LEAKED MEMO: Coal Industry Coordinating Propaganda Blitz Attacking Global Warming Science
LEAKED MEMO: Coal Industry Coordinating Propaganda Blitz Attacking Global Warming Science
A secret memo by the coal industry details a coordinated campaign to spread misinformation about global warming. The memo expresses fear that if the government addresses climate change — through a carbon tax or regulating greenhouse gasses — it will cut into their profits.
Their solution: “support the scientific community that is willing to stand up against the alarmists.” (The memo also refers to people who believe in global warming science as those “whose true motivation is to stop growth, develop renewable resources [and] discontinue the use of fossil fuels, especially coal.”)
But the coal-based utility leading the campaign ran up against a problem: there is no scientific community who agrees with them. The memo acknowledges almost everyone who disputes global warming science have no “involvement in climatology.” So they’ve decided to lavish funding on one climatologist who will do their bidding: Pat Michaels.
The memo describes how the coal-based utility contributed “$100,000 to Dr. Michaels this year.” It also “contacted all the [utilities] in the United States” asking for contributions to Michaels’ research and “obtained additional contributions.” Here are a few highlights from Michaels’ career:
– In 2003, Michaels famously “proved” that global warming was mostly hype by mixing up degrees and radians.
– In 2004, Michaels told Business Week, “We know how much the planet is going to warm. It is a small amount, and we can’t do anything about it.”
– This year, Michaels completely misrepresented a study by Curt Davis to falsely claim that Antartica has been gaining ice in recent years.
In 2003, A Harvard scientist told the Senate Republican Policy Committee that Michaels has “published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science.”
Funding Michaels is part of a larger propaganda campaign, involving several industries, described in the memo. Other activities include bankrolling a movie that attacks An Inconvenient Truth, deceptive advertisements by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and aggressive lobbying. Corporations meet regularly with Michaels and CEI to discuss strategy.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
They better not do that.
July 27th, 2006 at 6:55 pmAnd this surprises who?
July 27th, 2006 at 6:58 pmAs I note over at Angrybear, this may explain why Andrew Sullivan had to see a movie to finally understand the science behind Global Warming.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:02 pm[...] Their solution: “support the scientific community that is willing to stand up against the alarmists.†(The memo also refers to people who believe in global warming science as those “whose true motivation is to stop growth, develop renewable resources [and] discontinue the use of fossil fuels, especially coal.â€) Read the rest here: Think Progress » LEAKED MEMO: Coal Industry Coordinating Propaganda Blitz Attacking Global Warming Science [...]
July 27th, 2006 at 7:03 pmWe get all this type of information here and on other web sites, but when the mainstream media (tv, radio, papers) don’t report this, people remain ignorant.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:09 pmOne of the scientists (NYT op ed today) whose name and paper has been used by these propagandists has denounced them as having taken an old report and reported portions of it out of context, yet, they continue to associate him with their denial of global warming.
The lies are out there and it seems the mainstream media are so devoted to their silly news, irrelevant news, and sensationsational news reports, they just don’t challenge the sources and do any investigating.
I blame the public for not seeking information and I blame the media for not doing their job.
I am anticipating the arrival of the “there is no global warming” crew at any moment – if they haven’t already arrived …
To the members of this crowd – please address the following facts that were taken from a BBC News article regarding the work of the European Project for Ice Coning in Antartica ( EPICA )
The EPICA scientists ( European Project for Ice Coning in Antarctica ) stated that:
“Experiments conducted on Antartic ice cores indicate carbon dioxide is at its highest level during the past 650,000 years …â€
In addition,
†CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, … and methane is 130% higher than at any time;
And finally,
“The rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years.â€
“BBC News” “CO2 Highest for 650,000 Years”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm
The article and the link are provided above.
You will note that Al Gore is not mentioned in the article – not as an author of the article, nor as the subject of the article. So do not waste time whining about Al Gore.
Please enlighten us with a scientific explanation as to how a CO2 level that is 30% higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years coupled with a rate of growth that is 200 times faster than any time in the past 650,000 years is not a contributor to global warming.
Thank you.
Professor James White, a geology professor at the University of Colorado – Kernan’s undergraduate alma mater – says:
“CO2 and climate are like two people handcuffed to each other. Where one goes – the other must follow. Our current CO2 levels appear to be far out of balance when viewed through these results, reinforcing the idea that we have significant modern warming to go.â€
July 27th, 2006 at 7:17 pmso for a mere 100,000.00 (at least per year) “Dr.” Michaels is willing to sell his soul.
That doesn’t bode well for the rest of us trying to do the right thing during our brief time on this earth.
How does he sleep at night?
July 27th, 2006 at 7:30 pmWhat will they do with their profits when they kill the planet and every living thing on it?
July 27th, 2006 at 7:36 pmMother nature will take care of all the propaganda. Bush can say anything he wants it will still be weather changers never heard of before. Now you can believe Bush and die or start making some changes and live. It’s that simple. I know Americans believe the President as he says everything is going good and Iraq is peacefull, now wars and world peace as well as Americans are better off today then they were 5 years ago. Yes Americans smile and say he’s the President and he wouldn’t lie. Wake up the world knows he’s a liar and tell him so. Connie Rice is playing the piano for world peace what does that tell you. Boy do we really need a real Secretary of State not the girlfriend of the President.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:37 pmJackie — Don’t blame all Americans for Bush. I don’t know a single soul that likes Bush or what he’s done to this country (and the world).
July 27th, 2006 at 7:41 pmAntarctica’s ice is 9000 feet thick towards the middle of the continent. The present day ice core samples are limited by how far down the sample can be taken. As technology improves, the core samples can taken from further and further back in climate history. The physical evidence is going to continue to be very interesting.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:44 pm#9
With all due respect, Jackie, the first time Bush ran for president – most people who voted – voted for Gore. Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000.
And at this point, many of those who voted for him in 2004 are regretting their vote.
So it is not at all accurate to paint all Americans with the same brush.
Particularly when it comes to Bush and his administration.
There has always been a good 50% or so that did not believe much of what he said. Probably a good bit north of 50% nowadays.
That said – you are right. There is still some more “waking up” to do.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:47 pmI blame 75% of the population for Bush, us 25% who voted otherwise are mostly here Jackie.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:49 pmI come from a corporate legal department background. I was always amazed at the amount of hypocritical thinking and gamesmanship involved. We used cadmium at a number of plants. We spent a large amount of money to lobbby against controls. One day, it was discovered that a new plant had a defective HVAC system. Cadmium was being drawn into the executive offices. Wow! What a bunch of scared weenies. We spent a lot to set up a medical testing program. Our CEO complained that the government should have set up regulations better controlling or eliminating the use of cadmium. I was amazed. My saftety team had recommended eliminating the Cadmium based upon the best science available. They had been shot down. The government had failed to regulate it in large part to the inummerable road blocks we (industry) had errected along the way.
