Link Between Global Warming And Hurricane Intensity Remains Strong
Link Between Global Warming And Hurricane Intensity Remains Strong
A study published in the journal Science questioning the link between increased hurricane strength and global warming was quickly seized upon by Matt Drudge and the right-wing blogosphere as evidence the dangers of global warming are over-hyped.
Time for a reality check. The author of the study, Christopher Landsea, does “not dispute global warming was occurring or that it could influence hurricanes.” Rather, Landsea argues that pre-1990 data on hurricane strength is unreliable, so it can’t be used to construct multi-decade trends in hurricane strength. These findings are preliminary and the author of the major study Landsea criticizes, M.I.T. scientist Kerry Emanuel, disputes them.
But ultimately, it doesn’t matter much whether Landsea is right or not about hurricane intensity data. Other major studies have established the link between global warming and hurricane strength by relying on different data. Bill Chameides, Chief Scientist at Environmental Defense, elaborates on this point, using a study that relies on ocean temperature:
[Landsea's study] from a public policy perspective has been made largely moot by the work of Trenberth and Shea, published in June 2006 in Geophysical Research Letters. They showed that 50 percent of the extremely warm temperatures of the North Atlantic Ocean in the summer of 2005 that spawned the record-breaking 2005 hurricane season was caused by global warming. [Release, 7/31/06]
The global warming deniers should put the cork back in their champagne.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
150 Responses to “Link Between Global Warming And Hurricane Intensity Remains Strong”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Told you so. Just thought I'd get that in good and early:-)
August 1st, 2006 at 3:09 pmI take solace in the fact that Global Warming Deniers will fry just like the rest of us.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:13 pmIf, when the time comes for ignition of their sorry @sses, they don't yet recognize what hit 'em, good. Live in ignorance, die in ignorance.
anyone watch the 60 minutes special on how BUSHCO censors government sceintists and dictates what they can and can not say ???
August 1st, 2006 at 3:15 pmA study published in the journal Science questioning the link between increased hurricane strength and global warming was quickly seized upon by Matt Drudge and the right-wing blogosphere as evidence the dangers of global warming are over-hyped.
Of course it was. The right wing meme on GW, is the same as on terrorism. If there is not absolute certainty and even a single dissenting voice, it isn't proven.
If there is even one rock throwing 12 year old, the terrorist threat must crushed with maxium force.
The position on WMD is of the course the inverse, if there is even the teeny, weeniest chance WMD exist (even if we made up the evidence) then the potential enemy must be crushed with all possible force, and damn the civilian casualties.
The cognitive dissonance is quite alarming.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:16 pmwait, wait, wait one minute! Where is Saixon to defute this?
August 1st, 2006 at 3:19 pmor refute this?
August 1st, 2006 at 3:19 pmdefute
Dude .... that is NOT a word. I'm just sayin' ..... :-)
August 1st, 2006 at 3:20 pmI'll fill in: "Global warming is a myth. End of discussion."
August 1st, 2006 at 3:21 pmIGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
The motto for Bush and his theocrat wingnut followers
August 1st, 2006 at 3:25 pm#8 I’ll fill in: “Global warming is a myth. End of discussion.â€
Comment by Kermit the Freedom Frog — August 1, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
Nah, you're kidding us, you're not Saucisson. Your post has less than 2000 words and doesn't directs to his blog...
August 1st, 2006 at 3:26 pm"Landsea"? Oh the irony of it all!
August 1st, 2006 at 3:28 pmMan,
Last week I went to Northern Idaho for a friend's wedding. It was hot (90's) and their house didn't have AC.
I asked him why they didn't have AC in their home, and he said that it never gets past 80 in the summer in Northern Idaho. He said, that they have never experienced this kind of heat before, and that's why a lot of homes don't have A.C.
We had to drink the devils brew (beer) to stay cool
August 1st, 2006 at 3:30 pmdefute
Dude …. that is NOT a word. I’m just sayin’ ….. :-)
Comment by Brian Coughlan
Yes, I noticed that after I sent the post. Was Bushisque, no?
August 1st, 2006 at 3:30 pmHow about this: Global warming is a myth and if it isn't we'll just clone some dinosaurs and breed super-intelligent apes to figure out a solution.
In any case, these hurricanes are really caused by dreadlock-wearing hippie eco-terrorists bent on destroying capitalism. Once we move them to detention centers, the problem will go away.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:32 pmAlso: The weatherman was wrong yesterday so I'm not going to trust any climate scientist.
And CO2 is our friend. The CEI demands more CO2, not less!
August 1st, 2006 at 3:34 pmChannelling Jason M. Hendler
As can be clearly seen in the Michael Crichton book, global warming is a myth and the numbers of hurricane are clearly on another cycle caused by the movement of the Gulf stream. Why the New England Hurricane of 1938 is due to repeat any time now. Move away from Long Island, and Nantucket and Rhode Island, any liberal east coaster who lives in this area will only receive their just deserts.
Going back to being me, I really hope we don't have serious hurricanes but I won't be surprised.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:39 pmIt's all because of sunspots!
August 1st, 2006 at 3:41 pmGW exists (somewhat), but puny humans can't do anything!
August 1st, 2006 at 3:43 pmLooks like the global warming debate really IS over. Can we move on to the next step. TP needs to start posting stories of people actually trying to do something, and of people blocking any progress.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:43 pm#18-E.S.- 'Snicker'. :)
August 1st, 2006 at 3:47 pmMy favorite is the logic on the republican side, that all liberals are pot smoking hippies, but the whole global warming thing is a myth cooked up by a vast international left wing cabal to destroy America.
Does anyone see the problem here?
August 1st, 2006 at 3:51 pm#20 Thanks, Sun ;)
August 1st, 2006 at 3:52 pmYikes, the correct link is http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Cyrah
August 1st, 2006 at 3:53 pmIt's no surprise NOAA is running scared for funding so it's likewise no surprise one of their adminstrators comes out with research to support the Bush regime's policies.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:54 pmHeadlines under article on Drudge arguing against global warming
Severe Rains Cause Flooding in Ohio...
Death toll in California heat wave 116...
UPDATE: California heat kills 25,000 cattle...
Human death count: 132... Developing...
Heatwave hits vegetable supplies....
Hmmm
August 1st, 2006 at 3:57 pmI just want to comment here that with regard to hurricanes, the picture is still relatively new and emerging. There's much we still don't understand.
Clearly Drudge is distorting things (who still reads him, anyway?) and should be corrected. But we have to be careful when we try to link hurricane intensity or frequency to global warming.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:06 pmI take solace in the fact that Global Warming Deniers will fry just like the rest of us.
If, when the time comes for ignition of their sorry @sses, they don’t yet recognize what hit ‘em, good. Live in ignorance, die in ignorance.
Comment by Solitaire — August 1, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
Shouldn't you be walking around downtown with a sign, "THE END IS NEAR!" It's amazing the cult like characteristics of your following.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:13 pmanyone watch the 60 minutes special on how BUSHCO censors government sceintists and dictates what they can and can not say ???
Comment by Jebus loves me — August 1, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
Oh my God! A hit piece on Bush from 60 Minutes?!?! What are the odds?
August 1st, 2006 at 4:14 pmIt’s amazing the cult like characteristics of your following.
Comment by PointMan12
You think science is a cult? By any chance do you live in Kansas?
August 1st, 2006 at 4:19 pmI’ll fill in: “Global warming is a myth. End of discussion.â€
Comment by Kermit the Freedom Frog — August 1, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
I can't say as I blame you for making the case for the existence of global warming rather than the cause. It's such and easier argument to make isn't it? Even though most of the opposition's point a view differing from you Chicken Little types is not that there is global warming, just that the evidence that man has caused it is inconclusive.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:19 pmPointMan,
why don't you visit the beautiful San Fernando Valley in California, then we will talk about whether Global Warming is man made or not.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:24 pmYou think science is a cult? By any chance do you live in Kansas?
