will come crashing down and infect them all with a deadly virus." - - Speaking of Crichton, that's pretty much "The Andromeda Strain."
July 20th, 2006 at 11:40 am#37, badmoodman,
Regression analyses aren't conveyed through pie charts, but you would have to be a scientist / engineer to understand that, so by your own reasoning, you are even qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:40 am42. I remember that movie - I loved that movie....
July 20th, 2006 at 11:41 amWell, if we're gonna use science fictional writers as experts, I'd rather refer to Ray Bradbury than Michael Crichton. Bradbury is a much better writer in my opinion...
July 20th, 2006 at 11:41 am#37, badmoodman,
Regression analyses aren’t conveyed through pie charts, but you would have to be a scientist / engineer to understand that, so by your own reasoning, you AREN'T even qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:41 amJust another reason to believe that Idiots R US. Only a moron could put a fiction writer on the same level as the entire scientific community, but there seem to be millions of morons in the US that believe the fiction writer.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:42 am#45, unbelievable,
Frank Herbert, is, to me, the most thorough sci-fi writer - weaving economics, politics, religion, etc., into a seamless story.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:43 am#43
#37, badmoodman,
Regression analyses aren’t conveyed through pie charts, but you would have to be a scientist / engineer to understand that, so by your own reasoning, you are even qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 11:40 am
So the guy citing a piece of fiction is also the one determining who is and is not qualified to have an opinion on science?
Sounds like par for the course in Bushworld to me.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:44 amyou AREN’T even qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 11:41 am
So now we're qualifying the ability to have an opinion? The thought police would be proud of you Jason.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:44 amYou would have to be a scientist / engineer to understand that, so by your own reasoning, you are even qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
OK, so next time you need surgery. We'll get you A GUY WHO WRITES FICTION ABOUT SURGERY, not a real doctor. He can use basic reason. So he can figure out what to do with his scalpel.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:44 am51. I transcribe medical reports - I'LL DO IT!
July 20th, 2006 at 11:46 amHaving an opinion, and writing a silly paper thats supposed to disprove the entire global scientific community are just slightly different Einstein.
But thanks for playing.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:46 am#47, just plain mad,
I am holding up Michael Crichton's data, analysis and graphs, which show much, much stronger correlation between urbanization and temperature increase, not Michael Crichton himself, although, if you ever saw an interview of him, you would be very impressed.
Please don't stop droning on and on about global warming, because you drive away more people than you attract.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:46 amyea... al franken's ditto-head, childhood friend, mark, comes on the show to comment on limpball's lies, and he keeps telling al that he needs to have michael crichten on the show...
July 20th, 2006 at 11:46 amlike, WHY? how did this happen that ANYone would a science fiction author's work before ... oh... l. ron hubbard' scientology... uh huh...
Once again - UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
July 20th, 2006 at 11:47 amJason,
Stop reading science fiction... Try some non-fiction. It's all about living in the world that exists rather than the one you wish existed.
People are making fun of you. We aren't serious about pie charts and satellites. You really should stop. I'm telling you that because I am starting to feel sorry for your naivete. And because you are a danger to our planet.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:48 amPlease don’t stop droning on and on about global warming...
This is a thread about global warming. There are other threads if you're bored. There's no shortage of absurd news these days...
July 20th, 2006 at 11:49 amI am holding up Michael Crichton’s data, analysis and graphs
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 11:46 am
Yea, with one hand I'd wager.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:49 amOK, so next time you need surgery. We’ll get you A GUY WHO WRITES FICTION ABOUT SURGERY, not a real doctor...
Comment by JJ — July 20, 2006 @ 11:44 am
I transcribe medical reports - I’LL DO IT!
Comment by madashell — July 20, 2006 @ 11:46 am
good one, guys!
July 20th, 2006 at 11:49 amWe don't care about changing your mind, Jason.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:50 amYou seem to have it all figured out, in you little sci-fi wonderland.
Thanks for the "enlightenment", idiot.
Reply to #46 (Jason):
Regression analyses aren’t conveyed through pie charts, but you would have to be a scientist / engineer to understand that,
I think that badmoonman was being sarcastic in his request for pie charts. Sorry that escaped you.
so by your own reasoning, you AREN’T even qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
Misleading. Badmoonman isn't trying to advance his own opinion on the matter, he's relying upon the conclusion of thousands of experts in the field that have reached a positive consensus on the matter (as opposed to you relying upon the conclusions of a single science fiction author, whose 'conclusions' run completely contrary to the consensus).
(and they have the nerve to call us 'moonbats'...Sheesh.)
July 20th, 2006 at 11:50 amAnyone with an internet connection can go right to the IPCC report and see how carefully they state the strengths and weaknesses of our knowledge about climate change, and how honestly reasoned their conclusions are. Peggy Noonan and anyone else who continues to try to muddy the waters on this issue should be mocked or shunned at every opportunity. The biggest uncertainties are that they may be understating how quickly and drastically our climate will change. “The rapid forcing of a non-linear system has a high prospect of producing surprises,†(p. 78).
In a report about west Siberian bogs that have begun to melt Fred Pearce of New Scientist magazine points out that they contain “some 70 billion tonnes of methane†and that if the bogs dry the methane will oxidize, but if they remain wet, “as is the case in western Siberia today, then the methane will be released straight into the atmosphere.†Methane is 20 times stronger than CO2 as a green house gas.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:51 amMy money for a good Sci-fi read is Ian M. Banks, or Peter F. Hamilton.
Jason one thing stuck out on one of your previous posts. you say
Liberals put far more value on “infallible sources†saying what they want to here, instead of being able to open their ears and hear truth and reason, regardless of the source
basically accusing everyone of only listening to sources that say what we want to hear, yet by ignoring the evidence presented by the peer reviews, in favor of Chricton's book you are doing the same thing. For the record, I do believe that Urban sprawl does contribute to climate. Fewer trees and more concrete is not a good move. However, I also tend to think that the 100's of millions vehicles, and millions of factories spewing pollution into the air, are also responsible.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:51 amJason,
Who built those cities that you claim are contributing to Global warming? Yes, humans... That makes it OUR fault even in your context.
I live next to a major city that has been charged with making its own weather. It gets hot and produces thunderstorms. Except that, we are having a drought due to the excessive CO2 that is an even bigger catalyst in effecting the global weather. Therefore Global Warming trumps localized city contributions...
July 20th, 2006 at 11:52 amHey...Noonan posted some "readers replies". Slanted much????? Does she call herself a journalist.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:54 am#51, JJ,
Comparing climatologists to practicing surgeons is hysterical, which goes back to my argument about how liberals seek "infallible" sources, who support the religion of liberalism. If a scientist agrees with you, then he is credible, but if a scientist does not agree with you, he is not - simple as that.
Crichton is the only one who presents an argument that anyone who travels between suburban and urban areas can confirm - it is much hotter in the city than in the neighboring countryside. Meanwhile, you guys are squeeking out tenths of a degree variations over decades and screaming like chicken little.
The great ice sheets covering north america subsided 10's of thousands of years ago - was that due to burning fossil fuels? That was a far more dramatic climate change than what you've claimed to determine, but man had NOTHING to do with it - it is psuedo-science to claim man has caused significant climate change.
Again, let me help you - just say that burning fossil fuels causes pollution, and you we hold your followers. If you keep overreaching with global warming, your followers will leave you.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:54 amHere is a link to a paper done by James Hansen from Columbia Universitys Earth Institute and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Its a short but good read.
The paper is entitled - "Michael Crichton’s “Scientific Methodâ€
Now I realize this guy is just a scientist, not a knowledgeable medical school dropout who makes up stories for a living, but it might shed some light.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:57 amIf a scientist agrees with you, then he is credible, but if a scientist does not agree with you, he is not - simple as that.
Crichton is the only one who presents an argument
Crichton is not a scientist - just thought I would point that out to those who don't know this (ahem, Jason).
July 20th, 2006 at 11:57 amPeggy Noonan -- So respected for her opinion she is a contributing editor to The Wall Street Journal and Time Mag. and is a paid talking head on TV. And she doesn't even have to pay attention. She just has attention showered upon her.
The statements she made clearly show she is being overpaid.
(btw, like Ms. Noonan, Jason and his random musings on amateur science have gotten way too much attention)
July 20th, 2006 at 12:01 pmIf a scientist agrees with you, then he is credible, but if a scientist does not agree with you, he is not - simple as that.
Ok, if it's so simple, cite some science, published in peer reviewed journals, that says that climate change isn't a problem.
If you think atmospheric CO2 content and temperature don't correlate, you know nothing about the science and you're just talking out of your posterior:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm
If you keep overreaching with global warming, your followers will leave you.
I don't care about followers. I just want people to stop distorting the truth and talking out of their butts. If it's a Republican who leads us to face the problem, so be it.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:02 pmAll of those urban centers scattered all over the deep waters of the seven seas are causing the water temperatures to rise and thus foster cyclones, monsoons and hurricanes of unprecedented fury. Sounds logical to me - not.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:02 pmthis is about the zillionth thread about global warming on this site...HELLO...there is a lot of stuff going on out there, folks, and some conservative bimbo writing another anti-scientific screed on the subject is nothing NEW or NEWSWORTHY, now is it????????
and, if someone tells me barack obama is driving a car today, i shall vomit.
israel is killing lebanese civilians with george bush's bomba
July 20th, 2006 at 12:02 pmit is much hotter in the city than in the neighboring countryside.
Hey duncehead - it is called ASPHALT - the radiation from the sun makes ASPHALT hotter.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:02 pmHas Jason M. Hendler only read the one book on Global Warming? Just because something appears in print does NOT mean that it is the whole truth. This was a common belief in the Dark Ages when books had to be written and copied by hand, and it was generally held that no one would go to that much effort to promugate a lie, but in this modern and degenerate age, this belief is notably false.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:03 pm#67
Hey…Noonan posted some “readers repliesâ€. Slanted much????? Does she call herself a journalist.
Comment by Lupeyg2
Definately not the response that I wrote her. But then again I wasn't expecting it to be there. Even though it was written in a nice tone.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:03 pm#66, unbelievable and #65, krazny,
Oh, you are starting to open your eyes, that's good.
NO ONE would argue that man is impacting his environment through urbanization, pollution and land cultivation (farming / lumber). A vast majority of people are with you on that argument, and that we should try to reduce our impact on the environment.
You LOSE supporters when you OVERSTATE man's impact on the environment. You also LOSE supporters when you don't provide feasible solutions to man's current behaviour. To simply say stop urbanizing, polluting and cultivating the land, you again LOSE people.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:04 pmJason: "...so by your own reasoning, you are even qualified to have an opinion on the matter." - - Jason, you are humorless and write incoherent thoughts. But thanks for playing along...now what do we have as a parting gift for Jason?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:04 pmReply to #67 (Lupeyg2):
Hey…Noonan posted some “readers repliesâ€. Slanted much?????
Yup...I was going to post a scathing critique, but then I read the boilerplate on the 'submit comment' applet:
Two things:
1) 'We don't post all responses' - Translation: 'We reserve the right to cherry-pick the responses we like.'
2) 'we reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.' - Given Peggy's breathtaking ignorance of the facts of the issue, I doubt she or her cronies at the WSJ have the necessary qualifications to edit me for 'clarity'.