Climate change is no different. There is the irrational, (we can not find climatologists to support our position – maybe because their is a consensus?), the ad hominen (all these people are just loonies that just want to set back growth) and shortsighted self interest. What else is new? When will we learn that corporations should not be treated as the equal of living beings? It is one thing for an executive to put his money into protecting a view friendly to his economic interest. It is another thing to treat corporations (and industries) with their immense financial resources and ammorality the same as a person.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:57 pm#13
Truth, I agree with you – but with one adjustment.
I blame 75% of the conventional media.
Only 53% of the population voted for G.W. in 2004.
Combining your point with Jackie’s point and some of the others – there is still a lot of “waking up” to do regarding the issue of global warming.
And I do not have high hopes for the conventional media to present the issue in a “fair and balanced” way.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:59 pmSurely they can afford more than $100k?
Otherwise, those behind the so-called “hoax” could just buy him off, or should.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:00 pmIf this propaganda bliss is anything like their last one:
“They call it pollution; we call it life!”
I say bring it on. The scientific community is only going to continue to get more vocal on this. The coal industries can only continue to call people like Michaels for so long. It wasn’t that different for the cigarette companies.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:01 pmExcuse me, Truth, but the majority of voting Americans voted for Al Gore in 2000 and the evidence shows that a majority of voters in Florida went to the polls intending to vote for Al Gore. So, I think that 25% is a little low.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:01 pmThank you, JMohr, for the insight.
At least people who discredit Global Warming as a natural phenomenom are at the very least least admitting it’s happening.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:04 pmI wonder how Jon Caldara at the Independence Institue in CO is involved……
July 27th, 2006 at 8:05 pmThere can be no doubt that the media played a huge role in W’s winning 2004. That, and the rigged voting in Ohio and a few other places.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:05 pmAs for 2000, W did not win the popular vote, but he won enough because of media favor that it was easily stolen by the supreme court.
Those are just the facts and we will pay for those errors for the rest of our lives.
Is anyone else sickened that there’s a good chance that, every time we pay our electricity bill, we’re sending money to Dr. Michales and his ilk? I mean, these are PUBLIC utilities doing this, right? The guys we buy our power from?
I need to take a shower, I feel gross.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:09 pmThis is the same disinformation campaign the tabacco industry used to confuse people regarding the health risks associated with smoking.
Read about Nancy, Al Gore’s sister, in his book ….
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:11 pm- Upton Sinclair
Mateo,
I don’t know if this is any consolation, but the amount of research funding expended by the federal gov’t (yes, OUR federal government – I know it’s hard to believe with W behind the wheel) far outweighs the 100k Michaels is getting. NASA, NOAA, NSF – the research expenditures on climate change probably exceeds several million dollars. Those dollars aren’t going to climate skeptics, let me assure you.
Incidentally, Michaels is not even a regular faculty member at UVa. He’s a research professor, which likely means he’s entirely on soft money (not salaried). And he’s probably not tenured. He must have someone looking out for him, because it’s surprising he’s still employed there.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:13 pmSimon Cowell,
July 27th, 2006 at 8:17 pmHere’s how I break down the numbers. Roughly 50% of the population even voted. Roughly half of those voters voted for Bush. That comes out to 25% voting for Bush, and 50% not voting at all. I include the 50% of non-voters in my blame for Bush being here. Apathy is to blame as well.
I totally want to see that “Al Gore Hates America” movie. I plan on doing a lot of heckling, it should make for a good drinking game.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:34 pmKermit,
July 27th, 2006 at 8:51 pmLOL, but be prepared, at the very least, to WONDER… and be happy you haven’t invested along a coastline.
The CEO of Duke Energy, one of the largest coal electric utilities in the US, believes that global warming is real and and we have no choice but to adjust and face reality. Wonder what he thinks of all this nonsense.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:53 pmPeter Doran’s op-ed piece in today’s NYT is indeed worth a read. For those “global warming skeptics” here who have cited his work as evidence that GW is incorrect, you will need to explain yourselves.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:00 pmThe rich get richer, we get global warming.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:22 pmHow does he sleep at night?
Comment by trueblue
My guess is he sleeps on hundred dollar bills…
July 27th, 2006 at 9:36 pm“Cold Hart Facts” by Peter Doran, associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html?ex=1154145600&en=d6eb1ef8779a1da0&ei=5087
July 27th, 2006 at 9:45 pmThe money quote from the link in #32: Doran: “Our results have been misused as “evidence†against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear†and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.â€
July 27th, 2006 at 9:47 pmWhy can’t these slime balls see. it’s gonna hurt ‘em to?
July 27th, 2006 at 10:20 pmas the ecology turns into a hot box no 1’s getting out….
maybe it takes eveyone to refuse to buy enegy from ‘em?
there’s a growing number of energy utilitys that offer energy that’s made
by wind, wave , and sun.
if that won’t work we’l have to storm the bastile!
little john,
They don’t care. They’ll just buy a bigger air conditioner, stronger sunscreen, and build their houses at higher elevation. They don’t see themselves as connected to the rest of humanity. They can’t see past the Almighty Dollar.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:25 pmi finally went to see An Inconvenient Truth… it was showing at the old downtown theater in my daughter’s college town… i threw her a birthday party for her 21st, but stipulated that she had to see that movie with me…
no regrets, either of us… she said it was really good…
i was on the verge of tears most of the time…
anyone who is not a believer of global warming science is a denial-ist, and surely hasn’t seen that movie…
time for jon!
July 27th, 2006 at 10:56 pmHow do you like that part about plate techtonics? Pretty dim, eh?
Plate techtonics is a process that’s so gradual, there aren’t even minor changes over the scale of millions of years. The climate is projected to change in the course of the next couple of centuries. It usually shifts to a different equilibrium rapidly but stays within the new equilibium for thousands of years.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1078688/posts
The lame table with the percentages of greenhouse gases: Do you really think we have produced as much as 0.001% of the total water on the planet? And just listing the percentage of the gases is not how you gauge the effect of those gases. They each have their own properties and would effect temperature to different degrees. Small changes in methane for instance would cause quite a bit of warming. And water vapor is in equilibrium with the oceans. It has a sink. But when temps go up, it goes up.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:04 pm#25
Truth – fair enough. Anyone too pathetic to vote ( against Bush ) in the ‘04 election deserves a lot of the blame. Good point.
