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.

well, i thought i did! and thank you too!
always have room for the kindness… never too much!

katy! Accept the chivalry! You deserve it!

We know you can handle yourself — just accept the kindness. :-)
Just sayin’

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
that one though – sybil is negligible…

Good man…er, whale. :)

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.

Katy

You mentioned it in #115.

All that dreaming about Depp is making you lose track of your posts!

:)

KW

speaking of which… where did that post go??? was #114…
so, 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…

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.

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.

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.

If there is no Global Warming, then why is the ‘Right” ‘wasting’ so much effort on ‘proving’ it?

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,

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?

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.

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.

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…
but 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…