Comment by dlet — August 1, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
I think that scientists who pander to you left wing nuts and thus millions of dollars of funding and notoriety by stating that man is the cause of global warming rather than what real scientists would state such as man may likely be the cause of global warming, based on the sample size of years with known accurate data, is not science in any way. With the exception of political science I suppose.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:25 pm#30 How about I make it very very simple for you: We simply cannot power the civilization we want with atmospheric combustion.
If you want to debate the cause, find us a peer-reviewed paper showing that the increase in CO2 levels has no effect on the heat properties of the atmosphere.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:25 pmPointMan,
why don’t you visit the beautiful San Fernando Valley in California, then we will talk about whether Global Warming is man made or not.
Comment by Krazny — August 1, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
Well I guess that settles everything now, doesn't it? I have certainly been put in may place. The absolute proof that man caused global warming is today's temperature in "beautiful San Fernando Valley." You must be one of those scientists I've been hearing so much from.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:26 pm#32 You mean those millionaire scientists? The ones living large on funding from liberals? The notoriety of such widely known names as... ummmm... errrr... can you help us out and name any climate scientist with the wealth and notoriety of, say Michael Chriton?
August 1st, 2006 at 4:28 pmIt is unlikely that anyone in this forum is in a position to argue the scientific evidence of global warming. In fact I'd hazard most of us couldn't launch 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, 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, should sway anyone. The primary reason they 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 mistaken.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:29 pmSo we have a leftist press and leftist scientists. Thanks for informing me P-Man. I bet they left all their bunsen burners on to warm the planet just to prove the righty scientists wrong. So the data they have from the ice sheets that go back thousands of years that show CO2 levels don't go back far enough for you. Gothya. Bye-bye.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:30 pmI disagree. I think its VERY easy to link the two. Its quite simple.
Warmer ocean surface temperatures = stronger hurricanes and more of them.
Not much mystery or disagreement there. So if global warming is real (which it is) and if global warming is heating up the oceans as well (which it is) then it follows that hurricane strength and frequency will both be affected by global warming.
Now, the real test is to sit back and watch the hurricane seasons over the next few years. If we see a continuous increase in frequency and intensity then we know the hypothesis was correct.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:31 pmIf you want to debate the cause, find us a peer-reviewed paper showing that the increase in CO2 levels has no effect on the heat properties of the atmosphere.
Comment by Kermit the Freedom Frog — August 1, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
Seeing how any scientist brave enough to publish such an article would be burned at the proverbial stake quicker than Salmon Rushdie at an Al Qaeda Def Jam concert I don't think it's worth looking for. The political heat is turned way too high right now to rely on almost any scientist to crawl out from under a rock and say what he really thinks.
Sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct one. We've been warming up for a very long time and we are looking at 1/10,000 of the data we need to make an informed conclusion.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:32 pm#30-P.M.12- The opposition has a differing point of view? And, if the 'evidence' that man has caused GW is 'inconclusive', as you say, then I guess we DID make the case for 'cause'. Otherwise there would be nothing for the 'nay-sayers' to say 'nay' about. Simpleton.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:33 pmI was wondering where Salmon Rushdie was. He must be upstream spawning.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:34 pmYou better slow down on the talking points there P-man, you have already used up the chicken little slur, and the scientests are funded by liberals talking point. Which one is next? Is it the sun is getting warmer? or the one about how there is no way man can affect the planet? I always get the ordered confused.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:35 pmSo we have a leftist press and leftist scientists. Thanks for informing me P-Man. I bet they left all their bunsen burners on to warm the planet just to prove the righty scientists wrong. So the data they have from the ice sheets that go back thousands of years that show CO2 levels don’t go back far enough for you. Gothya. Bye-bye.
Comment by dlet — August 1, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
We certainly have a leftist press but it is their natural alarmist tendencies that are helping to blow this current cause de jour out of proportion. The scientists are most likely apolitical in nature but they know an act of career suicide when they see one. They're not stupid you know.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:36 pmI can step in here and debate the science. Its very simple.
FACT: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, meaning it allows UV radiation from the sun to filter through the atmosphere but will trap Infrared energy radiated by the Earth.
FACT: the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing and has been for at least the last 50 years. This can be tied DIRECTLY to human pollution - indeed there is no other plausible source for this increase.
Taking these two facts in accord, one would expect the result of increased CO2 content in the atmosphere to be increased global temperatures.
So... what have we been seeing happening lately? Global temperatures HAVE risen.
Can anything else account for the warming of Planet Earth? Increase in sun activity? Nope. That doesn't leave room for much else. To me this is proof positive that the "theory" of Global Warming has been proven.
I will go on to make further predictions based on this "theory". Global temperatures will continue to increase. Every year you will see new records beating the last few years. You may see one or two years where temperatures appear to be backing down but they will rebound the next year only to be even higher. Hurricanes will get worse. Wildfires will get worse. Drought will get worse. Power problems and blackouts will get worse. The death toll from heat will continue to break record after record.
Any nay-sayers, lets let the next 5 years be the judge. It should be very clear even to the somewhat dimwitted by then that we are in the process of Global Warming.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:39 pmThey’re not stupid you know.
Comment by PointMan12
Hey thanks again. I was under the impression that scientists were stupid.
This guy is too much. He's worse than Jason. I hate laughing at him....but I can't help it.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:39 pmcause de jour
What is with this? Do you guys get sent a list of "phrase" de jour ... and what's with the French, isn't that treason?
August 1st, 2006 at 4:39 pmNo, we haven't. Its only been since the last century that temperatures have seen a continuous increase. You clearly don't even have the basic facts straight.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:41 pm#30-P.M.12- The opposition has a differing point of view? And, if the ‘evidence’ that man has caused GW is ‘inconclusive’, as you say, then I guess we DID make the case for ’cause’. Otherwise there would be nothing for the ‘nay-sayers’ to say ‘nay’ about. Simpleton.
Comment by Cyra Brown — August 1, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
Wow! I read this through 3 times and the logic is most breathtaking. Since the evidence is inconclusive then we have mad a case for cause? That's hysterical. This must be another one of those famous scientists that I've been hearing about.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:42 pm#30
This link will take you to a site hosted by the National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical02.jsp
From slide #3:
"The rapid rise in both surface temperature and CO2 is one of the indications that humans are responsible for some of this unusual warmth."
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.
A climate model projection that includes both natural processes and human activities closely matches actual measurements of 20th-century temperature changes.
The same climate model without human activity (natural processes only) does not match the strong warming that occurred during the past few decades."
You may attempt to "parse" the "Probably yes" conclusion in this presentationand say it is the same as "inconclusive" - but you shouldn't if you are really serious about this discussion.
If the scientists thought human impact was truly inconclusive - they would have used that particular word.
"Probably yes" is quite far from "inconclusive."
August 1st, 2006 at 4:43 pmNo, we haven’t. Its only been since the last century that temperatures have seen a continuous increase. You clearly don’t even have the basic facts straight.
Comment by ReadyForChange — August 1, 2006 @ 4:41 pm
My facts are that the highly sensitive scientific instrumentation that has logged the measurements of temperatures in thousands of places throughout the globe had just a few kinks in them for the past thousand or so years. What were your facts again about the change in mean temperature for rural France over the past 200 years?
August 1st, 2006 at 4:44 pmDon't we just drop a giant ice-cube in the ocean every now and then?