#28
Good to know this about the Duke Energy guy.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:09 pmglobal warming? Huh? No such thing. It is one of the coldest summers ever.
I’ve been wearing my winter coat for a month now, and it’s July.
My furnace has kicked in ten times in two weeks.
This summer heat is just a pigment of your imagination.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:54 pmAdd Car+Driver to your list of Global Warming nay-sayers. In the Sept. 2006 issue, Patrick Bedard (the often-mocked tester of all vehicles hybrid and electric and an otherwise fine automotive engineer and former racer) comes forth with a column “An inconvenient truth: SOS from Al Gore”.
Sez Bedard:
Bedard concludes: “In deciding that it really couldn’t reduce water vapor, Kyoto really decided that it couldn’t reduce global warning (sic). But that’s an inconvenient truth that wouldn’t make much of a movie.”
Yes, he wrote “GLOBAL WARNING”!!! Was this a slip? or a typo? I think not.
(Article is NOT on-line yet, as I just got my copy in the mail today.)
If you go to the Car+Driver website, they have all sorts of ads for GM plastered on every page. Usually it’s the Ayn Rander Brock Yates (he of the Cannanball Run fame) who blasts every mention of fuel efficiency with bad-ass talk of muscle car power and denial of Peak Oil. I guess Bedard and the rest at Hogback Road realize who butters their bread. Drop $4 and buy the Sept. 2006 issue or read Bedard’s rant at the library. Then skewer him by writing to editors@caranddriver.com. You can blog about it at their blog, too, at their community http://www.caranddriver.com/idealbb/
I’ll be trying to dissect his rant myself in a LTTE. I look forward to some of your deluge of letters in next month’s Backfires.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:57 pmIf you actually think about it, global warming could have a highly positive impact on the U.S., leading to a huge building boom and raising the value of real estate throughout the nation.
July 28th, 2006 at 12:01 amAnd I’m sure the Bush supporters who still believe there were WMDs in Iraq, and that Saddam had something to do directly with 9/11 will be first in line to believe any anti-global warming propaganda.
July 28th, 2006 at 12:02 amHi. being a recent dad with another pending and an engineer, i decided to put the time I could not sleep at night (thinking about the planet we’re leaving for our kids “AUUAUGUGHGH!!!!”) to some use…. so with a little research and some time I came up with an idea that might work to expand our electric generating capacity via solar.
It’s a little long, and has some numbers based on real data published by Sandia National Labs and Tucson Electric Power, but it outlines an approach. The biggest obstacles are likely current regulations around the deregulation of the electric industry and zoning ordinances… after that, it’s just a shift in operating models for utilities.
I’d appreciate your reading and giving some feedback at http://netguyct.blogspot.com
July 28th, 2006 at 12:07 amthanks.
if you really think about it, you understand how much better off EVERYone would be if alternative energies were utilizied bringing the inevitable market and employment opportunities… it’s a whole new industry…
July 28th, 2006 at 12:16 amonly 30 years behind schedule, but hey…
zooey – johnny depp on letterman tonight…
July 28th, 2006 at 12:18 ammmm-mmmmmmm…
Katy,
Can’t stay up that late…let me know if it’s any good. Like it won’t be….i crack myself up. :)
July 28th, 2006 at 12:20 amann – i just caught the tail end of the joke, but letterman got a good one on you tonight…
clinton only told you he was gay to keep from having to turn down your skinny ass… he’s “only gay when it comes to evil, crazy bitches”!!! (most is paraphrased)
maybe crooks and liars will have it…
July 28th, 2006 at 12:21 am#47 Ann,
You should get a boob job that matches your IQ.
They’re inversely proportional, BTW!
Split ends are HOT, on the right SLUT.
Kat/Zoo/Ladies,
July 28th, 2006 at 12:24 amDepp is cool, not hot. From a man’s point of view he’s very, well, womanly. Not that it’s a bad thing, for him… He is one of my favorite contemporary actors by damn.
happening right now, zooey…
July 28th, 2006 at 12:25 amwhat’d i say? – mmm-mmmmm… it’s good…
Sun’s been down for a while. Goodnight…all.
July 28th, 2006 at 12:25 amI think I would like to become a craftsperson when the energy runs out. A potter.
July 28th, 2006 at 12:26 amOf course, the real money will be in horses.
Depp is hot! Did you see him in this last Pirates movie?
July 28th, 2006 at 12:31 amOuch~ !!! Even when he’s trying to act like a queen, he’s hot.
Anthropogenic contribution to green house gases is less than 5% when water vapor is not ignored. Water vapor contributes over 90% of green house gases. Man contributes an insignificant amount to green house gases. That makes Al Gore, Mrs. Larry David and TP Judd (who are not climatologists and have a political bias in the debate) alarmists for their over representation of the facts of climate change. Al Gore even admitted to it.
Maybe Judd has a magical fuel that will run our power plants?
July 28th, 2006 at 12:55 amJohnny Depp will give all you horny hags a golden shower,but that would be all.
July 28th, 2006 at 1:00 amAnother case of rightwing whoredom selling their stuff. That’s the GOP way. All whores all the time. No quality of character.
Hey Whore Michaels, are you going to live forever and think to take that money with you. I think not.
July 28th, 2006 at 1:11 am[...] It’s only the energy companies who are still trying to cast a shadow of a doubt on global warming. But, rest assured, they certainly haven’t given up. [...]
July 28th, 2006 at 1:34 amI just finished reading that memo and boy, i gotta’ tell you almost everything in it has been desseminated and appears all over the right wing media organs already.
It is the worst case of disinformation this side of “WMDs in Iraq, fer sure.”
July 28th, 2006 at 1:34 amAre you better off than you were four years ago?
It’s a legitimate question again. 9/11 was five years ago.
July 28th, 2006 at 1:54 amIn the third paragraph on the first page of this memo, you’ll see a reference to “the 17,000 signatories to Dr. Arthur Robinson’s Petition Project” who rejected the validity of the Kyoto Accord.
According to Source Watch, a project of the Center for Media & Democracy, “When the Oregon Petition first circulated [in April of 1998], . . . environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including . . . Drs. Frank Burns, B.J. Honeycutt and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show ‘M*A*S*H’) . . ..”
While the petition was billed as a product of the National Academy of Sciences, the academy disowned it, stating that “this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and . . . the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy,” which show that “greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses . . ..”
The only fulltime employee of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is its founder, Arthur B. Robinson, who lives on a farm outside the tiny Oregon town of Cave Junction. None of the other listed “faculty” of the institute even lives in Oregon; the institute’s Web siteadmits that one of the “faculty,” Martin D. Kamen, doesn’t live at all–he’s deceased.