Given all this, why bother?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:05 pmPeggy Noonan must have been watching the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing yesterday about the the "hockey stick" shaped temperature reconstructions for the past 1000 years of global climate. The Wall Street Journal's recent editorial on the hockey stick took quite a hit. The scientists not only denounced the editorial for the way they distorted the issue but also pointed out that the study the Journal was criticising actually would indicate that warming was less sensitive to carbon dioxide concentrations than studies that use a different statistical analysis. These other studies (that presumably the Journal would endorse?) indicate warming is more sensitive to carbon dioxide and could lead to greater warming. Is this Noonan editorial an attempt at a retraction of their previous editorial?
The global warming deniers took a big hit yesterday. Many of them have been hanging their hat on discrediting the hockey stick reconstruction believing it would discredit the whole scientific basis for global warming. One scientist called the hockey stick an "icon" for the deniers. What was clear at the hearing was that though a particular analysis could be argued with it doesn't change the conclusion that the latter part of the twentieth century warming is unprecendented over the last 1000 years. Furthermore, the scientists pointed out that temperature reconstruction is only one component of the scientific basis for concluding that climate change is real and that human acitivity is contributing to this change.
Yesterday was a bad day for the deniers.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:05 pmglobal warming solutions
July 20th, 2006 at 12:05 pm#77
Even though it was written in a nice tone.
Perhaps mine wasn't as diplomatic.... yeah that's gotta be it. She wouldn't just post replies that agree with her would she?... naaaa.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:06 pmGreat idea, Peggy! And after that, maybe all the scientists can agree on whether or not there is a God, and if so, then whose God is the real God... and would she really approve of all the killing and wars over religion and resources.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:07 pmComparing climatologists to practicing surgeons is hysterical,
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 11:54 am
And your relying on a science fiction writer is not?
Maybe you are the kind to pick up a book by Jules Vernes and lecture others on how travelling to the center of the Earth is perfectly feasible.
...which goes back to my argument about how liberals seek “infallible†sources, who support the religion of liberalism.
This is rich from someone who holds the work of a science fiction writer to be the most authoritative (infallible) source of information.
Nobody -except for you- has mentioned infallble sources. Again, there is concensus in the scientific community that global warming is partially man-made.
If a scientist agrees with you, then he is credible, but if a scientist does not agree with you, he is not - simple as that.
Crichton is not a climate scientist, and has no qualifications in the field.
Crichton is the only one who presents an argument that anyone who travels between suburban and urban areas can confirm - it is much hotter in the city than in the neighboring countryside.
Ditto.
Plus you just agreed that global warming is man-made.
That was a far more dramatic climate change than what you’ve claimed to determine, but man had NOTHING to do with it
You just contradicted your previous statement about how cities are hotter than the country side.
- it is psuedo-science to claim man has caused significant climate change.
And the work of a fiction writer is not even science.
If you keep overreaching with global warming, your followers will leave you.
Can I borrow your crystal ball?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:08 pmRe Noonan'a statement:
"I think The People will have a greater claim to blame the scientists, for refusing to be honest, for operating in cliques and holding to ideologies. For failing to be trustworthy."
...
Instead of scientists, it fits BushCo and the Wall Street Editorial board to a tee.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:09 pmAnother reality check on Crichton's "science"
July 20th, 2006 at 12:10 pmYou LOSE supporters when you OVERSTATE man’s impact on the environment.
Comment by Jason M. Handler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
You mean like you lose credibility when you publically taut a discredited science fiction writer as an expert who knows more than all the worlds scientists put together?
Is that what you mean?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:10 pmTo #54 Jason M. Hendler
I read Micheal Critchton's book Jurassic Park and now I know FOR A FACT that dinosaurs still roam the earth, they are just on an island somewhere near New Zealand or something.
There was lots of words in the book and stuff, and there wasn't any pictures, so that means it was true!
July 20th, 2006 at 12:12 pmnow what do we have as a parting gift for Jason?
Comment by Badmoodman — July 20, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
We can start with some school vouchers.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:13 pmYou LOSE supporters when you OVERSTATE homosexuals impact on society.
Comment by Jason M. Handler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
not to go out on a tangent or anything...stay on topic
Ok. Jason. Please. Get. Help. Read. Books. Preferably. Non-fiction.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:13 pmCoral reefs are disappearing, the polar bears are disappearing, frogs and other amphibians are well on their way to extinction by some type of fungus that is 100% lethal, the oceans are rising, the weather devastatingly extreme and destructive, the ice caps melting at an unprecedented rate, siberia melting and releasing gas that will only contribute to warming even more...I could go on, but I think its indisputably clear. So what's the argument, really?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:13 pmCrichton is the only one who presents an argument that anyone who travels between suburban and urban areas can confirm - it is much hotter in the city than in the neighboring countryside. Meanwhile, you guys are squeeking out tenths of a degree variations over decades and screaming like chicken little.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 11:54 am
But it has nothing ado with the concentration of CO2 in high human density environments? And, the thents of degree variations is a median, taking in account all the globe. But now, you're admitting that local variations do count.
Well, answer this: if the global concentration of CO2 in the whole world increases, what makes you think that the temperatures in the cities will not grow over, say 200 degrees locally, making them unlivable, and causing HUGE LOSINGS TO THE ECONOMY?
My conclusion is that you can't even interpret what you post or cite.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:14 pmI believe what's causing global warming is the remote island in the pacific where they are cloning dinosaurs. I bet that's the reason why.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:15 pmSo what’s the argument, really?
Comment by madashell — July 20, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
Well for one thing, thanks to Jason, we know the science fiction writers of the world disagree with those findings.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:16 pmWell, ok, maybe just one.
But he really really means it.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:17 pm#88, flacidus worfeus,
Michael Crichton presents data, analysis and graphs revealing a strong correlation to urban heat mass and temperature increase, which anyone who travels between an urban and sub-urban area can confirm. Yes, urbanizaton is man made, but global warming theories are about CO2 levels, not urban heat masses, which is why I maintain the distinction between the two. If you don't understand the root causes (other than man himself), then you can never prescribe a solution.
I am trying to move you from myth to reality, so that you can begin prescribing a feasible solution.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:17 pm#94
July 20th, 2006 at 12:17 pmI believe thats its those huys on the comet that are....no wait thats a different fiction writer. I keep mixing all these strange ideas that I must follow without question. I must need adjustment to my programming.
Michael Crichton presents data, analysis and graphs...
He also has a groovy cover on that page turner. And it's laminated so it doesn't get damaged at the beach.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:19 pmJason, here's the deal.
A huge proportion of scientists active in the field think there is a coorelation between human activity and the current increase in atmospheric CO2 levels and it's effect on increased heat trapping on this planet.
A very, very small number of scientists active in the field have stated there are no links. Those scientists haven't submitted anything to a peer review periodical to back up their statements. Coincidentally, those scientists all seem to be on the payroll of oil & energy production companies.
The issue is, do we, knowing that we may be harming our planets ability to offer a sustainable environment for us to live in, do nothing at all as those few oil/energy company scientists say, or do we actually modify our behaviour so as to mitigate our effects on climate change?
We know it will cost more to change our behaviour. Is our planet worth it for us and our decendants? Most of us say it is.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:19 pmI am trying to move you from myth to reality
Comment by Jason M. Handler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
And you're doing an excellent job of it too.
You've moved us far from your myths and much closer to reality.
BTW, got any more science fiction writers ridiculous papers to help move us closer to reality?
If not how about a romance novelist?
:D
July 20th, 2006 at 12:20 pmGee Jason, thanks for completely misinterpreting my post. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of your previous statement. You say that liberals will only accept a writings from those who back up their beliefs. Actually this is called partisanship, and you are as guilty as anyone.
I am unsure what the whole followers argument has to do with the thread. A red herring to throw us off track? You admit that global warming is human caused in one breath, then say it isn’t, then attack people for still driving cars. Please try to find some consistency. I have believed for a long time that reducing emission from factories, changing our fuel source from oil to something friendlier, and changing our electrical generation techniques are good ideas.
I don’t know why the right wants to turn this into a political issue. This is an issue that is confronting humanity as a whole, and needs to be dealt with. Unless you want the world to end up like china, on of the most polluted places on the planet.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:20 pm#97 I am trying to move you from myth to reality, so that you can begin prescribing a feasible solution.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
Then why do a step backwards, moving from scientific consensus to science fiction?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:20 pmHey any of you guys got any graphs? I got graphs. One shows that there is a correlation between stupidity and people who believe people with graphs from science fiction writers. See I just drew it up myself.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:21 pmWell said, Kindness. Thank you.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:21 pmI am trying to move you from myth to reality, so that you can begin prescribing a feasible solution.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
Correction: You are trying to move people from what yo think is a myth into the realm of science fiction.
One more time, Crichton is a science fiction writer with no qualifications in the field of climate science. His good "reason and analysis" notwithstanding.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:22 pmIf you don’t understand the root causes (other than man himself), then you can never prescribe a solution.
Yeah, climate scientists don't study root causes. AS LONG AS YOU IGNORE EVERYTHING THEY'VE DONE FOR THE PREVIOUS TWO DECADES:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3458&method=full
July 20th, 2006 at 12:22 pmI got graphs. One shows that there is a correlation between stupidity and people who believe people with graphs from science fiction writers.
Comment by dlet — July 20, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
Hey I think I've seen that one.
Isn't that the one with that shows a normal human male that gradually turns into a picture of Bozo?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:25 pmWhy it is so easy for Jason et al. to believe fiction, best said by Mark Twain:
Why shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:26 pmMark Twain (1835-1910)
#93, Evil Spaniard,
I agree that pollution is a bad thing. Burning oil, coal, natural gas, etc. is not a long term healthy thing for this planet. NO ONE argues that. I keep telling you that you LOSE your support when you start claiming:
1) climate change - mulitple ice ages, plate tectonics driving continental drift, asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions have been changing climate as far back as we can extract data, so to state that man is CAUSING climate change is laughable
2) extinctions - many species continually go extinct, long before man arrived on the scene, and there were multiple mass extinctions throughout history, so to state that man is CAUSING extinctions in general is laughable
Do you see now how I am trying to help you? You are on solid ground to state that man is impacting the environment, and you should provide feasible solutions to man's current behaviour. Unfortunately, you over-reach, trying to induce hysteria to get people to just plain stop urbanizing, polluting and cultivating land, and the combination of hysteria and no feasible solution turns off ALL your would-be supporters.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:27 pmAs a side note, i think other sci-fi writers are far more close to the reality of today's world than Crichton. Starship Troopers (the book), from Heinlein, is almost exactly modern day USA.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:27 pmReply to #110 (Jason):
so to state that man is CAUSING extinctions in general is laughable
And with that, you've just lost whatever scraps of credibility you had left.
Log off before you hurt yourself.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:31 pmJason-- Man has CAUSED a 30% increase in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. If you deny that, then all you're displaying is your lack of knowledge of basic organic chemistry (what products you get when you burn octane).
Then you have to look at this graph showing the historic correlation of CO2 and temperature:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm
July 20th, 2006 at 12:33 pm#111, Evil Spaniard,
Although a little juvenile and simplistic, Fred Saberhagen's Berserker novels are interesting as well, but I still prefer Frank Herbert ...