August 1st, 2006 at 4:45 pmI'll take the collective opinion of top (reputable) climatoligists from 178 COUNTRIES who met in Kyoto to figure out how to reduce CO2 emissions over mouthpieces from big oil on FOX.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:45 pmShow me 1 peer-reviewed article supporting the argument that CO2 emissions do not cause global warming. The debate is not if, but how much Like Colbert said: truth has a liberal bias.
cause de jour
What is with this? Do you guys get sent a list of “phrase†de jour … and what’s with the French, isn’t that treason?
Comment by Brian Coughlan — August 1, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
Actually I'm quite fond of most things French. Sorry if I don't fit neatly into your convenient pigeon hole. It was a well thought out point though.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:49 pmOK, so f**k 60 minutes and their pinko commie liberal adjenda....
what about the NOVA episode on global warming ???
what about the Discovery Channel special on Global warming???
Are they also trying to harm our Dear leader President George W. Bush ???
I can't remember the last time I saw Al Franken, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or any Democrat for that matter on NOVA or the Discovery Channel.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:49 pmAnd let presume that global warming is fake:
what do we have to loose if we take some extra precautions ???
And why are republican appologists saying it's false ??? I can understand politicians who get campaign contributions from Big Industry, but why are ordinary republicans refuting global warming ???
August 1st, 2006 at 4:55 pmI’ll take the collective opinion of top (reputable) climatoligists from 178 COUNTRIES who met in Kyoto to figure out how to reduce CO2 emissions over mouthpieces from big oil on FOX.
Show me 1 peer-reviewed article supporting the argument that CO2 emissions do not cause global warming. The debate is not if, but how much Like Colbert said: truth has a liberal bias.
Comment by Bill from Dover — August 1, 2006 @ 4:45 pm
Hum, a scientist anxious to sign up and spend time with his Homies at a Kyoto conference. There's an objective left wing activist scientist. I hope that poll taken of these guys was scientific. Now that would be ironic if it weren't. I already covered the published articles in a prior post.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:55 pmHum, a scientist anxious to sign up and spend time with his Homies at a Kyoto conference.
Yesss ... this is companion logic to, "he became a gynacologist to look at ladies bits"
August 1st, 2006 at 5:01 pmPointMan12, I'm going to take all my previous comments to Seixon, Jason, and any other idiot global warming denier I might have previously addressed here, and distill these comments to their essence: I am a real scientist, you are not, and I am saying that you know absolutely NOTHING about science or its culture, because if you did you would be embarrassed by your crackpot black helicopter conspiracy theories about all the thousands of good scientists who have been cowed by the thousands of evil scientists.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:04 pmChris Landsea was a good friend and housemate of mine at UCLA in the late 80s. I've never met a more principled individual in my life. If he'd entered politics he would've turned out another Feingold. He's taking a stand based purely on the highest standards of his field.
Thankfully, nobody here is attacking Landsea or his study, which is as it should be, but rather how it's being interpreted by the nutbags on the right. I just hope people can look at all specific climatic anomalies, including this, with enough attention to detail to understand that each micro situation is subject to evolving data and will remain under dispute for years to come. For us or them to seize too quickly for political points is idiocy. I expect them to; I expect we're better than that.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:05 pmAnd, yes, Richard Lindzen is totally off his rocker for believing this same conspiracy crap.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:06 pmPointman seems to be under the impression that you can make more money shilling for Greenpeace than you can shilling for Exxon. That exhibits a good deal of cluelessness in and of itself…
Comment by Bluedog49 — August 1, 2006 @ 4:54 pm
There are millions and millions of dollars all primed up and ready to go for any scientist with the fortitude to prove without a doubt that man is destroying the planet. Don’t deny this. On top of this, any scientist brave enough to simply say the obvious statement that it is inconclusive that man is cause of global warming is brave enough to kiss his career goodbye. I'm confident that most of the people on this site would help in any way they can on this scientist's career bon voyage. (I know how French words get you guys going)
August 1st, 2006 at 5:07 pmPointMan12, I’m going to take all my previous comments to Seixon, Jason, and any other idiot global warming denier I might have previously addressed here, and distill these comments to their essence: I am a real scientist, you are not, and I am saying that you know absolutely NOTHING about science or its culture, because if you did you would be embarrassed by your crackpot black helicopter conspiracy theories about all the thousands of good scientists who have been cowed by the thousands of evil scientists.
Comment by RealScientist — August 1, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
Worth repeating .....
August 1st, 2006 at 5:10 pm"Point man"
Since you have responded to post #52 ( and with all due respect - very weakly ) - I have to assume that you have read post #49, visited the link, looked at the slides yourself and read the conclusion of National Academy of Science scientists that "human activities are probably the major cause of recent warming."
Why don't you just say, "Gee, Thanks. I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing that out to me ..." and move on?
August 1st, 2006 at 5:13 pmAnd PointMan12, as for scientists being corrupted to do bad science by the millions of dollars in grants, this is a complete crock. First of all, even when scientists get large grants, they don't get paid any more than their humble salary, so the alleged financial incentives are not quite what you make them out to be. Moreover, if you were a scientist you would know that the fastest way to damage your career is to publish bad science. If the science is bad it will come out sooner or later, and will damage your credibility, and credibility is everything in science.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:24 pmWell, considering the technology we use to measure temperature has improved over the years, we were understating temperatures in the past by up to 4 degrees. In addition, as open land is developed, we replace land that has water content (cooling) with land that is paved in concrete (retains heat). You've probably heard this described as "urban heat islands."
While it makes for interesting hysteria, global warming will end up on the ash heap with the Y2K panic. Folks made some money selling fear, but in the end that's all it was. And many politicians are eager to get on the bandwagon in a populist appeal for votes. That's for sure!
August 1st, 2006 at 5:29 pmCompeting messages:
'twas only about 30 years ago the 'New Ice Age' was heralded, I believe by a Time Magazine article...
The geological requirements for an Ice Age are the presence of a large landmass around the Polar Circle and extending southward. A look at the globe, or world map, shows that those conditions exist in the Northern Hemisphere, but not in the Southern. Therefore, the important thing to look at is the climate conditions in northern and far northern regions. Some of the indicators:
• Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich. (From 1926 to 1960, some 70-95% of these glaciers were in retreat.)
• A comparison of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 1965 and 1990 Plant Hardiness Zone Maps, shows a southward change of one zone, or 10°F, between 1965 and 1990.
• Careful measurements of the oxygen isotope ratios in German oaks, which are rigorously calibrated to temperature data, show a 1°C temperature decline from 1350 to 1800 (the lowpoint of the Little Ice Age). Temperature thereafter increased by 1°C from 1800 to 1930, and has been declining since then.
• From weather stations in the Alps, and in the Nordic countries, we find the temperature decline since 1930 is also 1°C.
• Satellite measurements have shown growth in the height and breadth of the huge Greenland ice sheet, the largest in the Northern Hemisphere
August 1st, 2006 at 5:32 pmWhile it makes for interesting hysteria, global warming will end up on the ash heap with the Y2K panic. Folks made some money selling fear, but in the end that’s all it was. And many politicians are eager to get on the bandwagon in a populist appeal for votes. That’s for sure!
Comment by muckdog — August 1, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
(....the trolls just keep on coming, like the zombies in Night of the Living Dead...)
August 1st, 2006 at 5:34 pmThe geological requirements for an Ice Age are the presence of a large landmass around the Polar Circle and extending southward. A look at the globe, or world map, shows that those conditions exist in the Northern Hemisphere, but not in the Southern. Therefore, the important thing to look at is the climate conditions in northern and far northern regions. Some of the indicators:
Comment by richb — August 1, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
(....and the glassy-eyed zombies continue to come out of nowhere, in seemingly limitless supply!)