So, any document that would cite Robinson’s discredited work isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
July 28th, 2006 at 2:09 am#59: Anthropogenic contribution to green house gases is less than 5% when water vapor is not ignored…That makes Al Gore, Mrs. Larry David and TP Judd (who are not climatologists and have a political bias in the debate) alarmists for their over representation of the facts of climate change.
Exactly when did Al Gore and others mispresent this fact?
July 28th, 2006 at 2:31 am#59: Anthropogenic contribution to green house gases is less than 5% when water vapor is not ignored
Doesn’t sound like much does it? Note though that 37 degrees centigrade is the healthy temperature of the human body. A 5% increase on that brings you to within 39 degrees, running a bad fever. It’s not fatal yet, but you are within a stones throw of delerium.
Don’t let talk about 5% or a “few degrees” fool you. This is serious, and although I’m confident the Earth can cope in the long term, our civilisation will be severly disrupted if weather patterns change even a little.
July 28th, 2006 at 3:12 amMaybe Judd has a magical fuel that will run our power plants?
Comment by memphis minnie — July 28, 2006 @ 12:55 am
Here are a few ideas. Wind, Water, Solar and Wave. Local and flexi generation. Ethanol, biodiesel. Thats just for starters don’t worry, the rest of us will bail you out, the change is already underway.
July 28th, 2006 at 3:15 amtax or regulating greenhouse gasses — it will cut into their profits.
Aye, a special place in hell awaits the profiteers
July 28th, 2006 at 4:39 amAs I have posted here before, compared to the leading scientists such as James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, Tom Wigley, Ben Santer who have led the mainstream consensus about the reality of warming, Michaels is a MIDGET.
The number of papers citing his work over his entire career is smaller than the number of papers citing a single one of each of these scientists most important papers. He is a hack supported not by the state of Virginia but by soft money only, and he is happy to do the bidding of big coal.
Memphis Minnie, nice try on water, but you need on ly to think about the residency time to realize the water is not the driver on this–water turns around in the atmosphere on the time scale of days. Carbon dioxide residency time is measured in many years. You are fighting a losing battle here.
July 28th, 2006 at 7:21 amWhy don’t they just come out and say that they don’t want to spend the money to make their industry more Earth friendly. Instead they pay people to lie for them. They have plenty of money to pay for that.
July 28th, 2006 at 7:34 am#64 Excellent point, Cyra,
Profits are more important to them than our health, well-being or survival. This is one of the chief reasons that I do not favor capitalism as being the driving force behind so much of human existence. At some point, the capitalist has to decide between making lots of money but ruining peoples’ lives n the process, or doing the morally responsible thing and stop contributing to the problem. Sadly, they choose making lots of money. And they justify it to themselves by saying that if they don’t screw the rest of humanity for the big bucks, then someone else will. Nice logic. Nice and selfish. Unfortunately, our two major political parties (though the Republicans are worse about it) see nothing wrong with enabling greed at the expense of humanity’s survival. This is why we have to vote ‘em all out. Completely change Congress. If we don’t, we have no right not to expect more of the same from them. We cannot continue to allow public policy to be driven by whether or not someone can make a buck off something. Money and the accumulation of wealth and possesions should not be your goal in life. There is so much that is more important than money.
Peace to everyone. Have a good weekend.
July 28th, 2006 at 7:54 amCira, doood, I didn’t know you posted on here!
(unless there’s another Cira Brown who’s science obsessed and liberal…)
There are members of the scientific community who also think creationism, word for word, is accurate… and by “scientific community,” I mean Jehovah’s witnesses. The big oil spin machine just has better marketing. Has anybody noticed that anything involving decent amounts of scientific backing (evolution, global warming, stem cell being used for research) is vehemently opposed by the Republican community at large? Ignorance is strength… welcome to 1984.
-Yvette
July 28th, 2006 at 8:35 am#65
Babysteps, Wayne.
First get rid of the Repubs.
Then hold the Dems responsible – and let them know that if they do not address the concerns of their supporters, they will experience what Lieberman is going through now. They will have to fight tooth and nail just to stay in the game, like Lieberman nowadays.
Your comment reminds me too much of Ralph Nader’s stance in 2000.
No one can know if Nader’s help would have changed things – but it would have been nice to have whatever votes would have gone Gore’s way in 2000 with his support.
Just imagine not having the Bush administration over the last 6 years.
Dems are not perfect and sometimes they fall short of where we want them to be.
But I’ll take an occassional paper cut here and there from the Dems vs. regular switchblade attacks to the gut from the Repubs.
July 28th, 2006 at 8:37 amProfits come first. We The Peoples health be damned.
July 28th, 2006 at 8:45 amThis is the way of corporate america. The haves will have the resources to live in their bubble and others will choke to death.
Simon, Wayne,
For the most part, I agree with you both. However, don’t you agree that a major obstacle to reforming Congress is the general apathy of the American public? The fact of the matter is, most US citizens do not follow politics closely enough to develop informed opinions during elections. Many of them also do not trust the MSM (perhaps rightfully so).
To a large extent, I think the Republicans have figured out how to take advantage of this reality. Now, they may get tossed because the tide of public opinion is beginning to swing against them, but what confidence do you have that their replacements will be much better? What confidence do you have that the system doesn’t corrupt powerfully?
July 28th, 2006 at 8:54 am#15
Wrong. 70% of the voting age pop is registered to vote. 60% of registered voters turned out to vote. 51% of those voted for W. Of the voting age pop, that’s 21% of the population.
July 28th, 2006 at 9:21 amRealclimate has a post up on this memo, essentially echoing much of the same thoughts here and debunking Michaels.
Anyone else notice that we’ve been hearing a lot less from our climate skeptic trolls these days?
July 28th, 2006 at 9:28 amWhat confidence do you have that the system doesn’t corrupt powerfully?
Non whatever. The real problem you guys have is the antiquated system that leaves only two choices, and has essentially driven the country into two cynical and bitterly suspicious camps.
More recent models of democracy (anything introduced less than a 100 years ago) allow for smaller parties to get gradual footholds of power, and build up a base of support over a fairly modest period, of a decade say. The green party is a good example of this. Why is the EU more green than the US? Anywhere between 5 – 15% of several parliaments are made up of greens, and some of them are even in coalition governments. The greens exert a kind of political gravity that pulls all the other parties in that direction, because to ignore them means a gradual loss of power. In the US system, 5% of the populace have exactly zero effect on the choices of politicians.
You need to reform your electoral process, anything that allows 21% of the populace to stick it to everybody else is eventually going to lead to major social upheaval. In fact, given the “barriers to entry” for any third party, the US system is a lot more like Iran than any of the systems in use in Europe. Food for thought eh? :-)
July 28th, 2006 at 9:31 am#70
GW got 53.16% of the popular vote.