July 20th, 2006 at 12:35 pm#111
July 20th, 2006 at 12:36 pmI soley believe everything in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy myself. They talked some crazy stuff about how time travel worked, how the improbability drive worked and stuff but it must be true, a science fiction writer wrote it.
Spaindard having read Starship Troopers I disagree. Most of the current admin has never served in the military, and that was one of the requirements for full citizenship.
Jason,
Many, many, many people have tried to offer feasible solutions, only to be turned away. Please come to Los Angeles sometime, right now would be good. spend a day or two in the San Fernando Valley, or really almost anywhere in So-Cal, and then tell me we are not having an impact on environment. As for the argument about extinction of species, Man has been directly responsible for at least two that I can name of the top of my head. The Dodo bird, and the Stellar Seacow. We have also come close on many others, Bison, Killer whales, Spotted Owl, etc.
to continue to say humanity does not have an impact on environment is sad and shortsighted.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:37 pmI am trying to move you from myth to reality, so that you can begin prescribing a feasible solution.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
Actually, you are trying to take us from reality to myth.
And I'm not 'catching on' to your way of thinking. I'm simply saying that cities are making their situations even worse in addition to Global Warming caused by CO2 in the environment. After all, Atlanta is only responsiblefor screwing with the weather over metro-Atlanta. It has no impact on less urban areas like Augusta or Albany, which are also experiencing warming trends...
Go learn about the planet Venus. It's where we are heading. Venus has volcanoes at its source and we have tail pipes and chimney stacks at ours...
July 20th, 2006 at 12:37 pmWell Judd is at it again. Not being honest. Several articles have come out the last couple of months challenging the lie that the majority of scientists are on the same page as the ICPP. On the contrary, many who work in the field have a differnet opinion. Here is an article out CanadaFreePress. Take the time to read the points being made. Then state which parts are incorrect.
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibj–rn KarlÈn, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But KarlÈn clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," KarlÈn concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
KarlÈn explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says KarlÈn
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:38 pmAnd with that, you’ve just lost whatever scraps of credibility you had left.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 20, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
Scraps? He had scraps?
This to me further proves he's been reading too much science fiction.
So much for the "reason and analysis" he seems to be so proud of.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:38 pm#112, Trip,
Man has an impact, but you overreach stating that man is the cause of all extinctions, when species have been rising and falling throughout history. I am trying to get you back to a point where the general public will heed your concerns, but they won't if you point at a cigarette smoker and acuse him of causing the extinction of some rare species of frog half a world away.
#113, JJ,
Yes, I agree we have increased CO2 levels, which cannot be a good thing, but you overstate it's current impact, and you don't offer a feasible alternative, so you lose support for your concern.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:39 pmOn a side note, I was never a huge fan of the Saberhagen Beserker novels. I do like C.S. Friedmen, and the other Authors I mentioned earlier.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:39 pm[...] It’s always hard, when members of the Right attack scientists and science, if they’r ignorant or deceptive. Peggy Noonan provides a perfect example. Ignorant? Deceptive? Both? Hard to tell. [...]
July 20th, 2006 at 12:40 pmYou LOSE supporters when you OVERSTATE man’s impact on the environment. You also LOSE supporters when you don’t provide feasible solutions to man’s current behaviour. To simply say stop urbanizing, polluting and cultivating the land, you again LOSE people.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
No, you lose when you tell people that we have to chose between SUVs and a liveable environment. We lose to people who tell them they can guzzle gas like there's no tomorrow, and we lose to people who say we don't have to worry about the consequences of our actions. That's why we have a gas guzzling culture, a quagmire in Iraq, and a back-breaking national debt.
And folks like Peggy are ready to blame those who tried to warn us in the first place.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:41 pmDo you see now how I am trying to help you?
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
No. Considering most people on this planet agree with us and the Scientists, it is actually you who needs the help.
Michael Crichton is a science FICTION writer.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:42 pmYes, I agree we have increased CO2 levels, which cannot be a good thing, but you overstate it’s current impact, and you don’t offer a feasible alternative, so you lose support for your concern.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
If CO2 levels have no correlation to global warming, how could it be a bad thing? Can you explain?
And feasible alternatives have been offered, but they were rejected because people didn't want to pay $1.50 for gas ten years ago. Smart choice there buddy?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:43 pmLog off before you hurt yourself.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 20, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
Which he actually has a much higher chance of doing than being attacked by a teroorist...
July 20th, 2006 at 12:43 pm#110
I agree that pollution is a bad thing. Burning oil, coal, natural gas, etc. is not a long term healthy thing for this planet. NO ONE argues that. I keep telling you that ou LOSE your support when you start claiming:
You've LOST YOUR SUPPORT ALREADY. Realize it. Using a paid sci-fi writer to produce non-sense charts against a stablished fact doesn't support your cause.
1) climate change - mulitple ice ages, plate tectonics driving continental drift, asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions have been changing climate as far back as we can extract data, so to state that man is CAUSING climate change is laughable
Why? Human population, and specially industry has increased exponentially in two hundred years. Exponentially means that five hundred years ago, the whole population of the world was in the hundred of milions, not in the thousands of milions of people. Not aknowledging an impact in nature is lame. Probably, the city where you live doesn't even existed two hundred years ago.
And, if I can remember it to you, the changes in nature that you cite, HAVE PRODUCED mass extinctions. Do you want to bet on human extinction? I don't.
2) extinctions - many species continually go extinct, long before man arrived on the scene, and there were multiple mass extinctions throughout history, so to state that man is CAUSING extinctions in general is laughable
Your arguments are RETHORIC (meaning that they have NO value beyond your twisted mind and lying mouth). Extinctions rate has accelerated to an enormous number of species each year since the man has "discovered" the world.
Do you see now how I am trying to help you? You are on solid ground to state that man is impacting the environment, and you should provide feasible solutions to man’s current behaviour. Unfortunately, you over-reach, trying to induce hysteria to get people to just plain stop urbanizing, polluting and cultivating land, and the combination of hysteria and no feasible solution turns off ALL your would-be supporters.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
If you feel yourself hysterical, go ahead. But the problem is accelerating and your focus in "we'll do anything when we will see clearly the ultimate effects of Global Warming" is simply suicide. Acting now is how we can fight against it. And "feasible solutions"?. You and the ones like you are embroiling the whole argument to stop any attempt to enact feasible solutions.
Jason, hide from reality all you want, but reality would find you, sooner or later.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:43 pm#116, Krazny,
An alternative is only feasible if you get the Chinese and Indians to do it too, otherwise, our economy can't compete with theirs, if they can burn oil, coal and natural gas, and we only get to use solar.
#117, unbelievalbe,
When you going to Venus? Take plenty of pics, okay?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:44 pmReply to #120 (Jason):
Man has an impact, but you overreach stating that man is the cause of all extinctions, when species have been rising and falling throughout history.
Jason, I'm having trouble finding the post where I claimed that man was 'the cause of all extinctions'. Could you be a mensch and point it out to me?
(In the future, you might try to refrain from distorting my position. I spend my free time correcting Seixon's distortions, and brother, you're no Seixon.)
July 20th, 2006 at 12:45 pmJason,
July 20th, 2006 at 12:45 pmYou really gotta stop and sit and think for awhile. Read what people have wrote and stop contradicting yourself. I don't think people here have the time to correct every mistake you write. And I'm not just talking about your stance on global warming. You are confusing things you wrote yourself.
Crichton also wrote a book called 'Prey' - all about how nanotechnology will give rise to a swarm of biotech-microelectronic hybrids that devour all organic matter in their path, threatening the very existence of life on Earth. Personally, I'm terrified - this is a far greater threat then global warming, which Michael Crichton, our modern-day da Vinci, has shown to be irrelevant and overhyped - but I'm going to write my Senator and Representative and demand that they hold hearings on this new nanotechnology threat, and I'm going to insist they have Crighton testify. I suggest everyone do likewise. By the way, I have some coastal property in Florida I'm looking to sell - any buyers out there? It'll be a great long-term investment - and never mind that the insurance companies won't cover it - they're all crazy.
If you really wanted to reduce atmospheric CO2 you'd have to stop burning >70% of all coal and oil; you'd have to stop deforestation and plant a lot of long-lived trees, and you'd have to spend many billions developing renewable alternative energy systems. But then who would the Saudis (and everyone else) sell their oil too? Poor Saudis! Don't you feel their pain? Do you want them to have to give up their vacation homes in Morroco and Switzerland and go back to riding camels? What's that? Why don't they use their oil wealth to power their entire country with solar photovoltaics, while they still can? Beats me.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:48 pmWhen you going to Venus? Take plenty of pics, okay?
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
You can't got to Venus, it's atmosphere is so heavy from all that CO2 that it would crush you, notto mention the surface temperatures that are hot enough to melt led. Much like we're initiating here by cranking up the temperature on Global Warming. It was never supposed to get this warm here...
You have been reading WAY too much SciFi if you didn't know that....
July 20th, 2006 at 12:50 pmProfessor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.â€
Well, that's all it takes to convince me! Let's all buy Hummers!
July 20th, 2006 at 12:50 pmBoth China, and Indias economies are heavily dependant upon the US economy. I think we can get them to play ball so to speak. I have also seen things about how heavily polluted the country of China is becoming, they are starting to rethink what they want to do.
PLus it's a silly argument. It is sorta like saying well, my 2 your old brother craps in the yard, so I will too.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:51 pmOkay, one more time ....
To move a society, you need a motivator and a feasible direction to go ....
To state that man is impacting the environment in unhealthy ways is sufficient to motivate a society. To have Al Gore go red faced and bug-eyed is counter productive, causing people to laugh and no longer be motivated to change their behaviour. Motivation is not really the problem here.
Currently, no one has provided a feasible solution to man's current behaviour. The most feasilbe clean energy solutions: nuclear and hydro-electric have been undermined by democrats for decades, because anything nuclear is badmouthed and hydro-electric dams are blocked by people who don't want to displace a few field mice or make salmon swim a little harder. Wind and solar are investment heavy relative to the energy produced.
Again, as long as competing economies burn oil, coal and natural gas, so will we.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:55 pmJason,
Still haven't pointed me to that post, buddy...
July 20th, 2006 at 12:56 pmAnyone have any idea why the Israeli, and lebonese governments cannot work together to remove hezbollah? I have been trying to figure this out, and can't come up with an answer. Is the lebonese government unwilling to work with isreal?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:56 pmAbout Starship Troopers. Well, really, in this administration there exists a lot of chickenhawks that never served. But the jingoism almost equal in both this administration and the ST novel is frankly scary. Footnote: I ever saw ST as a very fascist novel. I don't know if Heinlein was being sarcastic, but boy...
July 20th, 2006 at 12:59 pmJason– Man has CAUSED a 30% increase in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Comment by JJ — July 20, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
Hell, Jason the gasbag has caused by himself a 30% increase in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere just by running his mouth.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:00 pmAgain, as long as competing economies burn oil, coal and natural gas, so will we.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
Do I detect a change in gear here?
This is no longer a "there is nothing we can do about it, Crichton says so" but "they do it so we should too" kind of argument.
Gotta love those moving goal posts...
July 20th, 2006 at 1:01 pmReply to #138 (Krazny):
Is the lebonese government unwilling to work with isreal?
No...Israel is unwilling to work with the Lebanese government.
