Bush Cronies Tried To Redefine ‘Carbon Dioxide’ To Save Power Plants From Emissions Regulations
Bush Cronies Tried To Redefine ‘Carbon Dioxide’ To Save Power Plants From Emissions Regulations
Earlier this month, former EPA official Jason Burnett wrote to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) with explosive revelations on how the White House has neutered climate change science to protect corporate interests. For example, OMB general counsel Jeffrey Rosen asked for multiple memos on whether carbon dioxide (CO2) from cars and plants could be regulated differently.
In a Senate hearing today, Burnett further explained that under the Clear Air Act, “after a pollutant is a regulated pollutant, controls are required on a variety of sources.” During the “inter-agency process,” Burnett said, OMB officials looked for ways to define CO2 from power plants as different from CO2 from automobiles, in order to shield industrial power plants from regulation under the landmark Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA:
BURNETT: There was quite a bit of effort and interest to see whether the Supreme Court case itself and regulation of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from automobiles be restricted to just automobiles. … So there’s an interest to determine whether we could define CO2 from automobiles as somehow different than CO2 from power plants, for example –
SEN. KLOBUCHAR: Do you think that’s possible?
BURNETT: Clearly it wasn’t supportable.
Watch it:
It is common knowledge that carbon dioxide is the same chemical regardless of what source emits it. But for the White House, which unabashedly asserts its anti-environment agenda, the definition of CO2 can change to help big polluters.
“I must say that it was sometimes somewhat embarrassing,” Burnett admitted, “for me to return to EPA and ask for my colleagues to explain yet again that CO2 is a molecule and there is no scientific way of differentiating between CO2 from car and a power plant.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
You are seriously stupid, Tiberious. Houseplants do not emit CO2.
Put a plastic bag over your head, and you’ll find out about CO2.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:41 pmEh, Republicans don’t need no stinkin’ science!
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:43 pmA right-wing friend of mine, a serious global warming denier (who’d a thought that?) once tried to use as an argument against GW that “we couldn’t tell the difference between man-made CO2 or natural CO2!”
I’m still not sure what the hell he intended to prove with that observation.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:44 pmTiberius, go into your mother’s garage, close the doors, start her car, and relax….CO2 is good for you….just wait and see.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:45 pmMy houseplants are emitting CO2. No.
Should I hide now? Yes.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:46 pmHey, Tiberius, I’d still like some help on identifying the “hatred” in that comment on the Imhofe thread.
I need my eyes opened. Help a Llama out!
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:47 pmTiberius “thinks” plants omit C02; that’s homeschooling at work. Priceless. lol
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:47 pmTiberius Says:
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Back pedal of the day.
What a maroon.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:47 pmTo “conservatives,” every issue has two equal and debatable sides.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:47 pmIf the Bush Administration wants to see what politicizing the EPA and stripping it of any relevance or oversight would eventually look like, just tune in to the Beijing Olympics.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:48 pmMr. P, you are so transparent in your idiocy it’s not even funny anymore.
Do your pets emit as much CO2 as a power plant? Are they the size of Cliff the Big Red Dog?
(Sorry, everyone, but I need to mention a children’s book to get my point across to our resident troll)
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:49 pmActually, Zooey, you have to get Hannity to tell Libelous to put that plastic bag over his head - it’s the only way he’ll listen!
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:49 pmNo. I don’t. CO2 is just as deadly. Seriously, go into your mother’s garage, close the doors, start her car, and relax….CO2 is good for you….just wait and see. Just sayin.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:50 pmWorth a repost. For laughs. Just sayn.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:51 pmThe fact is, the Bush administration has pushed their agenda and ignored the scientific community. If I recall, didn’t Bush pledge to cut to cut carbon emissions and fight global warming in 2000? Then, they ignored the Kyoto Protocol and now this…
McCain is going to do the same thing, anything for the corporations.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:52 pmPlants do emit CO2… however, they also absorb CO2 while they’re growing (which they tend to do all the time) and the net result is less CO2 in the atmosphere.
And yes, CO2 is CO2 is CO2. Plant, animal or man-made. It’s stupid to try to differentiate between car-made CO2 and power plant-made CO2.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:52 pmSure you can. Just point out the parts that “bash” gays, that’s all. that’s all I need. I’m sure I’ll be able to see it after you point it out. Kind of like those “hidden” drawings, y’know?