So insert “voting” in front of population – and I think you get the point that was being made to Jackie. Which is that 53.16% of the “voting” population is not a mandate and a significant percentage of the American population is not with GW. Jackie’s language seemed to imply more universal support for GW than is actually the case.
Any thoughts on global warming, Jake?
July 28th, 2006 at 9:37 amSimon,
I’d just like to say that there is a big difference between the “population” and the “voting population.”
There would be way more people voting and way more interest in politics and the democratic process if the process we have here were more democratic. When people look at the candidates, and realize that for the large majority of races there are two choices, neither of which represents them, they are turned off.
memphis minnie #53,
It only takes small changes in carbon dioxide levels and methane levels to affect global temperature. What that table says is that man has only contributed a small amount to the total of gases present in the atmosphere. It’s not like global warming alarmists are saying that all of the CO2 in the atmosphere was put here by humans, only that humans have increased the levels. And it only takes a small increase to affect temperature. That’s why that table is misleading.
Also, water vapor is in equilibrium with the oceans. The percentage of water vapor in the atmosphere will only increase with increasing temperatures, not by pumping more into the atmosphere. If there were a sudden increase in the amount of water on the planet, it would go to liquid. The percentage of vapor in the atmosphere wouldn’t increase. Get it? (Go look in a freshman chemistry book in the chapter about vapor pressure).
July 28th, 2006 at 9:56 am[...] Let’s be serious: Which group has more incentive to lie about global warming, the coal industry or environmentalists? [...]
July 28th, 2006 at 10:01 amBabysteps, Wayne.
First get rid of the Repubs.
Then hold the Dems responsible…
Comment by Simon_Cowell — July 28, 2006 @ 8:37 am
YES!
and then public financing… which means more choices…
July 28th, 2006 at 10:25 amOkay, Jake – I think we understand each other’s general points here.
Mine, in response to Jackie’s post, is that GW has no mandate. Whether you look at the voting population ( 53% in 2004 ) or the general population now ( 40% approval rating ) – there is a significant percentage who oppose GW. Jackie’s post implied otherwise.
Your point seems to be that there is a flaw in the process which creates candidates that don’t appeal to enough of the genral population. As a result, this causes a sizable difference between the actual voting population vs. the eligible voting population.
Let’s move on and leave that discussion for another day.
Going back to global warming, I’ll leave you to wrestle with Memphis Minnie … if she has a response …
July 28th, 2006 at 10:37 amI love you loons!
You start a conversation on so-called “Global Warming”, and end up talking about Johnny Depp and the “Stolen elections” of PRESIDENT Bush.
Try reeading all the posts and you will see why the rest of the country thinks you are insane.
For the record: There is NO Global Warming.
This entire debate is about one thing—money. This is trying to become the biggest transfer of wealth from rich nations to poor ones ever….all because of a lie.
The New “Ice Age” of the 1970’s never happened so you loons had to move onto something else that would be anti-capitalistic and anti-freedom.
You enviro-whacko have ostracized anyone in the science community who PROVES there is no global warming and have taken away their research funds.
YOU are the true facists and junk science promoters.
How arrogant of you to think you know what is happening based on unreliable measurements and computer models from just 20 years of research.
You even use fraud in the famous “Hockey Stick” theory by leaving out the Middle Ages to manipulate the temperature history!
Sort of like how you left out the January 1996 Blizzard that year to make the year look hotter than it actually was. (See CROSSFIRE archives for more)
Keep it up though, we love watching you nuts waste your time.
July 28th, 2006 at 10:47 amFor the record: There is NO Global Warming.
You lost me there ….
July 28th, 2006 at 10:52 amKeep it up though, we love watching you nuts waste your time.
Sounds like you are are out of step with your own president too ….
July 28th, 2006 at 10:53 amIt has taken awhile, but you finally got here – CEpan.
We’ve been expecting you.
See post 6.
While you are at it – can you address the facts cited by the EPICA scientists?
As far as the other stuff – lighten up, pal.
Let the ladies dig Johnny Depp if they want to.
And the 2000 election was controversial – as I’m sure you realize when you are not being simply partisan. Some believe the 2004 had its controversies, too ( i.e, Ohio )
So discussions re: the elections can and will pop up at any time.
Anyway – what about those stats about CO2 levels and growth being the highest in 650,000 years?
July 28th, 2006 at 11:01 amIf there is no Global Warming, then why is the ‘Right” ‘wasting’ so much effort on ‘proving’ it? The more they insist that there is no such thing, the more attention they draw to the issue. And having to pay someone to lie for them, instead of being able to present influence free data, just makes them look even more guilty. Andthey can only find ONE guy (that they paid) to make their claims. But that is not ‘nuts’, that is desperation.
July 28th, 2006 at 11:16 am#43 Netguy,
July 28th, 2006 at 11:34 amI like your plan, but I believe wind is more reliable, more efficient, less expensive and uses much less space…
The wind blows at night and on cloudy days.
It directly turns a generator producing more power than solar.
The cost comparison per VA heavily favors wind.
The blades are vertical not horizontal leaving more usable space-land.
The only downside I see for wind generation is the loud swooshing noise…
I say a wind turbine on the corners of every building over 30Ft tall.
Good luck convincing the politicians and the electric company, it is against local zoning laws in my area…
#71, #78 It didn’t take long for a troll to reply (although perhaps #78 is a sarcastic caricature of a troll instead of the real thing; it is getting harder to tell lately).
#53 Memphis Minnie, your percentages don’t mean shit. It is a scientific fact that CO2 is a major greenhouse gas, and that anthropogenic sources contribute significantly to the CO2 cycle in the atmosphere. The rise in CO2 is large, easily measured, and undisputed, except by liars and wackos. There is also no dispute that CO2 traps enough heat to significantly impact the global heat balance. Uncertainties in the projected temperature rise are due to uncertainties in countervailing effects, such as cloud cover. Even Lindzen knows this: he must invoke his hypothesized “iris” effect to argue that warming won’t be as great as predicted. Lindzen is being dishonest when he claims that anthropogenic CO2 is a small player in the greenhouse gas picture.
July 28th, 2006 at 11:36 amAs far as the other stuff – lighten up, pal.
Let the ladies dig Johnny Depp if they want to.