It's not in Israel's interests to remove Hezbollah, because they provide a convenient excuse for their murder of Lebanese civilians.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:01 pmAgain, as long as competing economies burn oil, coal and natural gas, so will we.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
Why do you hate American ingenuity? Why do you think America is made up of a bunch of followers? We should be leading in alternative energy sources. Maybe even creating new technologies....ya know....use that great American spirit in a positive sense. But where is this leadership? You accuse Gore of hurting the discussion? Last time I checked he isn't in the White House. Like the saying goes "the fish starts to stink from the head".
July 20th, 2006 at 1:01 pmDuring the past week’s heat wave–it hit 100 degrees in New York City Monday–I got thinking, again, of how sad and frustrating it is that the world’s greatest scientists cannot gather, discuss the question of a flat planet, pore over all the data from every angle, study meteorological patterns and temperature histories, and come to a believable conclusion on these questions: Is a round planet real or not? If it is real, is it necessarily dangerous?
If a round planet is real, and if it is new, and if it is caused not by nature and her cycles but man and his rapacity, and if it in fact endangers mankind, scientists will probably one day blame The People for doing nothing.
But I think The People will have a greater claim to blame the scientists, for refusing to be honest, for operating in cliques and holding to ideologies. For failing to be trustworthy.
How do they not feel completely stupid saying things like this? How can they out right attack science after all the stories of the chruch and society attacking scientists in the past only to have the scientists proven correct years later? Dont people see that this type of "caveman think" slows down science... What if we have a disaster of global proportions coming and only extreme science will be able to save us from it, but they got to get more advanced fast? Do we have the time to let these fools slow down the progress that is being made?
July 20th, 2006 at 1:04 pmWell, that’s all it takes to convince me! Let’s all buy Hummers!
Comment by Kermit the Freedom Frog — July 20, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
Like I said which facts can you dispute. You know the ones about the scientific history.
But here's more if you don't like him. How about Mr. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.
Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."
That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.
The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."
So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.
They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.
The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia--mosquitoes don't require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the profession.
Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else. While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.
A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.
A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.
There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.
Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.
The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument--e.g., we can't think of an alternative--to support human attribution. But the "summary for policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." Well, no.
More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.
Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed." What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:05 pmCombine this gasbag with the other gasbags in the White House, and its a wonder we have an Ozone left.
Think about it. A tiny shred of discredited information was enough for these bozos to invade a defenseless country, kill over 100,000 people, leave their cities in ruins, imprison tens of thousands, displace millions, but ALL the scientists in the world coming together can't convince these guys to do anything to try and save the planet from global catasrophe.
This is a hubris beyond any yet known to man.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:06 pmDear Ben, you asked what was wrong with the Canada Free Press article you posted. Here you go.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:06 pm#118-- Well Judd is at it again. Not being honest. Several articles have come out the last couple of months challenging the lie that the majority of scientists are on the same page as the ICPP.
That article has been debunked so many times it's not funny. The article you cut and pasted is the product of a canadian astroturn group. This blog post has the details:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/an_embarrassment_to_australian.php
July 20th, 2006 at 1:08 pmcheck this out - my partner sarcastically said that this guy will probably have an early exit from this life...HHO Gas
July 20th, 2006 at 1:09 pmOh and Ben?
If you're going to plagarize because you're too stupid to write on your own, then at least just post part of your plagarized horsecrap.
I get tired of having to scroll through it all to get to someones actual comments.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:09 pm"Astroturf," I meant. Great post, by the way, Tim.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:10 pmThe people who are going bug-eyed and red-faced are the oil and coal company CEOs and their Boards, and the associated investment banks that rely on oil sales to pad their bottom line - and their worry is that demand for fossil fuels will drop off in the US, and net sales (at any price) will diminish. It's all about demand market share - if all 20 mpg cars were replaced with 60 mpg cars, that would be a 66% reduction in gasoline sales, and a 66% reduction in carbon emissions, all else being equal. These people don't care about global warming - they just intend to use their wealth to move to whatever parts of the planet remain habitable.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:11 pmFor those of you who actually care, here is a link to the article Ben PLAGARIZED most of his wanna-sound-smart post.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE RIGHT WING BULLCRAP THAT BEN USES TO TRY AND SOUND SMART
July 20th, 2006 at 1:12 pmMichael Crichton wrote Jurrasic Park, and used 'cloning', 'genetic experimenting', and made 'creation' possible, without the use of SPERM! And he even had 'transsexual' dinosaurs! This flies in the face of 'intelligent design', but given his 'expertise' in science, we can only accept the truth, there is no 'intelligent design'. Science is capable of 'creation' without 'Divine Intervention'. There is no God, Michael Crichton said so. Peggy Noonan is merely showing us what the Republican strategy will be for avoiding the blame for the lack of response to Global Warming, by blaming the very people that they are currently discrediting. Peggy was a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan. I wonder what she thinks about stem cell research? Jason H. is a silly little man.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:12 pmThanks Tim. That's a lengthy article. I will definitely read it and see if it requires that I delete the CFP article from favorites on global warming.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:13 pmPertaining to #147
Dear Ben, you asked what was wrong with the Canada Free Press article you posted. Here you go.
Comment by Tim Lambert
Ben, I hear your mommy calling. She just heard that you've been telling lies again. Time for the soapy in the mouthy.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:14 pm#136
Okay, one more time ….
Yes, you're incredibly slow.
To move a society, you need a motivator and a feasible direction to go ….
Oh, I see, the Government following the advice of the scientific community. We agree.
Currently, no one has provided a feasible solution to man’s current behaviour. The most feasilbe clean energy solutions: nuclear and hydro-electric have been undermined by democrats for decades, because anything nuclear is badmouthed and hydro-electric dams are blocked by people who don’t want to displace a few field mice or make salmon swim a little harder. Wind and solar are investment heavy relative to the energy produced.
You always need to break a thing to ammend other? An irresponsible design of a dam can be VERY damaging to people and wildlife. Not only the salmons, but also the butterflies and birds needed to polynize corn, and other sow types. And you can let without water the underground supplies of a city down the river inadvertedly.
And nuclear? Well, when you have all your country's underground caves full of nuclear waste, you'll find what happens when it turns 50 or 100 years old. Cannisters break, and tend to infiltrate in the underlying ground, and in the water diposits...
Again, as long as competing economies burn oil, coal and natural gas, so will we.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
What a loser! Isn't what would say any american to a foreing person saying this?
July 20th, 2006 at 1:14 pmHey Clubber I say who wrote the information. Can't figure out where the plagarism comes in. Maybe you need a weed break. Lighten up.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:15 pmKnowledge is dangerous to those who seek to control through belief in religion. The new dark ages are at our doorstep and the sick right is every bit as insane as the fanatical Taliban.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:15 pmIf I were you guys, I'd stop debating anything with Ben until he gives Mr. Lindzen credit for the post he presented as his own.
I can stomach an idiot, like Jason.
I can't stomach a PLAGIARIZER.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:17 pmBen, I hear your mommy calling. She just heard that you’ve been telling lies again. Time for the soapy in the mouthy.
Comment by dlet — July 20, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
dlet so typical. What a juvenile. Your "mommy"?
July 20th, 2006 at 1:18 pmNoonan is one of those columnists whose weak logic is so embarassingly flawed that you don't know whether to pity her for being such a dolt or despise her for preying upon all the dolts who might stumble across her column and think it makes sense.
Reading her stuff is like walking around with your eyes crossed and saying "Hey, look! There's two of everything!" And, in the same way, if you do it for too long, you get a headache.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:19 pmIf I were you guys, I’d stop debating anything with Ben until he gives Mr. Lindzen credit for the post he presented as his own.
I can stomach an idiot, like Jason.
I can’t stomach a PLAGIARIZER.
Comment by CLUBBER WORFEUS — July 20, 2006 @ 1:17 pm
Read the fourth line of my post dumbass.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:20 pmOh, I see, the Government following the advice of the scientific community. We agree.
Great! Here's the first two sentences from the Whitehouse-commissioned National Academy of Sciences report on climate change:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3713&method=full
July 20th, 2006 at 1:20 pmHey Clubber I say who wrote the information. Can’t figure out where the plagarism comes in.
Comment by Ben — July 20, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
Ok. I see where you mentioned Mr Lindzen. I guess that will do. But next time, just post a link, and I would use quotes because the way you presented that its very hard to tell where your words end and Mr Lindzens meet.
Besides, I am tired of having to scroll through an entire right wing article to get to peoples actual comments.
If you want to quote someone, then quote them. If you want us to read some right wing horsecrap, then post a link.
Sorry about calling you a Plagiarizer.
I should have just called you full of crap.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:22 pmP.S. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT is the moral equivalent of a tobacco company scientist who covers up evidence of cancer links at the behest of his employers. There are a number of other 'scientists' who take their funding from the oil industry - Fred Singer, for example - and they serve the same role. Only an idiot would trust an industry-funded scientist when it comes to the safety of their own products - that's true for pharmaceuticals and fossil fuels. That's why historically the government set up 'independent' regulatory boards - which are now owned by industry, thanks to Bush. We'd be running everything on renewables right now but for the actions of the vested fossil fuel interests.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:24 pmJason -
As far as reducing CO2 levels...How about we research a car battery that will hold a charge capable of going 500 miles before being re-charged.
If we could swithc all our NEW (can't change the old ones so easily) cars to battery, we will be able to significantly reduce CO2 right there. That's cause power plants are more efficient & don't produce as much CO2 as an automobile combustion engine.
I'd support that research. If we could reach the moon in 10 years, we could certainly get a better battery.
Why haven't we done this? Gee, maybe it has something to do with bushco being run by the oil & energy companies......Ya think?
July 20th, 2006 at 1:28 pmdlet so typical. What a juvenile. Your “mommy�
Comment by Ben
Hey thanks. But then at least when I source something I try to ensure that the facts are correct. So where does that place you on the human age scale? Lets see....someone who can't think for themself or be trusted to act responsibly and must be corrected by others when they do things wrong....maybe someone who needs a mommy?
July 20th, 2006 at 1:29 pmClubber, you're a class act. Really. You guys on the Left keep wondering why you lose. There is a lot of information questioning the science that your side wants to push. Most involves the inability of models to even predict events that have already happened by back dating the model. The convinient use of time frames that fit the storyline that you desire is another sin of the Left.
But keep of the good work of behaving like a moron. That is definitely how you influence people to see your point of view.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:33 pmPatrick J. Michaels, a professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Summary
The national media have given tremendous play to the claims of Vice President Al Gore, some federal scientists, and environmental activists that the unseasonably warm temperatures of this past summer were proof positive of the arrival of dramatic and devastating global warming. In fact, the record temperatures were largely the result of a strong El Niño superimposed on a decade in which temperatures continue to reflect a warming that largely took place in the first half of this century.
Observed global warming remains far below the amount predicted by computer models that served as the basis for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Whatever record is used, the largest portion of the warming of the second half of this century has mainly been confined to winter in the very coldest continental air masses of Siberia and northwestern North America, as predicted by basic greenhouse effect physics. The unpredictability of seasonal and annual temperatures has declined significantly. There has been no change in precipitation variability. In the United States, drought has decreased while flooding has not increased.