August 1st, 2006 at 5:37 pmtwas only about 30 years ago the ‘New Ice Age’ was heralded, I believe by a Time Magazine article…
Good thing we stopped it by pumping about gazillion tons of CO2s into the atmosphere. I can take the heat, but not the cold.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:39 pmSeriously, richb, your little "geological requirements for an Ice Age" lecture is pseudoscientific bullcrap that doesn't actually make sense.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:39 pm#69
Here you go, "muckdog" ...
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 Yearsâ€
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. Nor are any other politicians or public figures.
So drop the "political band wagon" argument.
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.
I think there is more to it than "urban heat islands."
Thank you.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:42 pmYour "Facts" are backed up by what source?
I didn't say anything about the temperatures in rural France and frankly to bring this up in discussion shows your ignorance.
What we should be discussing here are GLOBAL mean temperature measurements, not "rural France".
And guess what? Global mean temperatures have risen over the last century, and this rise can be attributed to the increase in CO2 content of our atmosphere which in turn can be attributed to human pollution.
In fact, one of the stated effects of Global Warming is that, while SOME areas may see a drop in temperature MOST areas of the planet will experience an increase in temperature. This is the trend we must pay attention to.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:47 pmPointMan12, I’m going to take all my previous comments to Seixon, Jason, and any other idiot global warming denier I might have previously addressed here, and distill these comments to their essence: I am a real scientist, you are not, and I am saying that you know absolutely NOTHING about science or its culture, because if you did you would be embarrassed by your crackpot black helicopter conspiracy theories about all the thousands of good scientists who have been cowed by the thousands of evil scientists.
Comment by RealScientist — August 1, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
Oh my God! I’m in the presence of a real scientist. I just got a chill. Whas it just me? I bet some of you experienced the same thing when you read his post. A real scientist. Wow! A real scientist posting on a far left wing political site. In fact, this real scientist has what, 2-3 thousand posts on this left wing site? This is where I crouch in a fetal position and cry tears of shame isn’t it? There’s all of the proof I need folks. Show’s over. The real scientist who spends most of his waking hours on a left wing political site has spoken. I’ll be cowering in the corner if anyone needs me.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:48 pm#70
Your post is rife with distortions and ignorance.
Here is but ONE:
Nice of your to ignore the rest of the picture - which is that while precipitation has increased DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING and hence the INNER portions of the ice sheet have grown, the OUTER layers of the ice sheet are melting away at an unprecedented rate. The rate of decay of the ice sheet is still higher than the rate of growth on the inner portions.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:50 pmWhy is it that the Rightys will believe all the scientifical weather data from decades in the past but dissmiss the scientists that have been studying GW since the 80's. WTF? Big OIL Bussiness= our biggest problem in America.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:56 pmPointMan12, you just keep banging away repeating the script Exxon gave you, it looks like no one here is buying it.
August 1st, 2006 at 6:03 pm#81
Jeez, the global warming denying zombies ARE STILL COMING!!!
August 1st, 2006 at 6:08 pmSam,
Stop being a jerk by cutting and pasting so many articles. Use links instead.
August 1st, 2006 at 6:09 pmAnd, Sam, the stuff you are posting is freaking bullcrap for koolaid drinkers. It (and you) are completely orthogonal to the current state of climate science. Does Exxon pay you to post this nonsense?
August 1st, 2006 at 6:14 pmAhh, Sam, junkscience.com eh? You wouldn't happen to be Steven Milloy, would you? Or work for him perhaps?
August 1st, 2006 at 6:16 pmSam, throw it all out there. Get it all out now. You have lost the debate, your tenacious grip is slipping, and this is your moment of desperation.
August 1st, 2006 at 6:20 pm#80
"SAM"
FACT: (From the Natonal Academy of Sciences presentation on Global Warming)
“Are Human Activities the Major Cause of Recent Warming?â€
“Probably yes, ... "
( Slide #6 from the following link )
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical02.jsp
The entire presentation takes into account water vapor, clouds, solar variations, nature's contributions and etc.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/causes01.jsp
For example:
"Changes in the Sun and volcanic eruptions were relatively important early in the century. But they do not explain the strong warming in recent decades, when the effects of human-produced greenhouse gases became apparent."
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical06.jsp
But when the bottom line question is asked:
“Are Human Activities the Major Cause of Recent Warming?â€
The bottom line answer is:
“Probably yes."
August 1st, 2006 at 6:26 pmSam,
It is hard to sink much lower than big tobacco and Exxon-funded lobbyist/paid liar Steven Milloy and his pathologically dishonest web site, junkscience.com.
August 1st, 2006 at 6:30 pmConnecting hurricanes to global warming is a pillar of Judd's GW argument. He even tried to use with Dr Balling. (just look at how many hurricanes we had in 2005. We went through the whole alphabet! It must be global warming)
But ultimately, it doesn’t matter much whether Landsea is right or not about hurricane intensity data. Other major studies have established the link between global warming and hurricane strength by relying on different data.
Translation: It doesn't matter that a consensus of IPCC scientists have found. Ignore the fact that all mainstream studies have found that data is incomplete and climate models are far from definitive.
There is no compelling evidence to indicate that the
August 1st, 2006 at 6:52 pmcharacteristics of tropical and extratropical storms have
changed. Changes in tropical storm intensity and frequency
are dominated by interdecadal to multidecadal variations,
which may be substantial, e.g., in the tropical North Atlantic.
Owing to incomplete data and limited and conflicting
analyses, it is uncertain as to whether there have been any
long-term and large-scale increases in the intensity and
frequency of extra-tropical cyclones in the Northern
Hemisphere. Regional increases have been identified in the
North Pacific, parts of North America, and Europe over the
past several decades. In the Southern Hemisphere, fewer
analyses have been completed, but they suggest a decrease in
extra-tropical cyclone activity since the 1970s. Recent
analyses of changes in severe local weather (e.g., tornadoes,
thunderstorm days, and hail) in a few selected regions do not
provide compelling evidence to suggest long-term changes.
In general, trends in severe weather events are notoriously
difficult to detect because of their relatively rare occurrence
and large spatial variability.
Another climate scientist that judd chooses to ignore,
Pielke et al. 2005:
1)Modeling and theoretical studies suggest hurricanes will have no major changes in WHERE they form or occur.
2)Preliminary analyses hint that globally only small to no change in the NUMBER of hurricanes may occur and that regionally there may be areas that have small increases or small decreases in frequency (on order of +/- 10%).
3)The PEAK and AVERAGE INTENSITY of tropical cyclones may increase by about 5% in wind speeds.
4)Storm total RAINFALL may also increase on the order of about 5% more precipication.
These are hypothesized changes that may occur around the end of the 21st Century, when a doubling in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may be observed. Changes seen today are likely to be on the order of a 1% alteration in frequency, intensity and rainfall in hurricanes - not even measurable by today's observational techniques.
Overall, these man-made alterations are quite tiny compared to the observed large natural hurricane variability. The Atlantic basin activity has cycles with about 3.5 major hurricanes a year in active periods and about 1.5 majors annually in quiet periods, with each lasting 25-40 years. Moreover, as Knutson and Tuleya stated in their 2004 Journal of Climate article:
"CO2-induced tropical cyclone intensity changes are unlikely to be detectable in historical observations and will probably not be detectable for decades to come."
August 1st, 2006 at 7:12 pmMany billions of dollars have already been squandered on this farce and now it really begins.
What a stupid game this is.
Comment by Sam
Hey, the Iraq war thread is further down the page.