Comment by Simon Cowell — July 28, 2006 @ 11:01 am
why, thank you simon… not that we ladies need your blessing :-)
July 28th, 2006 at 11:55 ami think a note of the times of those postings could bring a better understanding of the departure from the main topic, though it’s obvious that they were a “heads up” shout out and not really an attempt at a discussion…
besides, it was johnny depp… mm-mmm…
Climate change and increasing CO2 levels is cyclical. Here’s the proof.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical02.jsp
As recorded in ice cores from Vostok, Antarctica, the temperature near the South Pole has varied by more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit during the last 350,000 years. There have been peaks of warmth approximately every 100,000 years.
#84
It is a scientific fact that CO2 is a major greenhouse gas…
If water vapor contributes over 90% of the green house gases then every other green house gas, including CO2, cannot be a major green house gas. Or are you ignoring water vapor #84?
July 28th, 2006 at 12:09 pm#78: I’ll provide a rebuttal to what you’ve said (well, I’ll ignore the insults), though it appears to me that you’re just a drive-by troll, uninterested in conversation.
For the record: There is NO Global Warming.
For the record: A 2004 study showed that of the 928 peer-reviewed studies on climate change published between 1993 and 2003, not ONE challenged (let alone “disproved”) the scientific notion that global warming is happening and that it is caused in part by human activities.
How arrogant of you to think you know what is happening based on unreliable measurements and computer models from just 20 years of research.
Perhaps you should take that up with the International Panel on Climate Control (IPCC), made up up 2500 of the world’s leading climate change experts, and the National Academy of Sciences, which has corroborated the IPCC’s findings. I’m sure they’ll appreciate learning your suggestions for how their research methods should be improved.
You enviro-whacko have ostracized anyone in the science community who PROVES there is no global warming and have taken away their research funds.
Can you provide one example of a scientist who has proven there is no global warming? How about an example of a scientist who has lost his/her research funding because of pressure from environmental groups?
You even use fraud in the famous “Hockey Stick†theory by leaving out the Middle Ages to manipulate the temperature history!
A 2005 NAS review of the study behind the “hockey stick” graph found that the methods used in the study were accurate and reliable, although they had some issues with how the study had been used by non-scientists.
July 28th, 2006 at 12:15 pm#85
Hi, Katy.
No, you certainly don’t need my blessing to dig anyone !
On a more serious note – I am a big fan of your posts. Keep up the good work.
Now, go back to dreaming about Johnny Depp!
I, on the other hand, sit patiently … patiently awaiting the next Jessica Alba movie … :)
See ya, Katy.
July 28th, 2006 at 12:17 pm#86: If water vapor contributes over 90% of the green house gases then every other green house gas, including CO2, cannot be a major green house gas.
What, exactly, are you arguing? Are you trying to suggest this means that global warming is not happening, or that human activities are not a significant factor? Are you seriously suggesting that the 2500 climate change experts at the IPCC are unaware of the presence of water vapor?
July 28th, 2006 at 12:18 pmIf water vapor contributes over 90% of the green house gases then every other green house gas, including CO2, cannot be a major green house gas. Or are you ignoring water vapor #84?
Comment by Hippie with a pistol
Are you ignoring the fact that the total greenhouse effect is the difference between the temperature on earth and the temperature in outer space? Do you think 10% of that difference is insignificant?
July 28th, 2006 at 12:19 pm#86: Climate change and increasing CO2 levels is cyclical.
Again, do you actually think that scientists who study climate change are unaware of long-term natural cycles of climate change? The point is that the recent trends are much more extreme than at any time in the geologic past, and that the reason for these recent changes are the result of human activities, and if we do nothing about it, this trend is likely to be even more pronounced and will have very serious consequences.
July 28th, 2006 at 12:22 pmWord to katy:
Here is what you need to do:
July 28th, 2006 at 12:25 pmGet a picture of Johnny,satisfy yourself in private,and keep your horniness to yourself.
Your immature infatuations do not belong at T.P.,and are inappropriate for a 50 year old woman.
… patiently awaiting the next Jessica Alba movie … :)
Comment by Simon Cowell — July 28, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
i’ll surely give you that one!
and thanks for the compliment and encouragement…
July 28th, 2006 at 12:26 pmsame to ya…
#86 Idiot with a pistol,
Okay, let’s play the percentages game: does a 2% change sound small to you? The current average temperature of the earth is about 300K. A measly 2% temperature rise is 6K, or about 11F. Think an 11 degree average temperature rise is “small”? Still think “2%” is small?
There is no way to understand what these percentages mean without carrying out a global heat balance. The world’s most qualified experts have done this, and have concluded unanimously that CO2 plays a major role in determining the global temperature.
And, by the way, CO2 has a much larger cross-section for IR than water vapor (I think it is something like a factor of five larger), so you can’t compare the relative impact of the two using straight percentages.
July 28th, 2006 at 12:26 pm“based on unreliable measurements and computer models from just 20 years of research.”
I’ll take “20 years of research” of scientists and climatologist over your assertion any day.
“The New “Ice Age†of the 1970’s never happened so you loons had to move onto something else that would be anti-capitalistic and anti-freedom.”
The potential “Ice Age” was being warned of because there was a threat at the time as there were bigger, denser, heavier particles being released by humans as pollution into the atmosphere that reflected the Sun’s radiation. That type of pollution has since been reigned in; therefore the ratio of heat trapping particles have increased contributing to a faster pace of Global Warming.
The bottom line is that we have and are dumping nearly countless Billions of Tons of stuff into the atmosphere and you think that has no impact on the climate.
When you claim that Climate Change is a some kind of left-wing Conspiracy it is you who truly sounds like the “loon”. Get real.
July 28th, 2006 at 12:31 pm53, sybil… and it’s not about horniness… jeez…
i’ve had that in control for decades!
but the artist that i am appreciates the beauty of all humans
blesssed by nature to appeal to any and all who can enjoy it
when it presents itself…
that and the bad-boy, devil-may-care charicature that depp portrays…
…aaahhhh, take me away!
inappropriate? ah hahahahahaha!
July 28th, 2006 at 12:35 pm[...] Some of Dr Michaels career “highlights” from Think Progress: – In 2003, Michaels famously “proved†that global warming was mostly hype by mixing up degrees and radians. [...]
July 28th, 2006 at 12:36 pmAre you ignoring the fact that the total greenhouse effect is the difference between the temperature on earth and the temperature in outer space? Do you think 10% of that difference is insignificant?
Comment by Kermit the Freedom Frog — July 28, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
No one on this board is in a position to argue the scientific evidence of global warming. No one here is intellectually capable of launching a coherent defence of gravity, electricity, relativity or even the detail of why smoking is bad for you.
We are forced for good or ill to sift through the opinions of the experts in these and other areas. The overwhelming consensus of climatologists, with the exception of a few outliers, is that humans are contributing significantly to global warming.