Moreover, carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below that of most climate-change scenarios because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation. The second most important human greenhouse enhancer -- methane -- is not likely to increase appreciably in the next 100 years. And perhaps most important, the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated. Even global warming alarmists in the scientific establishment now say that the Kyoto Protocol will have no discernible impact on global climate.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:35 pm#157, evil spaniard,
Thanks for the laugh - you again made my point for me.
We could reduce coal burning if we built more hydro-electric dams, but you are too worried about butterflies, so we now pollute the whole planet with CO2 and other pollutants - beautiful. You are your own worst enemies in this regard - gripe about the problem and gripe about possible solutions, so that nothing changes.
I am sure spent nuclear fuel can be stored or reprocessed without finding its way into ground water. We could even embed it in a ceramic substrate if you are worried about leaks.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:36 pm#170
July 20th, 2006 at 1:38 pmNice post of a person's opinion. Can you link to his research and facts? Can you link to where Gore said that this years hot weather was proof that there is global warming? Please?
Most involves the inability of models to even predict events that have already happened by back dating the model.
There's plenty of the climate science not based on models. For instance read through these studies:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3458&method=full
Please excuse our frustration and impatience. It's just that the debate has been over for a while and right leaning politicians continue to cherry pick and take people like Michael Crichton seriously.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:38 pmClubber, you’re a class act.
Comment by GentleBen — July 20, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
Why thank you. :D
But like I said, next time just post a link.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:38 pmP.S. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT is the moral equivalent of a tobacco company scientist who covers up evidence of cancer links at the behest of his employers.
Comment by prickly pear — July 20, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
So what part of his arguments are incorrect? you know where is he wrong. Another typical move by those on the Left. Just start the name calling. That way you can leave out the facts.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:39 pmOh and PS.
Its not "my point of view".
Its the point of view of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, including NASA.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:40 pmNASA.
What do they know?
July 20th, 2006 at 1:40 pm#167, kindness,
Where do you suppose the "charge" comes from, when you charge a battery. Right now, it mostly comes from burning coal, so as long as you keep burning coal, you've only moved the source of the problem from the auto to the power plant. Moreover, batteries use a lot of toxic heavy metals, which poison the environment, so you are better off using fuel cells.
An end to end solution is possible - nuclear or hydro-electric power used to add hydrogen and oxygen to liquids that later release them through reaction or catalist for use in fuel cells. It would all be clean and not put CO2 into the atmosphere, but the government needs to offer the tax breaks required to create a feasible market acceptance for such a system.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:41 pmGas escaping from ocean floor may drive global warming
(Santa Barbara, Calif.) -- Gas escaping from the ocean floor may provide some answers to understanding historical global warming cycles and provide information on current climate changes, according to a team of scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The findings are reported in the July 20 on-line version of the scientific journal, Global Biogeochemical Cycles.
Remarkable and unexpected support for this idea occurred when divers and scientists from UC Santa Barbara observed and videotaped a massive blowout of methane from the ocean floor. It happened in an area of gas and oil seepage coming out of small volcanoes in the ocean floor of the Santa Barbara channel –– called Shane Seep –– near an area known as the Coal Oil Point seep field. The blowout sounded like a freight train, according to the divers.
Atmospheric methane is at least 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is the most abundant organic compound in the atmosphere, according to the study's authors, all from UC Santa Barbara.
"Other people have reported this type of methane blowout, but no one has ever checked the numbers until now," said Ira Leifer, lead author and an associate researcher with UCSB's Marine Science Institute. "Ours is the first set of numbers associated with a seep blowout." Leifer was in a research boat on the surface at the time of the blowouts.
Aside from underwater measurements, a nearby meteorological station measured the methane "cloud" that emerged as being approximately 5,000 cubic feet, or equal to the volume of the entire first floor of a two-bedroom house. The research team also had a small plane in place, flown by the California Department of Conservation, shooting video of the event from the air.
Leifer explained that when this type of blowout event occurs, virtually all the gas from the seeps escapes into the atmosphere, unlike the emission of small bubbles from the ocean floor, which partially, or mostly, dissolve in the ocean water. Transporting this methane to the atmosphere affects climate, according to the researchers. The methane blowout that the UCSB team witnessed reached the sea surface 60 feet above in just seven seconds. This was clear because the divers injected green food dye into the rising bubble plume.
Co-author Bruce Luyendyk, professor of marine geophysics and geological sciences, explained that, to understand the significance of this event (which occurred in 2002), the UCSB research team turned to a numerical, bubble-propagation model. With the model, they estimated methane loss to the ocean during the upward travel of the bubble plume.
The results showed that for this shallow seep, loss would have been approximately one percent. Virtually all the methane, 99 percent of it, was transported to the atmosphere from this shallow seep during the blowout. Next, the scientists used the model to estimate methane loss for a similar size blowout at much greater depth, 250 meters. Again, the model results showed that almost all the methane would be transported up to the atmosphere.
Over geologic time scales, global climate has cycled between warmer, interglacial periods and cooler, glacial periods. Many aspects of the forces underlying these dramatic changes remain unknown. Looking at past changes is highly relevant to understanding future climate changes, particularly given the large increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere due to historically recent human activities such as burning fossil fuels.
One hypothesis, called the "Clathrate Gun" hypothesis, developed by James Kennett, professor of geological sciences at UCSB, proposes that past shifts from glacial to interglacial periods were caused by a massive decomposition of the marine methane hydrate deposits.
Methane hydrate is a form of water ice that contains a large amount of methane within its crystal structure, called a clathrate hydrate. According to Kennett's hypothesis, climatic destabilization would cause a sharp increase in atmospheric methane –– thereby initiating a feedback cycle of abrupt atmospheric warming. This process may threaten the current climate, according to the researchers. Warmer ocean temperatures from current global climate change is likely to release methane currently trapped in vast hydrate deposits on the continental shelves. However, consumption of methane by microbes in the deep sea prevents methane gas released from hydrates from reaching the ocean surface and affecting the atmosphere.
Bubbles provide a highly efficient mechanism for transporting methane and have been observed rising from many different hydrate deposits around the world. If these bubbles escape singly, most or all of their methane would dissolve into the deep-sea and never reach the atmosphere. If instead, they escape in a dense bubble plume, or in catastrophic blowout plumes, such as the one studied by UCSB researchers, then much of the methane could reach the atmosphere. Blowout seepage could explain how methane from hydrates could reach the atmosphere, abruptly triggering global warming.
Thus, these first-ever quantitative measurements of a seep blowout and the results from the numerical model demonstrate a mechanism by which methane released from hydrates can reach the atmosphere. Studies of seabed seep features suggest such events are common in the area of the Coal Oil Point seep field and very likely occur elsewhere.
The authors explain that these results show that an important piece of the global climate puzzle may be explained by understanding bubble-plume processes during blowout events. The next important step is to measure the frequency and magnitude of these events. The UCSB seep group is working toward this goal through the development of a long-term, seep observatory in active seep areas.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:42 pmEVOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CLUBBER WORFEUS does not like that!!! You post has too many facts and lacks sufficient name calling.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:44 pmJason,
Still waiting for you to point me to the post where I claimed that man was ‘the cause of all extinctions’.
Either supply a link or a retraction & apology, either one is fine.
Kthx.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:45 pm[...] Thanks to ThinkProgress, however, I was directed to Noonan’s latest piece. Though it reads like the ramblings of a disaffected Bush supporter, lending much evidence that Noonan thrives on ambiguity rather than hard facts, I feel it’s worth noting that many conservatives read her columns so as to get the proper marching orders. An excerpt: Is global warming real or not? If it is real, is it necessarily dangerous? What exactly are the dangers? Is global warming as dangerous as, say, global cooling would be? Are we better off with an Earth that is getting hotter or, what with the modern realities of heating homes and offices, and the world energy crisis, and the need to conserve, does global heating have, in fact, some potential side benefits, and can those benefits be broadened and deepened? Also, if global warning is real, what must–must–the inhabitants of the Earth do to meet its challenges? And then what should they do to meet them? [...]
July 20th, 2006 at 1:48 pmI don't know if anyone has sent a response to this WSJ article or not, but I bet you wouldn't be suprised to read what responses they have posted, all two of them: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/responses.html?article_id=110008676. I'm going to write a response, but obviously they're not accepting conflicting "points of view".
July 20th, 2006 at 1:48 pmCLUBBER WORFEUS does not like that!!!
Comment by Ben — July 20, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
What I don't like Oppenheimer, is having to scroll through 10 pages of crap to get to a bloggers comment.
Theres one article here, thats at the top.
We don't need 30 more pasted throughout the blog to bury bloggers comments.
If you want to post some reichstag rubbish, post a link.
Or are you guys all as technically challenged as Ted Stevens?
July 20th, 2006 at 1:49 pmSo what part of his arguments are incorrect?
Lindzen in the Wall Street Journal:
Well, yes. Necause Lindzen cherry picks this sentence. The sentences right before that one read:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3458&method=full
And Desmog blog has more on Lindzen's Op-ed:
http://www.desmogblog.com/lindzen-keeps-it-complicated-and-the-wall-street-journal-laps-it-up
July 20th, 2006 at 1:50 pmJason - re-read my post douchebag.. I've tried to treat you nicely but you seem to like having your head up your ass.
Most power out here in the western US ISN'T generated by coal. It's generated by Natural Gas (far less polluting than coal or gasoline), Hydro (no atmospheric pollution at all), or some nuclear plants. There's a coal burning plant on an Indian reservation in N. Mexico, but I think that's the only one left.
evo & ben - FBB (feeble beyond belief)
July 20th, 2006 at 1:50 pm#181, trip,
Wasn't claiming that YOU in particular were claiming that ALL extinctions are being caused by global warming.
I am trying to get liberals to realize that they over-reach in their arguments intended to motivate man to change their behaviour. Just say pollution is bad, because no one would argue with that statement by definition.
Next, provide a feasible solution that doesn't involve a mandate that, not only Americans, but also all economic trading partners, stop polluting without an alternative. Liberals want to seize power and force people to do what they want. Republicans know that you have to entice good behaviour with tax breaks and subsidies ....
July 20th, 2006 at 1:52 pmPathetic. Republicans have no understanding of science. But then again, that's fairly obvious. Can you say, "stem cell?"
July 20th, 2006 at 1:52 pmOh poor clubber, just admit it your afraid of the dark, you really need someone to shine a light.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:52 pmNext, provide a feasible solution that doesn’t involve a mandate
Well we could start by stopping tax subsidies to fossil fuel companies. And we could also implement a revenue neutral carbon tax (revenue would be shifted as credits toward purchases of cleaner energy, or simply given back to the tax payer).
July 20th, 2006 at 1:58 pmJason,
Next, provide a feasible solution that doesn’t involve a mandate that, not only Americans, but also all economic trading partners, stop polluting without an alternative.
Why would we have to consult with our economic trading partners about out internal policy on energy use? Weird thought. And if you really think that the oil and gas industry will assist in promoting alternative energy sources through tax breaks and subsidies then you are bubbling mad.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:58 pm#110
"Unfortunately, you over-reach, trying to induce hysteria to get people to just plain stop urbanizing, polluting and cultivating land, and the combination of hysteria and no feasible solution turns off ALL your would-be supporters."
ONLY in your mind Jason, only in YOUR mind...
There's one thing I DO credit Jason with (and it's NOT his critical thinking)... He at least trys to make his point without the foul language most of the 'trolls' are so known for..