August 1st, 2006 at 7:17 pmHippie,
Thanks for the Koshland Science Museum link.
Very helpful.
August 1st, 2006 at 7:23 pmIt's obvious most of you have sipped the koolaid. What were you doing on Dec 31, 1999? Hiding in your bunkers?
If you believe in global warming, turn off the electricity to your home, shut off the gas main, sell the car, quit the bitchin' and help save the planet. What in the the world are you posting on blogs for? Shouldn't you be reading novels by candlelight?
August 1st, 2006 at 7:45 pmFine Muck Dog, we'll go and do all of those things ... after you go f#ck yourself.
Have a nice day,.
August 1st, 2006 at 7:58 pm#102
Bluedog49,
There is alternate explanation that often applies. They don't actually believe what they are saying. They know that global climate change is real, and that the scientists are right. But they are policy elitists who shun democracy, because they, informed by theiir libertarian ideology, know what is best: the magic of their "free" markets will somehow fix the problem without any pesky government intervention. They are pathological, alright. Pathological liars, styling themselves after Goebbels.
August 1st, 2006 at 8:10 pm#104
A false dichotomy so stupid that only the dittohead koolaid Bush foot soldiers could possibly fall for it.
August 1st, 2006 at 8:16 pmSam,
It doesn't matter how many times, or at what length, you insist on repeating the sky is green. It won't magically change color because you wish it so.
Reality has this way of being so stubborn sometimes...
August 1st, 2006 at 8:26 pmSam - I am developing a calous on my finger that rolls my scroll wheel. Please send your posts in bit-bucket.com.
August 1st, 2006 at 9:30 pmResend:
August 1st, 2006 at 9:33 pmSam - I am developing a callous on my finger that rolls my scroll wheel. Please send your posts to bit-bucket.com.
Uh climatic "science" was in its infancy in 1933.
August 1st, 2006 at 10:06 pm"scientist" also beleived that nucking the ice caps would bring about a tropical utopia age on the planet earth.
Indead why are liberals such hypocrites and oxymorons ?
August 1st, 2006 at 10:10 pmUnlike republicans. Why there practically falling over themselves joining the ARMY and volunteering to fight in IRAQ.
#103,
Simon,
You forgot something from your copy-paste.
Probably yes, but comparing climate model projections to actual temperatures shows that both humans and nature have contributed to warming in the 20th century.
Now remind your hysterical friends how climate change is natural and cyclical. You have the link.
August 1st, 2006 at 10:59 pmsigh.
the fruitless argument rages on, and on.
Sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct one.
like, say, renewable energy is better than non-renewable energy?
like, say, less pollution is better than more pollution?
like, say, our dependence on oil is an obvious threat to our national security and horribly skews our foreign policy?
like, say, a self-reliant society is a better society?
like, say, claiming that we have no choice but cling hopelessly to a worn-out, 20th century energy strategy is the antithesis of progress?
like, say, we shouldn't leave problems that we can solve today for our children to have to solve tomorrow, at much greater cost?
We’ve been warming up for a very long time and we are looking at 1/10,000 of the data we need to make an informed conclusion.
what's to know, pavlov?
we have been servile to the oil drill and the gas pump for far too long. for us to embrace renewable energy is to take off that leash, once and for all.
we've been making horrible mistakes, all for oil, for at least half a century now. and we've been suffering for them. churchill and eisenhower backing a coup of iran's democratically elected government in 1953 was a master stroke. oil was part of the subtext of vietnam. imagine if rumsfeld and cheney hadn't been on president ford's staff to help him make the decision not to enact a policy of pursuing alternate energy sources back in the 70s. iraq. 9/11. iraq redux. these aren't ideological problems. they're not us vs. them problems.
they're oil problems.
and the only people who stand to gain from preventing a crucial move toward renewable energy are the oil and coal industries.
all others who oppose the idea fall into the following camps:
liberal-haters (who can't acknowledge that this topic is now a mainstream concern)
the fear-motivated "sky is falling" economic panic crowd (who can't acknowledge that every great advance in our society has come through embracing technological advance and paradigm-busting discoveries)
the "straight six" crowd of internal combustion exhaust huffers who can't bear to think of a world with electric cars
contrarians who abhor change
know-it-alls, intellectual haters and science decriers.
so, you skeptics, which one are you?
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:01 amA new hurricane is brewing fast heading towards Florida from the Caribbean, so the destruction is on track like last year > if it becomes a cat 5, then thousands could be killed in Miami!
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:09 amyes, castro sees his wrath for all of those cuban-americans celebrating his troubles.
either way, let's hope it doesn't happen. i still have no faith in a proper response to crisis from the bush administration.
(and my parents live in florida)!
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:13 amRex > the NEW plan by Bush for hurricane ravaged areas is to send in Blackwater mercenary goons to shoot the survivors > I wish this was a bad joke, but actually is more truth than fiction!
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:18 amfema's been neutered, so i guess all they'll have left are the mercenaries. national guard's all off in iraq, as is their equipment.
"homeland security"???
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:23 amSam > Karl Rove called and said you are needed on RedState.com to post your articles, so get going bud!
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:58 ami actually had an email debate with mr. harsanyi a while back (in response to this very article you've pasted here). he gave up because he couldn't refute my claims. his strongest argument against me was "i can't stand this mindless bashing of oil companies".
ahhh. sympathy for the oil companies. he also says, "I am a huge fan of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. I couldn't care less that they're funded by Exxon."
what does that tell you, exactly?
oh, and he did mention the athabasca oil sands and the "trillions of barrels of oil" in the rockies. but any energy source that takes more energy to extract than it would yield is, imho, impractical at best.
there's a lot of disingenuous information in that article. he makes no mention that gore's promotion of his film has been carbon neutral. he references bill gray, who invokes mccarthy, eschews computer models (but doesn't use a computer himself), and has been refuted at realclimate.org in a quite interesting way -- you know, with real data, something mr. harsanyi's article utterly fails to do. i pointed that out to him.
the truth is, when mr. harsanyi was confronted with actual numbers, he bailed.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:02 amSam, are you getting paid by the word? Just post the links. People will check them out if they want to. I just scrolled over your posts, but there are so many of them that it is taking to long. Where are your manners? Monopolizing the thread is rude.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:04 amno, sam is the same assface that continually clogs up these threads by doing this. i've notified tp admin.
but you probably know him better as one of the following:
oil industry shills
liberal-haters (who can’t acknowledge that this topic is now a mainstream concern)
the fear-motivated “sky is falling†economic panic crowd (who can’t acknowledge that every great advance in our society has come through embracing technological advance and paradigm-busting discoveries)
the “straight six†crowd of internal combustion exhaust huffers who can’t bear to think of a world with electric cars
contrarians who abhor change
know-it-alls, intellectual haters and science decriers
nobody reads that shit you're posting, sam.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:11 amgo find a new hobby.
There are millions and millions of dollars all primed up and ready to go for any scientist with the fortitude to prove without a doubt that man is destroying the planet.
This comment, in it's breathtaking ignorance, shows a complete failure to understand the nature of sceince. In practical terms, almost every theory is “wrong†it's just that some are less wrong than others. For example, Newton was “wrong†about Gravity because Einstein refined the theory substantially.
The idea of proving anything "without a doubt" does not exist in sceince. This comment is the online equivalent of a loud stinking fart in a silent crowded room. All eyes are drawn in mingled disgust and amusement to the uncouth rube doing the farting.
No one is claiming that current climatology is perfect, just sufficiently “not wrong†for the purposes of determining the risk of GW. Just as Newtons laws are sufficiently “not wrong†to get you to the Moon and back.