The outliers almost without exception have clear ties to the oil and gas lobby, and must be dismissed as tainted.
Arguing in forums has often been compared to the special olympics. The punchline being even if you win your still retarded:-) I happen to disagree with that in most cases. However, when it comes to narrow and incredibly detailed fields of study it is absolutely true. In these cases, and global warming, totally qualifies, we must look to the consensus of experts. The consensus as we all know, even the nay sayers is overwhelming.
Until the consensus shifts nothing an agenda heavy right wing nut bag has to say, is going to sway me. The primary reason you even waste the effort arguing is because of the palable political panic in the GOP. They have been on the wrong side of this discussion from day one, and they were obviously terribly, terribly wrong. They best they can do now is try to muddy the water.
July 28th, 2006 at 12:38 pmNumbers game realscientist? Explain again how a the temperature near the South Pole has varied by more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit during the last 350,000 years. There have been peaks of warmth approximately every 100,000 years. The temperature and the carbon dioxide concentrations at the south pole parallel each other. The rise and fall of temperatures gives rise to the ice age/interglacial cycle.“
July 28th, 2006 at 12:46 pmComment by Hippie with a pistol — July 28, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
You are wasting your time. Makes far more sense to discuss what energy alternatives are cheapest and good stocks to invest in. The data is IN.
July 28th, 2006 at 12:49 pmI favour solar. Anyone got any good solar power stocks to suggest?
July 28th, 2006 at 12:50 pm#86
I went to your link and bothered to look at the 3rd slide.
It shows a graph with the CO2 Concentration and the corresponding rise in temperature.
And then it goes on to say:
“Recent Warming Exceeds Temperatures of the Last Several Hundred Years”
“Since the 1900s global average temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration have increased dramatically, particularly compared to their levels in the 900 preceeding years.
The rapid rise in both surface temperature and CO2 is one of the indications that humans are responsible for some of this unusual warmth.”
Be careful with that pistol, Hippie – you wouldn’t want to shoot yourself with it.
Further, if something is significantly beyond its all time high ( see post 6 ) – it may be an indication that what was once cyclical is perhaps no longer cyclical due to the influence of factor that was not as dominant in the past.
From slide 6:
“Are Human Activities the Major Cause of Recent Warming?”
“Probably yes, but comparing climate model projections to actual temperatures shows that both humans and nature have contributed to warming in the 20th century.”
The “best” arguments against global warming ( and to be specific – human influenced global warming ) have pointed to nature.
Slide 6 probably sums the whole deal up the best – both humans and nature are contributors.
To cite your source again – ( Slide 6 )
Are Human Activities the Major Cause of Recent Warming? Probably Yes. Both humans and nature have contributed to warming in the 20th century. But we, as humans, should be able to control ourselves. We, of course, cannot control nature.
July 28th, 2006 at 12:50 pmkaty:
You need to get out more;try A DATE !
July 28th, 2006 at 12:50 pm#98: They best they can do now is try to muddy the water.
This is exactly right. Check out the posts from the so-called skeptics, both in the mainstream media and on this board. Not one cites a peer-reviewed study. Not one rebuts a peer-reviewed study. Not one rebuts the findings of the IPCC or the NAS. The goal is to confuse and obfuscate. That’s why they’re always jabbering about water vapor and making wild accusations that people who think we should reduce carbon dioxide emissions are actually communists and fascists.
July 28th, 2006 at 12:52 pm(what the hell, that post got mangled)
Numbers game? Start by explaining how a temperature near the South Pole has varied by more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit during the last 350,000 years. There have been peaks of warmth approximately every 100,000 years. The temperature and the carbon dioxide concentrations at the south pole parallel each other. The rise and fall of temperatures gives rise to the ice age/interglacial cycle.“
July 28th, 2006 at 12:54 pmmy posts are getting truncated and mangled. you’re not even getting the substance and data supporting my argument. maybe another time…
July 28th, 2006 at 12:56 pm#106: you’re not even getting the substance and data supporting my argument.
What is your argument?
July 28th, 2006 at 12:57 pm#106: you’re not even getting the substance and data supporting my argument.
What is your argument?
Comment by Jim
I think his argument is that scientists are all stupid, with one or two well-paid exceptions.
and katy, once you go green, you’ll never go back baby!
:)
July 28th, 2006 at 1:04 pmhttp://www.altenews.com/Solar%20Power%20Research%20Report.pdf
Proof positive that the corner has been turned ….. the only questions now relate to which alternates will be successful.
July 28th, 2006 at 1:05 pmLooks like Hippie with a pistol is beyond our help here.
July 28th, 2006 at 1:07 pmKermit:
As horny as katy is,I’m sure ANY color would do. :O
July 28th, 2006 at 1:20 pmmy posts are getting truncated and mangled. you’re not even getting the substance and data supporting my argument. maybe another time…
Comment by Hippie with a pistol — July 28, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
Who cares? This discussion is OVER, and those conducting it actually have a clue what they are talking about. Get the memo for goodness sake!!
The only discussion we should be bothering with is what alternates. How is everyone on distributed power, bet that scares the bejesus out of the utilities.
July 28th, 2006 at 1:23 pmLets assume these numbers ARE correct for the sake of argument. Even so, you admit that the “temperature and CO2 concentrations at the south pole parallel each other”. So…. it follows that if we humans INCREASE the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere things will heat up. Regardless of the fact that the climate can and does change by itself, humans are a force of their own now and can alter the atmosphere and climate as well. Natural variation does not disprove human induced global warming.
July 28th, 2006 at 1:25 pmYou are wasting your time. Makes far more sense to discuss what energy alternatives are cheapest and good stocks to invest in. The data is IN.
Comment by Brian Coughlan — July 28, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
HERE ! HERE ! REPEAT OFTEN
I favour solar. Anyone got any good solar power stocks to suggest?
Comment by Brian Coughlan — July 28, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
brian – i’ve heard that gore has extablished an investment fund that should be just what you’re looking for… i’ve not investigated it myself… numbers give me a headache…
July 28th, 2006 at 1:30 pmbut if you find anything interesting with that, i’d appreciate your feedback – you’re much smarter about such things and i’d take your advice into serious consideration…
#113 Good point, ReadyForChange, Hippie first argues that climate change is cyclical (duh, nobody claims otherwise), conveniently pointing out for us the historical relationship between CO2 and temperature. He then contradicts himself by claiming that CO2 has little effect. This sort of confused scattershot argumentation is a sign of desperation. They throw anything they can to see if it sticks, no matter how lame.
July 28th, 2006 at 1:43 pm#101
Two solar stocks are ESLR and STP.