Now for all the people responding to people like Jason who refuse to admit the overwhelming consensus/the obvious, you can't have a reasonable debate with someone who refuses to admit reality.
On a side note: I respect free speech as much as anyone but I'm starting to love the "thumbs-up/thumbs-down" feature on the digg.com web site.
For those of you who haven't seen it, go register with digg.com and check it out.
For each comment (on a 'dugg' article) there are two buttons (thumbs-up/down), so you can either make no assesment of the comment at all, or you can choose to add your vote, either up or down, resulting in a positive score or a negative one depending on the votes.
A negative vote (thumbs-down) hides the posted comment so you don't have to look at it anymore. Plus you can always "view the comment" if you want to, even if it's 'hidden'.
That way the community has a way to control 'trolls' and unecessarily obscene/rude comments. At least that's the way I see/use it.
It's kind of like the "ignore" option in chat rooms like the [old] TechTV chat room.
I have absolutely NO problem with dissenting comments as long as the're coherent, civilized and to the point, and of course NO SCROLLING!
People like Jason have every right to make comments here as long as they're civil.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:59 pmOf course they do it their own peril if they're talking out their *ss.
#186, kindness,
well, I will never again mistake you for a lady / gentlemen ....
Natural gas (like coal) is a fossil fuel ...
Fossil fuels are carbon based ...
Burn something carbon based, and you tend to get CO2 ...
CO2 is the greenhouse gas that libs claim causes "global warming" ...
Here is a link describing the composition of natural gas - mainly hydro-carbons ....
http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/background.asp
If you have a system that at any point includes the burning of hydro-carbons, then you don't have a solution to CO2 emissions, which is blamed for "global warming".
July 20th, 2006 at 1:59 pm#193
July 20th, 2006 at 2:03 pmOh my god Jason he said that natural gas is far less polluting than coal. Not once did he say that natural gas doesn't emit CO2. Please read the posts thoroughly.
#171
Thanks for the laugh - you again made my point for me.
Fools laugh at things they don't understand.
We could reduce coal burning if we built more hydro-electric dams, but you are too worried about butterflies, so we now pollute the whole planet with CO2 and other pollutants - beautiful. You are your own worst enemies in this regard - gripe about the problem and gripe about possible solutions, so that nothing changes.
You missed the whole point. I was pointing to how quickly botch things the republicans. They pretend to solve a problem causing a worse one most of the time. I'm not against building dams, but I'm against building indiscriminately dams who result in a worser scenario. But I see that you don't get complex scenarios, only repeat talking points.
I am sure spent nuclear fuel can be stored or reprocessed without finding its way into ground water. We could even embed it in a ceramic substrate if you are worried about leaks.
Ever heard of sysmical movements? Landslides? Floodings? Nuclear waste will last milions of years and nothing grants a secure storage.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 1:36 pm
Jason, as I see you're beyond help. Sound science is far away from your mindset.
You don't make me laugh, you're very sad.
July 20th, 2006 at 2:03 pmOh poor clubber, just admit it your afraid of the dark, you really need someone to shine a light.
Comment by evoo — July 20, 2006
The ironic thing here is that you guys are the ones displaying the ignorance. Methyl hydrate release could be caused by warming oceans:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=4665&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=Thawing%20Ocean%20Methane%20Hydrates%20Worries%20Scientists&Cache=False
July 20th, 2006 at 2:04 pmCO2 is the greenhouse gas that libs claim causes “global warming†…
Of course all those scientists at the NAS or the IPCC have nothing to do with it. They are controlled by our orbital mind control lasers.
July 20th, 2006 at 2:06 pmI think The People will have a greater claim to blame the scientists, for refusing to be honest, for operating in cliques and holding to ideologies. For failing to be trustworthy.
If the scientists operated on Ideologies, as this person thinks they do, they would have come to an agreement already, and would probably say "God says that Humans have created Global Warming"
Of course they haven't come to a conclusion for exactly that reason...duh
July 20th, 2006 at 2:07 pmI think The People will have a greater claim to blame the politcians, for refusing to be honest, for operating in cliques and holding to ideologies. For failing to be trustworthy.
July 20th, 2006 at 2:08 pmChange it back, reads better.
July 20th, 2006 at 2:12 pmOne key piece of the solution: OTECs.
OTEC = Ocean Thermal Energy Converter
Basically it uses the temperature difference from warm surface waters at the equator and the cold water 3000 feet below to create energy.
The best part? There is NO fuel required, and the only output is energy and clean drinking water. The whole idea is to utilize the ocean surface as a giant solar collector. This technology has been around since the 1920s if you can believe it, but so far no company has seen fit to use it.
This could easily produce electricity which would allow seperation of pure hydrogen and oxygen from water, thus producing vast amounts of energy in the form of pure hydrogen. Simple, effective, and very realistic IMHO.
July 20th, 2006 at 2:12 pmCO2 is the greenhouse gas that libs claim causes “global warming†…
Assuming facts not in evidence.
China ratifies global warming treaty
China, the world's second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, has announced it has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, bringing the environmental treaty one step ...
Nice try troll but china is not a land full of "liberals".
July 20th, 2006 at 2:13 pmCould you please make a coherent non-pundit talking point for once..I mean can you come up with your own words instead of being a ridiculous parrot?
#201, readyforchange,
Just as long as I get my own lilypad - ahhhh, warming my toes in the sun ....
July 20th, 2006 at 2:18 pmReply to #110 (Jason):
so to state that man is CAUSING extinctions in general is laughable
And with that, you’ve just lost whatever scraps of credibility you had left.
Log off before you hurt yourself.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey —
(Now where did I put that drink and park my car...)
July 20th, 2006 at 2:19 pmJust as long as I get my own lilypad
Yes, it's interesting that if you argue with a conservative long enough on this topic they say something like that.
July 20th, 2006 at 2:20 pmRe: 145, 175. point
July 20th, 2006 at 2:23 pmReply to #187 (Jason):
Wasn’t claiming that YOU in particular were claiming that ALL extinctions are being caused by global warming.
Ok...perhaps I was mistaken...let's review what you did say:
That's funny...you addresed me by name and post #, and then proceeded to say 'you' three times (bonus points for a 'your' as well).
Oh, and you did say all extinctions, thanks.
I'm still waiting for that retraction & apology...
July 20th, 2006 at 2:24 pm(Now where did I put that drink and park my car…)
Comment by Ted Kennedy — July 20, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
(Now where did I put that drink and park my car, oh yes I remember now, I was so messed up on poor mans heroin yesterday I left my car at Limbaughs place.... =]
July 20th, 2006 at 2:25 pmthat is, a point by pointrefutation of Lindzen
July 20th, 2006 at 2:25 pmImagine if we couldn't replace Bush with someone who actually had some intellect and wasn't beholdin' to the minority of the extreme right-wing hypocrites...
I truly believe that if somehow that were allowed to happen, the USA would be in for something resembling the Dark Ages... Science controlled by the church.
Oh wait, might that not be happening now...
PLEASE good citizens of the USA, lets' come together (in the upcoming elections) and vote for true LEADERS who, unlike what Bush PROMISED to do, will bring TOGETHER the different political parties to work for AMERICA/States and not just their own party!
July 20th, 2006 at 2:27 pmHumans have already caused numerous extinctions. Certainly extinctions happen naturally as well... duh. That doesn't mean people can't wipe out a species, its very easy to do.
July 20th, 2006 at 2:28 pm#207, Trip,
I merely failed to say you liberals, instead of just you...
July 20th, 2006 at 2:28 pm#205, JJ,
that's because non-liberals have a sense of humor ...
just because I disagree with libs and proglodites doesn't mean that I am a Republican, a Christian or a conservative ...
July 20th, 2006 at 2:30 pmI should clarify my last statement ("Science controlled by the church. Oh wait, might that not be happening now…"). I didn't mean to imply that scientists were 'controlled' by any church, I was referring to what Bush did yesterday vetoing the Stem Cell legislation..
July 20th, 2006 at 2:35 pmI'm willing to bet you're a libertarian. Climate change denialists come in a few different flavors:
http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-conference-an-ideological-battleground
Of course, you can pretend to be whatever you want in this venue. You could be my grandmother for all I know...
July 20th, 2006 at 2:35 pm#213
July 20th, 2006 at 2:36 pmWell at least you have spoken a slice of truth here today. You are funny.
#213
that’s because non-liberals have a sense of humor …
just because I disagree with libs and proglodites doesn’t mean that I am a Republican, a Christian or a conservative …
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
You spew definitions left and right, yet you don't say your full ideology. Maybe because it makes too evident what you are? A extremely conservative person?
July 20th, 2006 at 2:38 pmReply to #212 (Jason):
I merely failed to say you liberals, instead of just you…
Wow...you just don't know when to quit, do you?
Let's see...
1) Point to a post where anyone said that 'man is the cause of all extinctions', or retract and apologize.
2) Lumping me into a category and then attacking the category is a dishonest debate tactic. I expect an apology for that as well.
and...
3) I don't buy it, in any event. You replied to me specifically, and then said 'you' three times. Seems like you're just trying to weasel out at this point...
You should have quit while you were behind...
July 20th, 2006 at 2:40 pmjust because I disagree with libs and proglodites doesn’t mean that I am a Republican, a Christian or a conservative …
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
That's true, it only makes you an ignoramus who takes Crichton's uneducated opinion over that of thousands of scientists from all over the world, in a field of expertise Crichton is not the tiniest bit qualified to issue any statement.
A willful ignoramus, to boot.
July 20th, 2006 at 2:40 pm#179 evoo
Transporting this methane to the atmosphere affects climate, according to the researchers.
The entire article (Who wrote it?) was about how methane can seep from cracks in the ocean floor and eventually get into the atmosphere. What it didn't say is how much or at what rate. And nowhere in the article does it even attempt to qualify the researchers' statement that "Transporting this methane to the atmosphere affects climate."
Affects it how much? In what way? How about comparing it to the manmade sources of CO2? This is why we say you guys don't get science. You just don't do critical thinking and you don't understand scientific method. You draw your conclusion and then you try to find anything that even sounds like it backs it up. It's a nice long article, but it doesn't say anything.
Look at this paragraph:
The results showed that for this shallow seep, loss would have been approximately one percent. Virtually all the methane, 99 percent of it, was transported to the atmosphere from this shallow seep during the blowout. Next, the scientists used the model to estimate methane loss for a similar size blowout at much greater depth, 250 meters. Again, the model results showed that almost all the methane would be transported up to the atmosphere.
"Virtually all the methane, 99 percent of it, was transported to the atmosphere from this shallow seep during the blowout." Wow! 99%?!! Holy smokes that's a lot!
99% of what?
"Next, the scientists used the model to estimate methane loss for a similar size blowout at much greater depth, 250 meters. Again, the model results showed that almost all the methane would be transported up to the atmosphere." Geez, it even makes it to the surface from 250 meters!!! Most of it anyway. What does that tell ya?!!
What the hell does it tell ya? Nothing. It says that most of some untold amount of methane makes it to the surface. Whoever wrote this article was clearly trying to make it sound like something was being revealed, but nothing that had any bearing on the argument over causes of global warming came out of it. Be a little more discerning. Analyze what you read, so others don't have to do it for you.