Thanks ever so.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:52 pmWell, if it’s after dark I believe that the houseplants will emit some CO2… they use cellular respiration at night.
Tiberius, why have you chosen the moniker of a notoriously gloomy and inept ruler who appointed Claudius (an even bigger tool) to make his reign of terror seem mild in retrospect?
With your vast knowledge of science and your choice of ‘hero’ I wonder… is your middle name Walker?
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:52 pmAnd both of them are theirs.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:53 pmA perfect example of why lawyers, MBA’s and Regent grads should never, ever, be allowed to make a decision concerning science. Not in government. Not in private companies. And, most definitely, not within a hundred miles of a public school.
BTW stupid troll, atmospheric CO2 has risen in direct proportion to measured increases in man made CO2 emissions. This has been observed as long as accurate measurement has been possible. Where the Hell else would it come form?
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:53 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Tiberius, go into your mother’s garage, close the doors, start her car, and relax….CO2 is good for you….just wait and see.
___________________________________________________________
You don’t think the CO might get in the way of him appreciating the effects of the CO2?
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:55 pmI suppose I should have added that emissions from animal respiration has remained nearly constant because humans have replaced other large mammals, rather than adding to the load.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:56 pmCO2 is good for trees. Why do liberals hate trees?
An oxygen rich atmosphere is good for breathing. Why do NeoCon’s hate breathing?
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:57 pmAnyone who thinks plants are benign is living in a dream world. St. Ronnie Reagan himself said that trees cause more air pollution than cars.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:57 pmTiberius Says:
My houseplants are emitting CO2. Should I hide now?
I guess you weren’t born when Reagan said the 1980 campaign that the biggest cause of pollution in the US was TREES! At his next campaign stop, someone had put a sign on a tree that said “CHOP ME BEFORE I KILL AGAIN”.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:58 pmThey don’t hate it exactly, they just can’t make any money off of it.
Aw, hell what am I saying? I don’t know what constitutes hate and what doesn’t. You know why? Because Tiberius won’t tell me, that’s why!
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:59 pmMr Llama, great minds…..
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:59 pmKeith — jinx. You owe me a coke.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:59 pmOK — Bush and his entire band of merry men are getting seriously delusional.
First, they try to redefine “abortion” to include aborting things that might exist at some point, in addition to aborting things that already exist.
Now they are trying to redefine CO2. It’s one thing to change language, but — change chemistry?
Next they’ll try to change mathematics — oh wait, they’ve already done that…
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:00 pmOne Carbon, Two Oxygen.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:05 pmLessee, maybe the electrons in car exhaust are spinning in a different direction around the nucleus than the ones from power plants. Yeah, that’s it! Their valence is probably all icky too!
Tiberius has made a few comments about the level of “hatred” from the left. He seems quite concerned about it, yet he won’t take any steps to alleviate the problem.
Not very responsible.
(I hope that wasn’t too hateful. But how would I know?)
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:05 pmSo you acknowledge that carbon offsets have something to do with breathing?
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:06 pmWhere should I wire my funds for the carbon offsets? I’m really eager to contribute to that one.
Here:
Imreallyadumfuk@shitmail.com
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:06 pmRonald Reagan was no intellectual. The replay of his Heritage.org-sponsored quotes affirms that. So why are the wingnuts popping the question, “What Would Reagan Do?”
As a Gen-Y member, it sure makes me glad I didn’t grow up in the 80s.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:07 pmTiberius, you could try self-immolation. That would contribute carbon to the atmosphere. Six out of ten Buddhist monks prefer Chevron.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:08 pmTiberius Walker Bush sez:
Uh, which side is trying to make money by selling “carbon offsets”?
So, the free market isn’t the best way to effect positive change for the world???
Making money is now bad?!?
I’m so confused…
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:09 pmIt’s true, I hate willful ignorance and hypocrisy, which pretty well includes all so called conservatives.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:11 pmPerhaps Tiberius should invest in some logic traps.
It seems to be biting him in the ass excessively.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:11 pmTiberius needs to go back to chemistry 101. I think he has carbon monoxide and carbon dioxside confused. That and their relationships when it comes to the greenhouse effect.
Anyway, like I said before, Tiberius don’t need no stinkin’ science…
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:14 pmTiberius Says:
My houseplants are emitting CO2. Should I hide now?
Oh….My…..Gawd……You are a true idiot.
And to think, it can nearly type..must of been the only class it attended in school.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:15 pmRex Tillerson makes enough money to casually wipe his ass with it, and soccer moms and Pentagon neocons drive their Chevy suburbans to look important. The NOBLE way to make money.
But Al Gore making some money off of his vision, his committment to establishing a clean, renewable energy system for the 21st century, that will add millions of green jobs and benefit the middle class greatly…HORRIFYING…PROFITEERING..CASHING IN..HYPOCRIT.
Personally, I think that Al Gore should become mega, mega rich if he can implement half of his plans amid this crazed climate of denial.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:18 pmIf this is what TP has become, again,the trolls are welcome to it. You hear that TP? You’ve allowed them to win another round. No donations till it’s fixed.
I’ll stop by after Mommy puts it to bed. Fight the good fight.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:19 pmCalifornia had 1400 fires the other week. Climate change causes droughts and a higher temperature causes more lightning—which was starting the fires. National Guard is normally used for firefighting and half of them and their equipment are in IRAQ.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:25 pmWell my Jack Russel Terrier was sure putting out some natural gas last night…sorta like was Tiberius is spewing on TP today.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:28 pmpete Says:
If this is what TP has become, again,the trolls are welcome to it. You hear that TP? You’ve allowed them to win another round. No donations till it’s fixed.
I’ll stop by after Mommy puts it to bed. Fight the good fight.
Yep…If the trolls offered something of substance, I don’t care that they don’t agree with stuff - that’s always ok. But they don’t oofer anything but mindless responses to serious topics. Just the same worn out talking points which have been debunked ages ago. It feels insulting to have to travel this ground over and over again.
The trolls are not here to move the dialog forward. They are here (paid a pittance by the GOP) to disrupt and de-rail.
If TP is to be a viable venue on the inter-tubes, they need a way to better manage the riff-raff. IMHO.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:32 pmI agree StratRat. Any topic that attracts Daryll is a fine example. TP, what do you guys think? Is it useful to have the likes of Daryll one of your regulars? I mean, really, if you do think it is useful, just email me your reasons. Thanks
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:38 pmlivelongandprosper Says:
I agree StratRat. Any topic that attracts Daryll is a fine example. TP, what do you guys think? Is it useful to have the likes of Daryll one of your regulars? I mean, really, if you do think it is useful, just email me your reasons. Thanks
That is exactly what I expressed in my numerous ‘report abuse’ flags today. If this is what TP wants to be, then color me gone!
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:40 pmHmm, now there’s not-so-good CO2 and there’s bad CO2? To anyone who has studied chemistry, even just High School Chemistry, this sounds amazingly stupid. But since this comes from the Bush crime family, what else can you expect? Smells like alot of H2S to me…
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:43 pmBush Cronies Tried To Redefine ‘Carbon Dioxide’ To Save Power Plants From Emissions Regulations. Henceforth, Carbon Dioxide Will Be Called Poupouri
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:05 pmCO2. They call it life.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:26 pmOrwell saw these corrupt batards and their “newspeak” coming over 60 years ago!
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:27 pmTiberius is just trolling, but he makes, through counterexample, an important point: You can’t do this without the numbers.
No, Ti, CO2 is not bad. it’s the levels that matter. Vitamins are poisons at high concentrations. And in addition to the levels, it’s the rate of change that matters. Depending on the rate of change, oxidation manages itself as rust, fire, or explosion. You don’t think of flour as an explosive–but you can blow up a house with a bag of flour if you govern the rate of oxidation.
A scientific argument is like playing charrades if you don’t incclude the numbers. It’s a pity we’re so innumerate that scientists are forced to excise numbers in the best of times.
But you know, Tiberius, there was a time when most engineers were Republicans–hating hippies and all that. But for quite a while now, you and yours have been ruining the Right’s reputation. Robert Heinlein once opined that a citizen should have to solve a differential equation to be able to vote. What would he say if he were to look at the Republican Party today?
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:33 pmI’m glad to see some folks setting the record straight on the science issues. It is a shame to see the lack of understanding of relatively basic biology and chemistry. WIthout better education in the sciences, I don’t know how our society expects to effectively address the environmental/medical/agricultural issues we confront.
In that spirit, it is worth noting that plants do emit CO2 (just as we do), and they emit it throughout the day and night (just no photosynthesis at night). As was correctly noted in a previous post, the reason plants are not a contributor to greenhouse gases is because growing plants consume more CO2 than they release. The carbon from CO2 is used to make tissues, proteins, etc. during growth. Of course, when you go ahead and remove forests for development and agriculture, all that CO2 is lost back to the atmosphere. So, on top of fossil fuel consumption, we have also greatly reduced the plant cover on the planet as well.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:14 pmpbg Says:
Robert Heinlein once opined that a citizen should have to solve a differential equation to be able to vote. What would he say if he were to look at the Republican Party today?
I never thought so many people would be living in trailer parks.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:21 pmpbg Says:
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:33 pm
I believe that R.A. Heinlein provided a definition. I can’t remember which book, but, he called them:
“Idiots who worship criminals”.
Sounds like the modern GOP to me.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:29 pmOnce again, they’re not even bothering to come up with good lies. These are just too easy to show in error.
There used to be a time when the lies would fool an “average person”. Now they barely fool the 20 percenters.
But in all seriousness, as a Chemical Engineer, let me point out that Power plants, instead of emiting carbon dioxide, emit di-carbon quatra-oxide. And the molecule just exists in two parts.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:57 pmFunny how no one ever mentions carbonated beverages.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 pmC-O2…it’s a gas, you see….well, actually, you don’t see…’cuz it’s a gas. heh heh
But it’s made up of two parts. First there’s C. That’s Spanish, Es-pan-ol fer my Mexican friends….fer “yes.”
So the first part is “yes.”
But there’s a second part, too. heh.
an’ that’s O-2. Now O is fer ox-ee-gin. And there’s two of them. Now that’s good, because we all need ox-ee-gin to breathe.
So we got C, that’s Yes, an’ an O-2, that’s twice as much ox-ee-gin than we had before.
So C…O-2 is good. heh heh.
Like I said…it’s a gas. heh. heh. heh.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:05 pmYet another reason why the people of the world, let alone the U.S., should arrest Cheney and Bush for crimes against humanity. Anything less is a crime in itself.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:06 pmNevar, I beat you to it, by a couple of years:
(Ok, so I was burning the mid-night oil on that one….so to speak)
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:09 pmSo get this, in unison with our own planet’s warming, other parts of our solar system have warmed up too! Mars’ icecaps are melting and Jupiter is developing a second red spot because of its sudden increase of heat.
Do more than call me names. I consider this to be one of the stronger evidences against global warming and I think it needs some attention. Please people, set me straight. :D
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming031307.htm
By the way, if carbonated beverages are ever taken away in the name of lessening CO2 emissions I’m going to be pissed.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:21 pmYossarian:
Sure, I guess that is possible, but one of the biggest criticisms of anthropogenic global climate change is a lack of data. Yet, you seem quite willing to consider this alternative to be “strong evidence”. Just out of curiosity, how many years of data do we have for these other planets? Is solar activity and temperature on earth as tightly correlated as temperature and CO2? Even if solar activity drives this phenomenon as the article suggests, how does it relate to CO2? There is clearly a link between CO2 and temp. that we have measured for >100,000 years. If solar activity is driving the temperature, then it is highly likely to be driving, directly or indirectly, the CO2 concentrations as well. How? We know CO2 has increased due to humans, so is our additional CO2 output exacerbating the effects of solar activity? And on and on. The fact still remains that while this may be an interesting hypothesis with some legitimate support, you need lots of data to establish a viable alternative that can refute the current hypothesis. And given that data, the theory would still need to explain the tight link between CO2 and temperature - especially the part about the known anthropogenic increases in CO2 and current increases in temperature. Otherwise, you cannot rule out anthropogenic CO2 as a hypothesis. Finally, according to the article, there are at least a few scientists researching the question. If they publish compelling empirical investigations in peer reviewed science journals, their research will be getting a lot more attention than that provided by the Canada free press.
Regardless, I love how in this clearly objective article the author is already anticipating the “I told you so” moment to be directed at the inevitable false claim of success by environmentalists in the future. That is quite rich considering that virtually nothing has been done to this point to actually combat CO2 increases!
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:19 amYes Tiberius you should hide now. Out of shame for your stupidity. Your houseplants emit OXYGEN. The real question here is just how dumb ARE you wingnuts and do you EVER have any dim idea what you are talking about.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:32 ambelac true the Krebs cycle but not as much as they absorb so in the end they are USING more than they ever put out so I still say its an incorrect statement to say they emit CO2
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:37 amRepublicans say “robust” far too often.
Hey ease up on Tiberius — in Bushworld everything is backwards and upside down. In Bushworld we breathe C02 and emit oxygen, like my cat and my houseplants. Cows fart oxygen and airplanes emit Happy Air chemtrails. It’s all lovely and healthy.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:41 amYossarian,
As a general rule, if you ever think that you can think of something in a few seconds that the world’s top 10,000 experts on the subject cannot think of in many decades of 60-hour weeks——THEN YOU ARE WRONG!!!
The experts have not only looked at temperatures and nothing else. They have looked at parts per million of CO2 in the Earth’s (not Mars) atmosphere for the past 400,000 years. They study ice cores from Greenland and Antartica that has ice miles deep. There is an exact correlation between the recent warming and CO2 in the atmosphere.
Warming can happen that is not man-made. The Earth has gone through many phases of warming and cooling throughout its 4 billion years (6000 for Daryll). But it has been scientifically-proven that we now have man-made warming. These are not contradictory.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:17 amTheres actually slightly “different” types of CO2 in that it exists in the atmosphere with different carbon isotopes.
Of course this fact is inconvenient for the Bush-administration because its used by scientists to determine that the extra CO2 in Earths atmosphere comes from humans burning fossil fuels and not from natural sources.
See this link
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:08 amhttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
Yossarian Says:
Do more than call me names. I consider this to be one of the stronger evidences against global warming and I think it needs some attention. Please people, set me straight. :D
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming031307.htm
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
_______
Martian temperature change is driven by dust storms and heat reflectivity, and this temperature does fluctuate from year to year, but there is little to no evidence of actual long-term climate change on Mars.
Jupiter is a different animal altogether, since it has its own internal heat source. In fact, it puts out far more heat than it absorbs from the Sun.
The main point is that all planets have different drivers of climate change, and the Sun is not the common denominator. The Earth also has natural causes to climate change, but these are currently being far outpaced by human causes.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:44 amTiberius Says:
Uh, which side is trying to make money by selling “carbon offsets”?
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:04 pm
______
You’re kidding, right? Are you really trying to spin carbon offsets as a “liberal” idea? Wow. You’re delusional.
Carbon offsets are a textbook example of free-market conservatism’s approach to climate change. Carbon offsets exist because big polluting industries looked at the science of climate change, saw that it was real, saw that they were contributing to it, and decided not to do anything about it directly, since reducing their own emissions would involve innovating and technology investment and changes to their business model. Instead, they said “tellya what - let’s just plant a couple trees in Brazil while we continue to pollute and we can pretend we’re doing something about the problem. Deal?”
There’s nothing “liberal” about carbon offsets.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:17 amI think the more important issue is how can we change this.
How many personal letters outlining the difference (of which there is none) between corporate CO2 and residential CO2 do we have to write in order to get heard. Perhaps letters are too crude a form, but you get my point.
They won’t listen if we don’t say anything. I think it’s the least we can do.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:29 amactually plants do “emit” CO2 for cellular respiration (same reason why we emit CO2) its just that plants also have photosynthesis which converts more CO2 into O2 (than the release)
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:54 amKeith Says:
Yossarian,
As a general rule, if you ever think that you can think of something in a few seconds that the world’s top 10,000 experts on the subject cannot think of in many decades of 60-hour weeks——THEN YOU ARE WRONG!!!
There’s not much of a consensus among our climate experts, despite what Newsweek tells us. Ever heard of Lord Mockton and John Coleman <— (founder of the Weather Channel)?
huissein toster: I’ll be sure to spend awhile reading the site you linked, http://www.skepticalscience.com . But at the moment, I’m still not convinced.
tbone Says:Sure, I guess that is possible, but one of the biggest criticisms of anthropogenic global climate change is a lack of data. Yet, you seem quite willing to consider this alternative to be “strong evidence”. Just out of curiosity, how many years of data do we have for these other planets? Is solar activity and temperature on earth as tightly correlated as temperature and CO2?
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:19 am
Touché. You’re right, other planets should not be used as a primary argument, there’s not enough data about them.
But you asked if solar activity and temperature on earth are as tightly correlated as temperature and CO2, and the answer is: yes, in fact they are even more correlated. Mankind has tracked solar activity since 1755, so there’s quite a few years of data on which to make this claim.
There’s a nice little chart on page 8 of this: http://media.kusi.clickability.com/ documents/ Comments+on+Global+Warming02.pdf
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:00 amYossarian,
Of course Sun and climate are thigh connected, but this old GW denialist argument does very clearly show the difference between science and junk science.
Sientist:
look at the data that shows that the earth is heating up. They make the assumption that the sun is maybe responsible. They look at the data from space probes that measure sun radiation since the seventies. They find that the average Sun activity goes slightly back. They look for different reasons.
Junk Scientist:
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:17 ammake the conclutionthat the sun is responsible for GW. They look at the data from space probes that measure sun radiation since the seventies. They find that the average Sun activity goes slightly back. They look for other tables that can deceive others and publish there “findings”.
For more information about sun activity and GW look at
http://environment.newscientist.com/ channel/ earth/ climate-change/ dn11650
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:23 amThanks for pointing out the chart, although it doesn’t provide any indication that solar activity is more strongly correlated with temperature than CO2. It does however, illustrate quite nicely that the data presented is in no way superior to the data on CO2 and temp. All the same criticisms that have been levied against temperature and CO2 concentrations can be applied to the solar activity data, and then some. For solar activity to be a viable explanation, one must explain why in several instances in the data, increases in solar activity are not followed by increases in temperature. In some cases (for instance, years around 1890) there is a drop in solar activity and a huge spike in temperature. Why? Look at the data closely and you will see that there are many instances in which the two graphs are out of phase. On top of that, you seem pretty impressed by 260 years of data but are unimpressed by several hundred thousand years worth.
Science depends on a healthy skepticism of data and conclusions, but skepticism must be rooted in empirically derived evidence and applied to all competing hypotheses. While there are some scientists that are skeptical about AGCC, much of that centers around uncertainties regarding the degree of anthropogenic influence and poorly understood factors that may affect actual temperature change (e.g. clouds and global dimming). Continued research will provide answers. In the meantime, we are left with a choice; accept the current and growing evidence that AGCC is occurring and do something about it or do nothing and wait 50 years until solar activity changes and hope that is the real driver of temperature changes.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:48 amYossarian Says:
There’s not much of a consensus among our climate experts, despite what Newsweek tells us. Ever heard of Lord Mockton and John Coleman <— (founder of the Weather Channel)?
Lord Monckton? You mean the infamous science denier who just got thoroughly punked by the American Physical Society? John Coleman is another comedian. Climate and weather are not the same thing, they just use the same tools. Asking a weatherman to comment on long-term climate science is like asking a tailor to reattach a severed limb just cause he knows how to use a needle and thread.
huissein toster: I’ll be sure to spend awhile reading the site you linked, http://www.skepticalscience.com . But at the moment, I’m still not convinced.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:00 am
And you’ll never be convinced, cause you don’t want to be. Science deniers like yourself prefer to stay ignorant.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:12 amTiberius Says:
My houseplants are emitting CO2. Should I hide now?
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:38 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
Your houseplants (who, by the way, are smarter than you) produce more oxygen than CO2, specially by day, so keep your plants. But I will not mind if you hide, promise.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:24 am“there is no scientific way of differentiating between CO2 from car and a power plant.”
Come on now, if (as our Greatest Prezimuhdent Ever Ronnie Reagan said) catsup is a vegetable, there’s gotta be all kinds of CO2z out there. It’s both scientifical and un-misunderestimateable too, and all teh librul outrage in the world won’t make it so. Why? Cuz I’m right, that’s why.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:19 pm