You asked about “good” solar stocks. You are on your own there – at a glance ESLR is not profitable and STP has a very high Price to earnings ratio.
Both stocks appear to be very volatile. You may want to check out some “socially responsible” funds and see if they have any solar holdings. This will smooth out your risk a bit.
Or wait until the fund that Katy mentioned is available.
#111
It is about time for you to leave Katy alone.
Enough already.
July 28th, 2006 at 1:45 pmCyra Brown #83
If gay marriage doesn’t harm straight marriage then why is the left ‘wasting’ so much effort on ‘proving’ that?
Because there are only two sides to this debate, right and left. When one loses, the other automatically wins.
Hippie with a pistol #87,
Water vapor is indeed the most abundant and one of the strongest greenhouse gases. There is also more of it per molecule produced by combustion of hydrocarbons. So even if water wasn’t in equilibrium with the oceans,which it is, humans would still be contributing to increases in greenhouse gases.
#102 – solar is still not cost effective. Wind is the way to go for mass energy production. Oh, stocks? Um, solar. Higher profits.
July 28th, 2006 at 3:11 pm#117
When you referenced “#102″ in your post I think you meant to reference someone else. I didn’t mention anything about solar power in post 102 ( or at all, for that matter ).
At this point I have no opinion on solar vs. wind power, Jake.
I think you meant #101.
July 28th, 2006 at 3:23 pm#102 – solar is still not cost effective. Wind is the way to go for mass energy production.
Comment by Jake — July 28, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
I suspect this paradigm may be changing with the advent of a bunch of new technologies just coming to market.
July 28th, 2006 at 3:31 pmChina’s environmental problems are severe and getting worse. Nearly 30 years of relentless industrial expansion has fouled the country’s rivers, lakes, forests, farmland and skies.
The World Bank estimates that 16 of the world’s 20 most polluted cities are in China, and air pollution is blamed for about 400,000 premature deaths there each year.
Coal-fired power plants supply two-thirds of China’s energy and are its biggest source of air pollution. Already the world’s largest producer and consumer of coal, China on average builds a new coal- fired power plant every week.
July 28th, 2006 at 4:44 pmMy Grandfather, who was a locomotive design engineer with B. & O., salvaged a diesel-electric switcher from the yard in the early 50’s and used the engine and generator combination to heat and power his house from about October to March (in Baltimore), he used his heating system as a radiator for the engine and exhaust (water jacket), no furnace. Result – his oil bill went down and he got free electricity for about six months. As kids, we would use the renants of the switcher as a jungle gym.
July 28th, 2006 at 4:50 pmOr wait until the fund that Katy mentioned is available.
Comment by Killer Whale — July 28, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
speaking of which… where did that post go??? was #114…
July 28th, 2006 at 5:20 pmso, a suggestion about a possible al gore investment fund is against the Center for American Progress policies??? i thought this was a “forum that advances progressive ideas and policies.”
huh…
#123
Katy
You mentioned it in #115.
All that dreaming about Depp is making you lose track of your posts!
:)
KW
July 28th, 2006 at 6:31 pmRE: 118 (and the posts it references)
Regarding Water Vapor
One HUGE difference in CO2 vs H20 vapor is that H20 moves in and out of its cycle very quickly compared to CO2. Water can evaporate, condense in clouds, and fall as rain all within a day or less.
CO2 is cycled out of the atmosphere at a much slower pace (by plant growth primarily). At the same time, we are devastating world forests which account for a good chunk of the CO2 filtering mechanism. So the CO2 is allowed to build up in our atmosphere whereas water vapor doesn’t.
In order for water to build up in the same manner, we would need to increase GLOBAL temperatures so that more water would be evaporated at any given time.
Oh wait a second… doesn’t increasing CO2 mean increasing global temps? If so doesn’t that mean increasing CO2 will also increase average H2O vapor in the atmosphere? It seems that CO2 has a chain reaction effect which may speed up warming more and more.
July 28th, 2006 at 6:44 pmIt is about time for you to leave Katy alone.
Enough already.
Comment by Killer Whale
Good man…er, whale. :)
July 28th, 2006 at 8:56 pmKaty You mentioned it in #115.
All that dreaming about Depp is making you lose track of your posts!
:) KW
Comment by Killer_Whale — July 28, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
well, color me blushing! …but, but, i swear it was gone…
can’t blame my daydreaming though… :-)
and, yes, thanks for that chivalry earlier… no real need with
July 28th, 2006 at 9:36 pmthat one though – sybil is negligible…
yes, thanks for that chivalry earlier… no real need with
that one though – sybil is negligible…
Comment by katy
katy! Accept the chivalry! You deserve it!
We know you can handle yourself — just accept the kindness. :-)
July 28th, 2006 at 9:55 pmJust sayin’
katy! Accept the chivalry! You deserve it!
We know you can handle yourself — just accept the kindness. :-)
Just sayin’
Comment by Zooey — July 28, 2006 @ 9:55 pm
well, i thought i did! and thank you too!
July 28th, 2006 at 11:27 pmalways have room for the kindness… never too much!
# 129. katy;
July 29th, 2006 at 2:17 amYea,sure,and this negligible one just embarrassed you.
If you can’t keep your horny to yourself,try My Space . com.,or maybe a soft core site.
Either way,I for one,would appreciate you getting your nut somewhere else.
Isn’t there a professional association of climatologists? It seems to me that if they denounced Michaels soundly and pointed to his obvious mistakes overy the years that there would be mainstream news of it. Sure, it would be for one day but that is better then nothing at this point.
July 29th, 2006 at 9:26 am#131: Isn’t there a professional association of climatologists?
Sort of. There’s the International Panel on Climate Change, a group of 2500 leading scientists from around the world who have been commissioned to study the extent and causes of global climate change. And there’s the National Academy of Sciences, which is the U.S.’s professional association for scientists in general.
It seems to me that if they denounced Michaels soundly and pointed to his obvious mistakes overy the years that there would be mainstream news of it.
The IPCC rarely gets into these petty disputes. It’s not part of their job. They study climate change and prepare reports for policymakers every couple of years.
July 29th, 2006 at 2:28 pm[...] Think Progress » LEAKED MEMO: Coal Industry Coordinating Propaganda Blitz Attacking Global Warming Science Published in: Whatever | on July 29th, 2006 | [...]
July 31st, 2006 at 5:39 am[...] LEAKED MEMO: Coal Industry Coordinating Propaganda Blitz Attacking …Think Progress, DC - Jul 27, 2006… utilities ran up against a problem: their is no scientific community who agrees with them. The memo acknowledges most people who dispute global warming have no … [...]
July 31st, 2006 at 9:59 am