This is just mind-boggling:
Atmospheric methane is at least 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide
What does that mean, "more potent"? It's more flammable. If you go into a room and displace all the air with methane will you be any more dead than if you displaced it all with carbon dioxide? I don't think so. I think you'd be pretty well dead, either way.
Who wrote that crap anyway? Why do you guys hate to cite your sources? Was it from the Weekly Reader? Highlights? It was, wasn't it. C'mon, tell us. We won't laugh.
July 20th, 2006 at 2:41 pmPlease excuse Jason today folks.
He's a little despondent because his love life sucks, he recently lost his job and his dog left him for an owner that believed in feeding their animals.
As such, he has way too much time on his hands and is too depressed to post anything with a rational frame of referance.
Please, treat him with the dignity that he deserves and kick him to the corner when you pass his whiney ass on the street begging for change.
note - this is the nice post. I almost went over the top but figured, hey, why bring craigslist into this?
July 20th, 2006 at 2:44 pmjimbT
July 20th, 2006 at 2:48 pmThe findings are reported in the July 20 on-line version of the scientific journal, Global Biogeochemical Cycles. Lot more there, but i'm sure that your creditentials are lot better than theirs. By the way I cut and pasted the line from paragraph one of the article. As you obviously missed it the first time thru. Oh they have pie charts and graphs too. You can even watch the video.
evoo-- But what's your point? Mine was that the hydrates can be released by global warming. In other words, they're another reason why we should be taking action.
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=4665&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=Thawing%20Ocean%20Methane%20Hydrates%20Worries%20Scientists&Cache=False
July 20th, 2006 at 2:55 pm#222 evoo
The findings are reported in the July 20 on-line version of the scientific journal, Global Biogeochemical Cycles.
Who wrote the paragraph below? Did you? It's from an article that is citing the "findings reported in the July 20 on-line version of the scientific journal, Global Biogeochemical Cycles." Where did the article come from that picked out little snippets of those findings and failed to provide any context that would back up what the writer seemed to be trying to say?
#179 evoo
July 20th, 2006 at 2:56 pmGas escaping from ocean floor may drive global warming
(Santa Barbara, Calif.) — Gas escaping from the ocean floor may provide some answers to understanding historical global warming cycles and provide information on current climate changes, according to a team of scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The findings are reported in the July 20 on-line version of the scientific journal, Global Biogeochemical Cycles.
#179--
Exactly. That's why we should be concerned about releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, upping the concentration by 30%.
I haven't heard that methane has increased by that much, but it's possible that it might, if we keep releasing more heat-trapping CO2.
July 20th, 2006 at 3:03 pm#220
"What the hell does it tell ya? Nothing."
It seems that as far as you're concerned, because it doesn't make sense to YOU it must be wrong...
As for sources of information, here'sa google page for you.
The first article I looked at was one from a NASA research project,
It covers a lot.
Also, I watch all the "Science Channel" and all the others of that type, and I recently watched a program (sorry, I can't recall which channel) that talked about climate change and how at a point in the past the oceans warmed to the point where the methane that's frozen on parts of the sea floor melted and released HUGE amounts of methane, sending the earth's climate into a long period of disasterous 'global warming'.
Read the NASA article (and the others while you're at it..).
Hope that helps!
July 20th, 2006 at 3:05 pmFrom CQ Today Midday Update July 20, 2006 http://www.cq.com
House Panel Probes White House Influence on Climate Reports
The House Government Reform Committee said today it will launch a bipartisan inquiry into allegations that the White House edited climate reports to play down the potential threat of global warming.
Wait a minute. I thought the president said "I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem."
The only thing he's done consistently is lie.
July 20th, 2006 at 3:13 pm#226 cont'd... and what's the 'gist' of it?
(At least as [I] understand it)
If we allow the earth to warm to the point where the amount of fresh water (coming from melting icepack) causes the oceans to stop circulating because the salinity level isn't sufficient to make the 'conveyor belt'-process to work.
It's happened before in the earth's history as a result of comet/asteroid impact that threw up dust that trapped heat to the point where the ocean temperature rose high enough to melt the methane deposits.....(..phew, that was a LONG one!*).
You definitely don't want to be around for THAT.
*Grammar is NOT one of my strong suits...
July 20th, 2006 at 3:28 pm#229-- Grammar is NOT one of my strong suits…
You got your point across, that's what counts. We're not exactly trying to write Hemingway here...
July 20th, 2006 at 3:31 pm#229
Bush doesn't seem to worry himself with silly things like 'honesty', 'truth', or a 'consience'...
July 20th, 2006 at 3:33 pm..arrrrgh! I MEANT #228!
I'm going to ingest some caffeine now..
July 20th, 2006 at 3:36 pm#226 TR
“What the hell does it tell ya? Nothing.â€
It seems that as far as you’re concerned, because it doesn’t make sense to YOU it must be wrong…
Okay, let's break it down. Here's what I wrote:
“Next, the scientists used the model to estimate methane loss for a similar size blowout at much greater depth, 250 meters. Again, the model results showed that almost all the methane would be transported up to the atmosphere.†Geez, it even makes it to the surface from 250 meters!!! Most of it anyway. What does that tell ya?!!
What the hell does it tell ya? Nothing.
Make sense of it. Go back to the original article at #179 and show me what I missed. Explain to me what you can extract from that paragraph or even the whole article about the effect of methane seeping from a crack in the ocean floor. Where does it say how much methane? Where does it say what that amount of methane does to the atmosphere? Where does it compare the quantifiable effects of that amount of methane--the amount that you're going to determine for me from the quoted article--to the effects of manmade CO2 on the atmosphere? And what do YOU think the article says?
The article makes sense. It just doesn't say anything about the effects on the atmosphere, much less how it relates to global warming, of methane seeping from a crack on the ocean floor. It just doesn't. Show me where I'm wrong.
And, by the way, JJ's point about global warming causing the release of methane is an excellent one and I hate to sidetrack us away from it. But, holy crap, it's like pulling teeth trying to drag these wingers out of the comfort of their tortured logic.
July 20th, 2006 at 3:39 pmTR, that article that evoo posted, #179, was supposed to support the notion that the natural occurrence of methane coming from the ocean floor at the present time could be an alternate explanation for global warming, thus letting manmade pollutants and polluters off the hook. It did no such thing. It looks like you might have thought I was coming at this from the other side.
July 20th, 2006 at 3:47 pm#233
All I'm going to say to you is that I believe you misunderstood my comment.
Now I for one am going to stop commenting and watch the British Open.
Ya'll have a good one, and try to conserve energy whenever/wherever you can...
July 20th, 2006 at 3:49 pmBTW, what DID happen to the electric car?
Jimb, you're probably right. I didn't understand the article in question. I DO confuse easily...
Later all.
July 20th, 2006 at 3:51 pmGlobal warming aside, our energy policies are serving to expatiate the process. Fission reactor technologies have evolved from designs based in the 1950's:
July 20th, 2006 at 3:56 pmhttp://www.areva-np.com/scripts/info/publigen/content/templates/show.asp?P=1655&L=US&SYNC=Y
http://www.inl.gov/factsheets/docs/nuclearprograms.pdf
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003165.html
The pelletized reactors have a fuel cycle that minimizes the waste stream and maximizes the energy stream.
Other new technologies are maturing to the point where they are financially feasible. These include solar, tidal and wind. The other free technology – thermal layering is difficult in places other then island nations because of distribution difficulties, but has some limited potential.
Dear Mrs. Noonan,
Please shut up. You job pays you to talk. If you were to be paid according to the substantive content of your words, you'd be broke. Your bank accounts are full; your conscience is empty.
July 20th, 2006 at 4:02 pmDear Mrs. Noonan,
Please shut up. Your job pays you to talk. If you were to be paid according to the substantive content of your words, you'd be broke. Your bank accounts are full; your conscience is empty.
July 20th, 2006 at 4:03 pmIf only people from all over the world could get together and find a solution for Global Warming. Perhaps they could meet in Kyoto and make, oh I don't know, a treaty of some sort? A Kyoto Treaty perhaps?? Crazy I know.
July 20th, 2006 at 4:08 pmSWIFT BOATING PRACTICED HERE
I know for a fact that president Pinocchio stated on television in the run up to 2000 and again in 2004 that he was investigating global warming. Then when he was told by nearly every scientist that global warming is a fact, he said there is a debate still going on.
July 20th, 2006 at 4:16 pmYes, the terms of the "debate" keep shifting--rather conveniently.
As the Washington Post put it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html
I suspect a lot of it depends on who Bush has talked to lately, for instance oil patch executives or Michael Crichton.
July 20th, 2006 at 4:41 pmUndersea gas could speed global warming - study
Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:29 PM BST
NEW YORK (Reuters) - If the world continues to get warmer, vast amounts of methane gas trapped in ice under the sea could belch up and worsen climate change, according to a study.
"We may have less time than we think to do something (about the prospect of global warming)," Dr. Ira Leifer, a marine scientist at University of California Santa Barbara, said in an interview.
Leifer is the main author of a study that looks at how "peak blowouts" of melting undersea formations called methane hydrates could release the potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. The study was published on Thursday in Global Biogeochemical Cycles, a climate science publication.
The distribution of methane hydrates throughout the world is so vast that energy companies hope one day to tap the resource. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that such formations could harbor as much as 200,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Hydrate formations exist under hundreds of meters of water in places like the Gulf of Mexico and closer to the surface in permafrost areas of the Arctic.
Methane, the main component of the fossil fuel natural gas, has two faces. When burned it releases less carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas that scientists believe are warming the earth, than any other fossil fuel.
But if it escapes to the atmosphere without being burned, it can trap heat rapidly because it is a greenhouse gas at least 20 times stronger than carbon dioxide.
The study measured the amount of methane that escaped to the atmosphere from a peak blowout from small volcanoes on the ocean floor off of California. It found that virtually all of the methane escaping from the deep water reached the atmosphere, countering some theories that methane seeps out in tiny bubbles that harmlessly dissolve in the ocean.
Leifer said rising temperatures could warm the oceans, creating a feedback loop in which warm temperatures make global warming even worse.
July 20th, 2006 at 4:48 pmBut evoo, I ask again, what's your point?
July 20th, 2006 at 4:55 pmI don't think he even bothers to read what he posts.
July 20th, 2006 at 5:13 pmNoonan's mind is closed. She equates a writer of fiction to the many scientists who have reached agreement on global warming. She is the blockhead, but to her, it's the fault of the scientists who cannot convince her, therefore, they must be wrong.
July 20th, 2006 at 5:23 pmSomething happens to the brains of a Republican over time - they petrify.
#221, kindness,
Wow, kindness, I take your posts seriously, and respond to answer your questions with the only truly feasible "clean" solution(s), and you take offense?
I know the written word can seem more harsh than intended, but I am sure that what I've written shouldn't have provoked you to call me "douchbag" and make other disparaging remarks.
As I've said before, I offer you an alternative path, so that when you run headlong into a brickwall, you take the right path, and don't go looking for the person you think must have hit you.
July 20th, 2006 at 5:39 pmHey look....Jason's back!
Jason, you still have a lot to answer for...I'm still waiting.
July 20th, 2006 at 5:44 pm#243 JJ
But evoo, I ask again, what’s your point?
I think he just helped make your point:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - If the world continues to get warmer, vast amounts of methane gas trapped in ice under the sea could belch up and worsen climate change, according to a study.