Sam is utterly beyond any hope:-(
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:11 amif you're an idiot, post another article sam.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:14 amYou know, I really have no problem patiently explaining to global warming "skeptics" why climate change science clearly doesn't support their viewpoint. But this Sam dude is thoroughly obnoxious. He makes no original arguments, just pastes propaganda into his posts. This is spam, nothing more. It contributes nothing to the conversation.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:20 amworth a shot, he's already (tacitly) admitted he's an idiot.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:21 amcome on, sam, show us how much you really love karl. the next article you post proves you want to suck karl's cock.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:22 amOH MY! SAM SPEAKS FOR HIMSELF FOR ONCE!
sam doesn't actually want to have to, you know, form his own opinion, he'd rather just try to frustrate all involved by clogging up the threads with the pre-formed opinions of others.
sam says it's "immature"! as if posting whole articles in a discussion thread -- thus quelling all discussion -- is "mature".
how independent of you, sam.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:26 amsmoked you out of your neanderthalic partisan hole, did i, sam?
tsk.tsk. so sad.
how about, if you want to be "mature" about it, YOU actually discuss, with your own words, the issue. provide LINKS to articles if you wish.
i welcome you to respond to my posts in 114 or 124 (where i actually addressed one of the articles you posted), for a start.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:30 amwe don't need a latin lesson here sam.
what you're doing is nothing short of thread-jacking. when you break the fundamental rules of a fair-minded discussion, expect scorn.
either discuss the issues, as yourself, offering links to evidence as support, or get lost.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:33 amSam was hired very cheap by Karl Rove, so all he knows how to do is cut and past articles on TP threads > lol.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:55 am#113
Hippie,
I did not forget anything.
Text for slide #6 was posted in post #49.
Scroll up and read it for yourself.
The sentence beneath the second graph supports why the scientists said "probably yes."
The climate model cannot explain the strong warming that has occurred over the past few decades without putting human activities into the equation.
Strong warming, over short time period, human activities - get it?
Here is the entire text for this issue (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".
"A climate model projection that includes both natural processes and human activities closely matches actual measurements of 20th-century temperature changes."
"The same climate model without human activity (natural processes only) does not match the strong warming that occurred during the past few decades.â€
Changes in the Sun and volcanic eruptions were relatively important early in the century. But they do not explain the strong warming in recent decades, when the effects of human-produced greenhouse gases became apparent.
And you are right, I do have the link.
Read the whole slide, Hippie.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical06.jsp
Now you go tell your hysterical friends that man is a contributor to global warming.
Start with Sam.
Maybe you can teach him how to post a link.
And then the two of you can go and read this story and explain how all of the data in this article - which is at all time highs - is "natural."
“BBC News†“CO2 Highest for 650,000 Yearsâ€
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:57 amif you wish you could bury your face in hillary clinton's mound, post another article, sam
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:58 amor, you know, you could actually PERSONALLY ADDRESS any of the points raised here by other commenters.
such a quaint concept, i know. especially when cutting and pasting is so much fun for a child!
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:01 amLiars! Liars! Green pants on fire!
By Alan Caruba
web posted January 26, 2004
What else can you call the authors of an article in an early January edition of the journal Nature, other than liars? Their assertion of mass extinctions of species by 2050, resulting from global warming, is pure fiction, but it was trumpeted in a January 7 press release from Conservation International as the "most comprehensive analysis to date." And it received worldwide news coverage.
As this is being written, the temperature outside my window is about ten degrees above zero and mid-to-late January is setting records for frigid arctic air flowing from the North. One would think that the press might pause a moment to contemplate the weather outside, actual weather records, and the claims that global warming is just around the corner. It bothers me that the press, after decades of this kind of Green blather, is so irresponsible about such stories. Unfailingly they leap upon the wild claim and rarely, if ever, seek credible scientists to refute it. If they do find someone to quote, it is always buried deep in the story.
The other thing that really bothers me is that it was just one more Big Green Lie from so-called scientists in the never-ending effort to frighten the public into believing that (1) the global warming theory has any basis in fact and (2) that every human activity on Earth must be made subservient to avoid it. Conservation International (CI) began by claiming "Climate change could drive more than a quarter of land animals and plants into extinction, according to a major new study published in tomorrow's edition of the journal Nature."
Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, writing in the January 15 issue of the Washington Times, issued a timely warming that "The politicization of scientific papers on global warming and the tendency of science journals to rush to judgment have to end."
Notice, too, that the Greens have dropped "global warming" in favor of the term "climate change." This might be because their effort to get the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol on Climate Control ratified has proved a massive failure. Its so-called science has been refuted. (Even the Russians refused to ratify it once they realized it would destroy their nascent capitalist economy. This is a treaty that exempted Red China and India from even having to participate!) It was the same so-called science journal, Nature, which in 1996 published a paper supporting the global warming theory just one day before the UN conference that gave birth to the Kyoto Protocol.
CI informs us that it "applies innovations in science, economics, policy and community participation to protect the Earth's richest regions of plant and animal diversity in the hotspots, major tropical wilderness areas and key marine ecosystems. With headquarters in Washington, DC, CI works in almost 40 countries on four continents." Apparently, "innovations" include publishing bogus scientific studies.
As the Competitive Enterprise Institute was quick to point out, the latest study, co-authored by 19 "researchers", was based on "computer modeling" for its predictions. Global warming is, of course, also based on computer modeling. There isn't a computer large enough or even a system of linked computers that can reliably predict the weather much beyond three to five days. In February 2003, the worst blizzard in seven years shut down a broad swath of the eastern United States. The National Weather Service, which has some of the most sophisticated computers ever made, was very, very surprised by the severity of the blizzard.
The weather is the very definition of chaos. No computer model can possibly take in the constant changes that occur everywhere on the globe. At best, they do a credible job of spotting conditions about forty-eight to seventy-two hours ahead of events.
Computer "models" can produce just about any result they are intended to achieve. Statistics can lie and liars can use statistics.
Writing for Tech Central Station in early January, Iain Murray neatly dispatched the conclusion of the study. "There are several reasons this claim should be laughed out of court of public opinion. First, the research doesn't say what the researchers themselves claim. They have extrapolated to all species a model that looked at only 1,103 species in certain areas (243 of those species were South American poroteaceae, a family of evergreen shrubs and trees). For one thing, we don't know how many species there are---estimates vary from 2 million to 80 million---and have only documented 1.6 million. However, assuming the 14 million figure widely used in the press reports is anywhere near accurate, the same size is a mere 0.008 percent of the total species population of the plant…"
So, based on 0.008 percent of ALL species on Earth, CI and this group of loathsome little researchers felt free to predict the extinction of more than a million species. They ignored the fact that an increase in the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, would have a most salutary effect of enhancing the growth of all manner of vegetation worldwide. Those creatures that dine on that vegetation would no doubt benefit and reproduce in greater numbers. In short, the study was bunkum!
Murray concludes his analysis of this latest study by noting "In a world that has seen a grand total of just over 1,000 documented extinctions since 1600, these wild predictions should be ignored as alarmist hyperbole." He's being polite.
It is alarmist and it is hyperbole, but it also represents virtually every so-called scientific study that has been put forth by the Greens on the topic of global warming. Oh, excuse me, "climate change." Never mind that the climate changes all the time and always will, it is hardly a reason to return to the golden age of horse-drawn buggies, outhouses, and the use of oxen in agriculture.
We are rapidly reaching the point of critical mass where all such Green claims should lead to the implosion of this evil social and economic philosophy and quasi-religion that worships the Earth and would gladly see the entire human race go extinct to "save" it from us.
No, millions of species will not go extinct by 2050, but one can fervently pray that the environmental movement will.
Alan Caruba writes a weekly commentary, "Warning Signs", posted on http://www.anxietycenter.com, the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center. © Alan Caruba 2004
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:10 amWow, spam city.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:15 amyes, this troll (first called "sam" then "craig" and now posting as me), is doing his best to prove to all of us what an unbalanced, sociopathic freak he is.
aside from clearly violating the terms of use by impersonating me, he is spamming the thread and otherwise just being a jackass. basically because he is a coward and is either mentally unable or psychologically unwilling to actually engage in a discussion of the topic of the thread.
but his posts will be gone soone enough. unfortunately, this troll tends to come back every so often (which i would welcome if he would actually discuss the topics and not just post full articles to clog up the threads and quell discussion, clearly his aim).
what a fool samcraig is. and what an idiot for continually displaying that foolishness
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:26 amThere are millions and millions of dollars all primed up and ready to go for any scientist with the fortitude to prove without a doubt that man is destroying the planet.
This comment, in it’s breathtaking ignorance, shows a complete failure to understand the nature of sceince. In practical terms, almost every theory is “wrong†it’s just that some are less wrong than others. For example, Newton was “wrong†about Gravity because Einstein refined the theory substantially.
The idea of proving anything “without a doubt†does not exist in sceince. This comment is the online equivalent of a loud stinking fart in a silent crowded room. All eyes are drawn in mingled disgust and amusement to the uncouth rube doing the farting.
No one is claiming that current climatology is perfect, just sufficiently “not wrong†for the purposes of determining the risk of GW. Just as Newtons laws are sufficiently “not wrong†to get you to the Moon and back.
Comment by PointMan12 — August 1, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:54 amhttp://www.smhi.se/
Swedens warmest July since records began 150 years ago. A degree warmer than the previous record of 1994, and a full 2 degrees warmer then the original record of 1914 .... sure it's not happening.
Future generations are going to look on in utter amazment at the clods running the world in this era. Children in future classrooms will put up their hands and say "But Miss, I don't understand, why didn't they take action?" and the teacher will just shrug her shoulders ... there is no answer you can give that makes any sense at ALL.
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:58 amNote: Many long comments have been deleted from this thread. It's fine to post opposing points of view but please provide a link to these articles, rather than post the full text.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:31 am#131: Thank you. Apparently he's still doing it, though. See post #126.
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:01 am#130: Future generations are going to look on in utter amazment at the clods running the world in this era. Children in future classrooms will put up their hands and say “But Miss, I don’t understand, why didn’t they take action?†and the teacher will just shrug her shoulders … there is no answer you can give that makes any sense at ALL.
This is so true. And it's particularly upsetting when you actually read the reports by the IPCC, NAS, and science academies from the G8 nations. There's nothing "alarmist" or "hysterical" about these reports. They simply say that we ought to take cost-effective steps to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and that these reasonable measures will significantly reduce our impact on the climate. It amazes me that this sends conservatives into a flying, screaming rage.
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:04 amThere are millions and millions of dollars all primed up and ready to go for any scientist with the fortitude to prove without a doubt that man is destroying the planet.
That is outrageous! You should go out immediately and find these Ferrarri-driving scientists and tell them what for!
Come back when you've lectured a few millionaire climatologists. According to you, they sure do exist, don't they?
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:08 am#132
Alphonse
Just in case they consider this post "spam" and delete it - I wanted to preserve the "essentials" of #126 for discussion.
#126
Liars! Liars! Green pants on fire!
By Alan Caruba
web posted January 26, 2004
1. Who is Alan Caruba? Alan Caruba has written about science - but he is not a scientist.
2. "Craig" selects an article that is dated January 26, 2004 .
This is almost a whole year before the EPICA scientist findings re: CO2 levels being the highest for the last 650,000 years. I checked out the link to the BBC article posted in #123 - and that article was written Nov. 24, 2005.
3. It does not address another key point - which was available prior to 2004 - the correlation between CO2 and temperatures. Post #126 - for some reason - is primarily about species extinction and general disdain for the environmental movement.
Kurt Cuffey is the scientist who conducted the CO2 / temperature study.
While Caruba is a science "writer," here is the deal on Cuffey:
"Cuffey Receives 2003 James B. Macelwane Medal"
Kurt M. Cuffey was awarded the Macelwane Medal at the AGU Fall Meeting Honors Ceremony, which was held on 10 December 2003, in San Francisco, California. The medal honors "significant contributions to the geophysical sciences by a young scientist of outstanding ability."
"Kurt's colleagues regard him as the brightest young glaciologist in the world today and one of the most influential thinkers to emerge in glaciology and paleoclimatology in the last decade. He has a seemingly magisterial understanding that spans glaciology at all scales–from the fine details of ice fabric and chemistry to the scale of global biogeochemical cycles. He is perhaps best known for his studies unifying ice core paleoclimatology and ice sheet dynamics and has been at the forefront of research on the isotopic stratification and climate record preserved in polar ice cores."
The Caruba article used the phrase "so-called scientists."
I don't think that would apply to Kurt Cuffey.
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:31 pm"Just in case they consider this post “spam†and delete it ..."
should be ...
"Just in case they consider post #126 “spam†and delete it ..."
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:27 pmThere are millions and millions of dollars all primed up and ready to go for any scientist with the fortitude to prove without a doubt that man is destroying the planet.
This comment, in it’s breathtaking ignorance, shows a complete failure to understand the nature of sceince. In practical terms, almost every theory is “wrong†it’s just that some are less wrong than others. For example, Newton was “wrong†about Gravity because Einstein refined the theory substantially.
Comment by Brian Coughlan — August 2, 2006 @ 8:54 am
You claim that my position that there is not sufficient data to determine that man is the cause of global warming is breathtakingly ignorant and then you go on to imply that every theory is wrong until it is proven right by the scientific method. Answer me this then: On which day was it proven that man was the cause of global warming?
I submit to you that most of the environmental enthusiasts, which includes most of the activist scientists who pursue membership in these global warming conferences that spawn off so much of the consensus ammunition used by their throngs of zealot followers (you guys), were absolutely convinced within few short days after hearing about it the first time. At that point it was only a matter of proving what they already knew. When was that, the mid 80s or so? That’s my shot at a guess on the time that man-made global warming was "proven". But please, I’d like to get your response.
Remember that you would be in the same boat as PointMan12 if you state that it hasn’t been proven and definitely not in the same ocean as the other 98% of the other regulars on this site who know deep down in their souls that man-made global warming is a fact.
As for the whole pretending that I really meant to say that scientists are getting millions in salaries rather than millions in research funding that seems pretty shallow. And don’t begin to tell me that they don’t live for those research dollars. I guess that I could parse out your words and make an easier argument for myself by restating what you really weren't claiming but then that would be breathtakingly ignorant, wouldn’t it?
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:58 pmJust as a side note.
I enjoy posting here because I find it very entertaining to swap barbs and sarcastic laced banter mixed with my points of discussion. But I have just as much invective towards idiots who come and spam message boards like what recently happened here. It's like someone who shouts over you in order to win an argument. Even if you are all consistently wrong, that's just classless message board vomit.
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:09 pmheh, it's kinda funny reading my responses to "sam" after his posts are gone (except the one at 126 "craig" - what he switched to after "sam" became a liability). hopefully they have a way to block his ip address so we won't see that freak for a while.
pointman12, i'd ask you to go back and read my post at 105, and if you can, respond to it. frankly, i don't care what the scientists say, nor do i care who is paying them. it doesn't change the fundamental reality that we have to do something.
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:55 pmPointman, I’ll ask you again. Does a scientist make more money working for a University or for Exxon? Use your head little guy. It’s not that hard. Try.
Comment by Bluedog49 — August 1, 2006 @ 5:50 pm
This goes to the comment I made in my prior post. But I'll elaborate. Going for the money in the scientific world is all about the big research funding. That way they get their big chance to make a real name for themselves in the scientific world. That’s what most scientists have dreamed about since they were little scientists learning to use the potty for the first time. That’s success in the scientific world. Their peers care a little what the other scientists’ take home pay is but ultimately, that is not what gives them a stiff woody when they’re in bed at nights dreaming about their career. I really feel like I’m having to spell out the painfully obvious here.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:01 pmProgressive Rex,
First I would like to thank you for asking me to respond to your 6 page dissertation on the evils of non-believers.
Secondly, I can’t say that I disagree with any of the “like say†bullet points in the first chapter of your post. Of course most of those points back up the same argument to aggressively pursue drilling off the coast, ANWR and any other place that will increase the production of domestic production of non-renewable energy. The combination of increasing domestic production and maximizing efforts on alternative fuels and conservation is clearly the most obvious solution to gaining energy independence. Again, "the most obvious solution."
I’m not as concerned that the end is near, though, since market forces will now begin to kick in to remedy the situation. Now that there are profits to be made in more alternative energy solutions it won’t be too long. But alas, after reading your entire manifesto I’m at a loss as to what this has anything to do with the arguments that I have posted here. Is this really in response to my position that man-made global warming has not been proven?
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:17 pmawww, c'mon, you know that'd all fit on one page. see how long it takes you to read this one:
as i've said many times before, this issue to me really has nothing to do with whether gw is man-made or not. i just don't care about that. i do care about all of the things i've mentioned above, however. i think those are more compelling reasons to endorse change than this contentious debate will ever produce (unless we start seeing any of the more alarming evidence firsthand).
i oppose most skeptics merely because the crux of their argument appears to be "everything's fine, there's plenty of oil out there, don't worry about it," and they disseminate information i know is not true. i firmly believe that our reliance on oil is an enormous problem for our society (and our world). the last 60 years are a testament to that, and our recent history, i think, demands that we face up to it and decide once and for all that we need to completely overhaul our energy policies with an acknowledgement that oil is no longer a viable option.
i understand that the oil industry won't go away. in fact, as we've seen, the oil industry is going to use every resource it has to fight for its survival -- and truly, as upton sinclair said, "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
and in accordance with that, i accept your argument, to a certain extent, that there are scientists whose conclusions are influenced or motivated by money. it's true in government (as we saw when the george hw bush administration compelled scientists to come to predetermined conclusions with respect to illicit drugs) and it's true in so-called "independent" research, which is often funded by think-tanks or lobbying groups, like cei. but i can't presuppose that there is no integrity in the scientific community.
and i simply can't believe, given the current administration's stance on the subject -- and their well-known oil industry connections -- that somehow there are government-funded scientists that are being compelled to come to these conclusions that are the opposite of what the administration would obviously favor. when robert hansen, from nasa, is being told by his superiors that he can't speak publicly about his findings, that's a pretty clear indication to me that they don't like what he's found. his actions would appear to be counterproductive with respect to his job security.
and you can't ignore that there are scientists that are definitely being paid by oil industry think tanks, and that they, too, would be motivated to maintain their funding by coming to the "right" conclusions.
so i think, at best, the scientists that would be compelled to find in favor of a certain position with respect to gw are essentially nullified by those that would be compelled to find against it. there's a lot of government money out there, for certain, but there's also plenty of oil and coal money as well.
methinks the current gw situation has the oil and coal people leaving some fossil fuel deposits in their own underpants!
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:31 pm[...] Link Between Global Warming And Hurricane Intensity Remains StrongThink Progress, DC - Aug 1, 2006A study published in the journal Science questioning the link between increased hurricane strength and global warming was quickly seized upon by Matt Drudge … [...]
August 3rd, 2006 at 4:35 amReaders may be interested to see an animation showing the correlation between sea-surface temperatures during the Atlantic hurricane season and the strength, or intensity of the hurricanes that occurred during each season, over the last thirty years. The animated chart is based on a recent update to the dataset Kerry Emanuel assembled for his 2005 paper, and was developed by my colleagues and I at Clear the Air.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:44 pm[...] Whether Bush officials admit it or not, the scientific link between global warming and hurricane intensity is strong, and was bolstered again by a report released last week. [...]
November 30th, 2006 at 3:10 pm[...] Upon receiving the request, Mr. Fuqua emailed back to NOAA, “what is Knutson’s position on global warming vs. decadal cycles? is he consistent with Bell and Landsea?†… [Dr. Gary Bell and meteorologist Chris Landsea have both expressed doubts about connections between global warming and hurricanes.] NOAA responded to Mr. Fuqua that Dr. Knutson projected a “very small increase in hurricane intensity†due to increased greenhouse gas pollution. Mr. Fuqua responded, “why can’t we have one of the other guys then?†This apparently ended the matter. NOAA’s Daily Media Tracking Log states that the request for the interview with Dr. Knutson was subsequently denied. Whether Bush officials admit it or not, the scientific link between global warming and hurricane intensity is strong, and was bolstered again by a report released last week. [...]
November 30th, 2006 at 3:17 pm[...] Readers may be interested to see an animation showing the correlation between sea-surface temperatures during the Atlantic hurricane season and the strength, or intensity of the hurricanes that occurred during each season, over the last thirty years. The animated chart is based on a recent update to the dataset Kerry Emanuel assembledfor his 2005 paper, and was developed by my colleagues and I at Clear the Air.Read full entry [...]
December 11th, 2006 at 8:03 am[...] […] Upon receiving the request, Mr. Fuqua emailed back to NOAA, ?what is Knutson?s position on global warming vs. decadal cycles? is he consistent with Bell and Landsea?? ? [Dr. Gary Bell and meteorologist Chris Landsea have both expressed doubts about connections between global warming and hurricanes.] NOAA responded to Mr. Fuqua that Dr. Knutson projected a ?very small increase in hurricane intensity? due to increased greenhouse gas pollution. Mr. Fuqua responded, ?why can?t we have one of te other guys then?? This apparently ended the matter. NOAA?s Daily Media Tracking Log states that the request for the interview with Dr. Knutson was subsequently denied. Whether Bush officials admit it or not, the scientific link between global warming and hurricane intensity is strong, and was bolstered again by a report released last week. […]Read full entry [...]
December 11th, 2006 at 8:03 am[...] […] Link Between Global Warming And Hurricane Intensity Remains StrongThink Progress, DC - Aug 1, 2006A study published in the journal Science questioning the link between increased hurricane strength and global warming was quickly seized upon by Matt Drudge ? […]Read full entry [...]
December 11th, 2006 at 11:03 am[...] […] Link Between Global Warming And Hurricane Intensity Remains StrongThink Progress, DC - Aug 1, 2006A study published in the journal Science questioning the link between increased hurricane strength and global warming was quickly seized upon by Matt Drudge ? […]Read full entry [...]
December 11th, 2006 at 11:03 am[...] methinks the current gw situation has the oil and coal people leaving some fossil fuel deposits in their own underpants!Read full entry [...]
December 11th, 2006 at 11:03 amKds Bbs Pics Underage Porn Kid Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 2:19 amCock Mommy Loves Cock Cocks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 10:24 pmCock Very Young Boy Cock Small Cock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 18th, 2008 at 6:29 amCock Massive Cocks Cumshots Big Gay Cock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 21st, 2008 at 6:12 pmKds Bbs Pics Russian Child Models Ls Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 1:16 amCock Dog Dick In Pussy Sucking Dick
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 12:23 am