July 20th, 2006 at 5:57 pmAs I’ve said before, I offer you an alternative path
What is this alternative path? Drop the whole thing? Stop relying on science to make decisions? Ask science fiction writers for advice?
July 20th, 2006 at 6:10 pmTo Jason Hendler,
July 20th, 2006 at 6:10 pmYour only source to argue against global warming is not a climatologist but Michael Critchon, a science fiction writer who is known for using false (meaning his own made-up) charts graphs in his books. I asked you this on another thread but you never replied, so here we go again: If you take all of Crichton's "science" as truth, do you think we're going to be able to bring dinosaurs back?
Others have alluded to this, but I would like to underscore their comments, and I believe state the idea more clearly.
Jason, Michael Crichton's latest book evidently uses urban heat masses, or the term I prefer, urban heat island effects, to debunk the theory of global climate change.
I did a little reading on urban heat island effects, and it appears from what I read (I haven't studied this exhaustively) that urban heat island effects are not considered to contribute significantly AT THIS POINT IN TIME to the overall phenomenon of warming planetwide. But that hardly is the same as saying that they disprove it. In fact, if anything, they would CONTRIBUTE to it. In other words, those localized warming phenomena would have to be balanced off by cooling elsewhere for them to make no contribution to global warming. Do you have any data from peer-reviewed studies showing that urban heat island effects are being counterbalanced elsewhere?
July 20th, 2006 at 6:24 pmLay off Jason Hendler, he is as ignorant as Michael Critchon. Both should be locked in a room with Rush Limbaugh and left to languish in the equivalent of Hell.
July 20th, 2006 at 7:23 pmStandard for this bunch. Shoot the messenger and turn the clock back about 1200 years.
July 20th, 2006 at 7:37 pmShe doesn't care, she'll just invest in air conditioning makers and laugh all the way to the bank.
July 20th, 2006 at 9:12 pmMichael Crichton is a fiction writer - of course. However, he does base his work on credible science. For example, University of Alabam's John Christy (formerly with NASA) reported to Congress recently about urban heat island effects and the measurement of temperature change in California and Alabama. While he did find evidence for urban heat island effects, the hard evidence for broader effects was too weak to quantify.
Specifically, over about a century, the Imperial Valley did experience temperature rises; the fooothills and the Sierra's did not.
http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/UA%20-%20Christy%20Testimony.pdf
The net result was too weak for us to know whether or not humans are affecting the broader climate.
Looks like a mere fiction writer can be prescient to me.
July 21st, 2006 at 7:40 amThere is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
THIS LINE WAS NOT drafted by the scientists, but rather by self-interested policy wonks in the "Executive Summary" of the IPCCs TAR (2001). The actual body of report contains many caveats, and does not support this hyperbolic attribution.
In fact, this by-passing of the scientists involved evoked a storm of protest (if not resignations) against the corrupt politics involved with the UN. After all, doesn't the UN stand to gain bureaucratic power and money if Kyoto is widely implimented? Of course.
So much for "scientific authority."
July 21st, 2006 at 7:50 amRelax! We're doomed. Bike to work like me if you want...it might slow it a little, and it's good for both exerciuse & the conscience...but dont' kid yourself that enough other humans will do so to make a difference.
We're too stupid, too short sighted, and the natural response to higher temperatures is to turn up your AC...which helps create CO2 that raises the temperature further.
Maybe when about 3-4 billion of us either drown or die from drought, the remainder of us can put the brakes on. We're just like every other petri dish population...expand & expand, until a plateau, and a crash.
July 21st, 2006 at 11:26 pmIt amazes me that we can go to war on such flimsey evidence while the strong scientific evidence is for global warming in debated or ignored.
There are really only two reasons why nothing even close to solving the problem is being attempted.
First is ignorance. The majority of the people on the planet are totally clueless when it comes to science. If you don't understand calculus, statisics or the scientific method
you should really just shut up.
The second reason is erroneous beliefs. People just go into denial when reality conflicts with their belief systems.
Here in the United States the religous nut balls, many of them scientists, just don't believe that god will let all this bad stuff happen to us.
Scientist publish papers! We can see which scientists are belief driven rather than evidence driven by their published papers. Scientist need to identify publicly those scientist who for decades denied global warming was even happining. Just because these particular scientist have recently changed their tune that's no reason to accept their research which now says it's a natural cycle.
Another belief is in the Organize & Educate philosophy of social change. The Serria Club has been doing this for the last hundred years, proud of it and will raise funds to do it for a hundred more. This strategy has worked in winning local battles but it's too slow to win the global struggle.
A real solution is rather simple. Have the UN tax every barrel of oil produced. How much? Nobody knows. Start of with a 5$USD and increase it every month by another $5 until we reduce the green house gases by 60%. No wimpy polictially correct solution is going to suceed.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:30 pmRe Jason Hendler's rants above:
As a scientist myself, what strikes me as odd is that Jason keeps stating that,
"You LOSE supporters when you OVERSTATE man’s impact on the environment" (e.g. #78).
Who is "You" in this assertion?
The public (unlikely)? The environmentalists concerned about global warming? Or does Jason mean the scientists themselves? If he means the scientists, this shows a complete misunderstanding about how science works. Jason?
A few comments.
(1) I teach physics and astronomy. Students sometimes ask, "Well, have you scientists considered X" where X is either (a) something that is well-known, or (b) something that is flatly absurd. Now, this is a good thing, no doubt about it - we like to encourage independent thinking - but you have to do your homework. The obvious questions have all been asked long ago. It takes years to get to the level of sophistication and understanding where you really start asking questions that haven't been addressed already, and are ready to contribute to the scientific enterprise. Reading ANYTHING at the pop level (eg Crichton) and thinking that makes you an expert is like, oh, reading Hawking's books and thinking you can suddenly go mano-a-mano with top cosmologists. It's unfortunate that this makes science come across as elitist, but that's the way it goes, and it's no different for other professions (doctors, lawyers, etc). If you want to see actual research, go check out the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, where scientists publish peer-reviewed literature on GW (among other things).
(2) Crichton's notions (and here I am speaking as a non-expert, but one who has gone to many scientific talks on GW) about heat from asphalt etc in dense urban settings falls into category (a) above. Scientists are quite aware of the phenomenon and it's not exactly news. His idea that this fully accounts for the observed warming falls into category (b).
(3) Re #110: Past climate change, past extinctions, etc: This is not news, Jason. You think that people who have spent 6-8 years of their lives post-bacc just to get the PhD and be baby scientists - not to mention the time it takes to be an expert - don't know this stuff? Come on. These are specious arguments. You are making the classic logical error of inverting the syllogism, related to the error of negative premises, used all the time to confuse people in politics. Learn some logic.
(4) Jason may or may not be in this camp, but the anthropogenic warming deniers show a deep-rooted, FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of how science works and what motivates scientists. Unlike politics, IN SCIENCE THE TRUTH EVENTUALLY COMES OUT, and scientists are motivated by uncovering the truth. This is what gives us the respect of our peers (and gives some scientists very big egos). It is a fundamentally different mindset from, say, policy debate. If any scientist thought he/she had discovered some huge mistake and that showed anthropogenic warming wasn't real, you can be SURE that they would publish in a heartbeat, because they would be very famous for uncovering some new, big, important truth, and the scientific community would glom onto it. That hasn't happened. You may have a few fringe players here and there in the literature, mostly crackpots and old stubborn codgers, but that's it. Their science is junk, and so the other scientists justifiably ignore it.
Jason, try learning a bit more about the subject, why don't you? There is an absolutely ENORMOUS literature on the subject by actual scientists, with lots and lots of fancy plots with as much statistical analysis as you care to digest.
Peter Williams
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:11 amArgh. Sorry for my own rant. Some things really get me pissed off.
I wanted to add:
I don't know what sort of "regression analysis" Crichton did on his data, but (1) that by itself doesn't mean squat about whether his ideas have any validity (2) basic linear regression (if that's what he did) is a ridiculously basic skill and doesn't show any particular mastery of statistics, frankly.
I read Jurrasic Park in 1993 and I remember distinctly thinking to myself that Crichton didn't know jack about statistics. He's got some plot in there of a bell curve with data on a bar chart lining right up with the curve.
Even a two-bit scientst knows that NEVER happens. All data has noise in it, and the noise itself follows statistics. Typically the bar heights in a bell curve from real data have a variation on the order of sqrt(N) where N is the number of samples in a particular bin (ie bar).
This is so basic that any grad student in the hard sciences who made a plot of hypothetical data that looked like Crichton's should be embarrassed.
He's a fantastic science fiction writer. Absolutely fantastic. But he ain't no friggin scientist, ok?
Peter Williams
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:23 am[...] Actually, thousands of scientists have agreed that global warming is real, humans are responsible for much of it and, unless steps are taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there will be extremely serious consequences. [...]
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:31 amAnd for an encore, Peggy Noonan's next editorial in the WSJ will:
(1) Berate scientists for lack of consensus on whether smoking causes lung cancer (hey, there are probably a few scientists on Phillip Morris's payroll who are on the other side of the "controversy").
(2) Obliquely suggest (a la "global cooling" canard) that smoking might even be healthful, as some people believed long ago, nevermind that this has long since been discredited.
(3) Simultaneously, she will blame scientists for the poor track record in curing lung cancer caused by smoking and for not being able to offer anything better than, well, telling us to stop smoking. Even though, ah, she's not conviced that smoking actually causes lung cancer......
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:07 pm[...] Actually, thousands of scientists have agreed that global warming is real, humans are responsible for much of it and, unless steps are taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there will be extremely serious consequences. [...]
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:09 pmI write FICTION. Jason please never buy another of my works. You are a moron.
August 7th, 2006 at 10:40 amMethane Hydrate trapped at the seabed contains order 3000 times the amount of methane in the atmosphere. Furhter, it is now estimated that below the hydrate layer, an equal amount of methane is likely trapped.
Methane is 20 times more potent than CO2 on a per molecule basis. That is in part because there is so much more CO2 in the atmosphere that it has already saturated the absorption bands, and its influence is in the wings. Further, that number of 20 depends on the time scale because methane does not remain in the atmosphere as long, and the number 20 is based on an average effect over the CO2 lifetime, about a century. On decade time scale, methane is even more potent.
As far as how significant, there is geologic evidence that in the past, methane hydrates decomposed and changed the atmosphere, and shifted climate. The problem is that if one looks at single bubbles from the hydrate, it would never make it to the atmosphere. never. Just dissolve and be eaten by bugs. So scientists discounted the evidence and theory that hydrates can change the atmosphere. And if the evidence is being discounted, there is no funding, and no one is looking to find out if it is / will happen
The study showed that the mistake is assuming it arises in single bubbles, rather than catastrophic releases (blow outs). It explains why the evidence cannot be discounted by arguing the methane dissolves. It doesn't have to. it might be released explosively. And we need to look and see if it is happening.
Particularly, if warmer oceans are caused by humans, there would be a potential for a horrible positive feedback cycle.
December 10th, 2006 at 1:47 pmHi! Very nice site! Thanks you very much! TY6sBa8KbXzgFa
January 12th, 2007 at 1:25 amhttp://pkvgmovv.com
February 1st, 2007 at 1:20 pmhaha
February 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm