Rep. Broun receives applause on the House floor for calling global warming a ‘hoax.’
Rep. Broun receives applause on the House floor for calling global warming a ‘hoax.’
During the floor debate this morning over the historic American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) received a round of applause from GOP colleagues when he claimed that man-made global warming is a “hoax” with “no scientific consensus.” Broun, citing misleading statistics, also claimed that the bill would hurt the poor and “kill jobs:”
BROUN: Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus. … And who’s going to be hurt most [by ACES] the poor, the people on limited income…the people who can least afford to have their energy taxes raised by MIT says $3100 per family. … This bill must be defeated. We need to be good stewards of our environment, but this is not it, it’s a hoax! … [APPLAUSE.]
Watch it:
Broun’s tired hoax claims aside, Broun’s $3,100 talking point is contradicted by the Congressional Budget Office, which found that that the average cost of the legislation would be only 48-cents a day, the price of a postage stamp, and that “households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020.” A report by the Center for American Progress and the University of Massachusetts also found that the bill would create 1.7 million new jobs, including 59,000 new jobs in Broun’s homestate of Georgia.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Maybe cause it is?
June 26th, 2009 at 1:06 pmStupid is as stupid does.
The repiggies are truly the Party of Stupid.
That clown is parroting the slogans fed him by Rupert Murdoch’s business interests and the board members of corporate evangelicalism.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:07 pmThe bill will create 1.7 billion new jobs. Really?
June 26th, 2009 at 1:10 pmAre these the same SOBs that applauded Vitter and Ensign after they got busted for their philadering?
June 26th, 2009 at 1:11 pmOh, god… not another “global warming is a hoax” troll-fest.
Science and research be damned, if a troll doesn’t want to believe something, they’re just not gonna believe it. All the relevant scientific societies in the world could agree that human impact is altering the climate, but as long as James Inhofe, Rush Limbaugh and the guy who started the Weather Channel say that it’s bunk, the trolls know who they’re gonna trust.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:12 pmhow old is this guy?
he looks old enough to actually SEE and EXPERIENCE the changes
brought about because of man’s pollution…
i am 56 and have noticed drastic changes in the past 20 years…
it’s so obvious… why be against halting the damage?
and why be against a healthy new “green” economy?
very confusing… the country is getting dumber every day…
June 26th, 2009 at 1:12 pmI think leftside Annie is right about our FML troll… his crap sounds too random even for an idiot to compose.
I mean, seriously… “Zeitgeist” as an epithet?
WTF????
June 26th, 2009 at 1:12 pmI’m pulling this over from the other thread, but I believe this article does a good job of communicating the objections of skeptics:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25400914-7583,00.html
June 26th, 2009 at 1:13 pmP.D., this is also the same crowd that cheered on the Iraq catastrophe. That’s some good judgment they have, isn’t it?
June 26th, 2009 at 1:13 pmb-cup, by my count that’s at least the third thread on which you’ve posted this link today.
Some might call that “spamming”.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:14 pmIf global warming is a hoax, would one of the deniers like to explain what happened to the alpine glaciers?
June 26th, 2009 at 1:15 pmThere is no other explanation why ice tens of thousands of years old has disappeared in a matter of a few decades.
That’s a pile of judgment right there, as George Costanza might say.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:16 pmGeez, the unemployed trolls sitting in mommy’s basement must just be hitting refresh until a new thread comes up! Do they get extra dimes for being first?
It’s getting more difficult to navigate around the troll feces these days.
Although it’s nothing new, the members of the GNOP never allow themselves to get bogged down with facts when they have corporate interests to protect. That Broun tried to include an “oh, the poor poor people!” line is a blatant attempt to pander to a voting block that left him and his ilk years ago.
PEACE
June 26th, 2009 at 1:17 pmThe holy rollers are hell-bent on pulling the U.S. back into a 19th century agrarian model, with a few incredibly wealthy asset holders micromanaging the lives of the tenant farmers, all with so-called Biblical penalties for the uncontrollable.
I have no interest in joining this “brave new world” that the repiggies lust after.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:17 pmralph. I know. But, even if that is the case, there is enough doubt to cause some of these societies to take pause:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/australia/2538688/Oz-carbon-trading-delayed-until-August
June 26th, 2009 at 1:18 pmevangenital@12, Yeah. And they also believe the world is 5,000 years old. Sigh.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:18 pmI read a story about a tribe that lived near the arctic circle. They had an expression for “when hell freezes over”—it was when their ice mountain (whatever its name was) went away.
It went away.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:20 pmhuskerco Says:
The bill will create 1.7 billion new jobs. Really?
Typo. It’s hard for all us Soros-paid TPers to think in terms of millions when we’re so accustomed to receiving billions.
/snark
PEACE
June 26th, 2009 at 1:21 pmBroun undoubtedly received an even larger ovation from the Republican side of the room when he proclaimed “there is also no scientific consensus that the Earth is round or that it revolves around the Sun.” Yet another reason the Republican Party is shrinking faster than the glaciers.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:22 pmCan anyone tell me why saving the environment is wrong? Is it so terrible to have clean air for our children? I will never understand the Republicans agenda.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:23 pmThe article says that it would cost 48 cents per day, the price of a postage stamp. The price of a postage stamp is 44 cents. Are facts important or not?
Peace
June 26th, 2009 at 1:24 pmyou have a typo there the report say 1.7 million jobs, not billion.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:24 pmpoint taken. But, the idea that skepticism is only being expressed by irrelevant fringe groups should be reconsidered.
It’s possible that humans are having significant effect on the climate. It’s possible there are efforts (like cap and trade) that we can take to curb climate change.
But, the idea that everyone agrees or that serious questions about the appropriateness of green measures have been settled by consensus, is just not accurate.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:24 pmSee, in the rights mind only God will destroy the earth. It won’t be the actions of mankind that does this. Of course those on the right forget what the bible teaches about being good stewards of the land.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:25 pmP.D. Says:
Can anyone tell me why saving the environment is wrong?
Some rich people would make a little less money. Those rich people control a major American political party, a fake cable “news” channel and a bunch of redneck idiots scattered about the country. These forces are trying to stop anyone from saving the environment by lying.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:26 pmpaleolib Says:
Broun undoubtedly received an even larger ovation from the Republican side of the room when he proclaimed “there is also no scientific consensus that the Earth is round or that it revolves around the Sun.” Yet another reason the Republican Party is shrinking faster than the glaciers.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:26 pm“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Hell, if you think that ovation was larger, you should have heard the one given at the last republican retreat when it was announced that there would be free cocaine and hookers for everyone. ;)
There is scientific fact that global warming is happening, repugs just choose to ignore it for their own selfish reasons (big oil, big money). There is no scientific fact that god exists yet repugs and wingnuts believe in him,her no matter what.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:27 pmrhf. Okay, I’m a moron. Are the representatives of the Australian government morons?
The universe of those you consider morons, may be growing.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:27 pmb-cup, here’s the way your linked article begins:
FOR more than a decade public opinion on human-caused global warming has been moulded by pronouncements from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its army of acolytes.
Arguably the zenith of acceptance was the IPCC’s fourth assessment in early 2007 followed soon after by the release of the Al Gore movie An Inconvenient Truth.
The accompanying recognition by way of an Academy Award for the movie and awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize jointly to Gore and the IPCC only heightened awareness of the message.
During more recent months it is not overstating the case to say that there has been a perceptible shift in public opinion.
Rejection of some of the claims made in the movie by a British court in itself has had little effect.
Emphasis mine.
“Its army of acolytes”
Seriously?
This is an unbiased journalistic exercise?
“Rejection of some of the claims in a British court” amounted to the following:
The nine errors alleged by the judge included:
Mr Gore’s assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. The judge said this was “distinctly alarmist” and it was common ground that if Greenland’s ice melted it would release this amount of water – “but only after, and over, millennia”.
Mr Gore’s assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming – the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.
Mr Gore’s reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned “swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice”. The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.”
—-
Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore’s central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.
In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown as long as updated guidelines were followed.
Gee, I wonder why that ruling would have little effect on the public perception of climate change research?
Maybe because the errors were minor and did not damage the central thesis of the film?
In short, b-cup, your article sounds suspiciously like an agenda-driven piece that doesn’t do well enough at hiding its bias.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:27 pmA member (any member) of the “hoax crowd” goes on the TV Show “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire”.
They get a question and decide to ask the audience for help.
97% of the audience says “A” is the answer. 3% say “B” is the correct answer.
The hoaxsters would pick B, and sheepishly exit the show to the laughter and derision of the audience.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:27 pmFreeMarketLiberal Says:
Global warming started at the end of the last Ice Age…back in the 70’s scientists were claiming another Ice Age…This bill is all about MONEY!
absolutely correct…Just ask Alpha Bore where he increased his holdings by over a 100 million dollars in only 7 years after he left office! Snake Oil.
Oh…and hey all you LiberTurds…do you think John Conyers will be getting any tonight from his crooked wife? hahaha
Link
I see Mon the Con had her “pastor” with her in court today! HAHAHA!!! Two fools.
Oh…and for all you B.O. supporters keeping count….
Unemployment Triples, Dozens of States Going Broke
Link
Poor clueless Obamanation just can’t seem to do anything right. He is totally lost now and will go down as the worst idiot to ever hold the office right next to Jimmy Failure Carter. We will have over 20% inflation by the end of next year thanks to him and all of you!
June 26th, 2009 at 1:28 pmElBruce. I’m not sure it’s that simple. If you tax the corporations, we do they get the money to pay the tax? Do they just hit up rich shareholders to pitch in?
I don’t think that’s what happens. I believe those costs are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
If we are paying higher prices for things that we buy, aren’t we paying the taxes?
June 26th, 2009 at 1:28 pmThe industries that are financing the “global warming denial campaign” share the same unethical “profit at all costs” philosophy that has dominated the decision-making process of the tobacco industry as it repeatedly denied any health-related consequences of using their products.
Economic impact cannot be the sole factor in every regulatory policy of the U.S. government. Those that do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. We can no longer afford to be so short-sighted when the long-term consequences of our inaction are so great.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:28 pmSpencers mom, you are priceless (#27, among many others).
June 26th, 2009 at 1:28 pmBoy . . it doesn’t take much for Republicans to receive a standing ovation. Ensign, Broun, Sanford – the intelligencia of our generation ! Keep up the good work – there won’t be any of you left come 2010.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:29 pmSome of the representatives of the American government are clearly morons.
Why should Australia be immune from that plague?
June 26th, 2009 at 1:29 pmTo not believe the actions of mankind has nothing to do with global warming or doing harm to our planet through the advancement of industry etc, is just plain ignorant!
June 26th, 2009 at 1:29 pmIf we could find a way to get rid of all the hot air the GOP expells daily that would be a huge step right there!
June 26th, 2009 at 1:30 pmThe science is irrefutable….go away!
June 26th, 2009 at 1:31 pmBut, the idea that everyone agrees or that serious questions about the appropriateness of green measures have been settled by consensus, is just not accurate
Do you believe the earth is 6000 years old?
June 26th, 2009 at 1:32 pmBased on your argument, since some quacks believe in a young earth, that theory has some validity.
Y’know… I was going to dismiss FML’s lame talking point, until I saw how many “O”s he had at the end of “ROTFLMAOOOOOOOOOO”.
That convinced me he must be serious.
… if only it had been in bold… I might have become a total right-winger.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:32 pmMy argument to my Repub. friends that believe everything they hear on FOX is this,
June 26th, 2009 at 1:34 pmIf I am wrong on global climate change and we clean up our environment, no harm–no foul. If you are wrong, God help us all!
Ma, repugs are on the stupid again!
They don’t get it. Overly hot in one place, overly cold in another place.
Google, Bing or Wiki before making stupid remarks teabaggers.
And teabaggers’ unsubstantiated generalizations are pathetic.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:35 pmHe can’t expect anyone to believe him but he can tell the special interest folks ‘hey, at least I made an effort, we can negotiate how much that’s worth in these difficult times.’
June 26th, 2009 at 1:35 pmRepublicans Love Facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
Maybe cause it is?
June 26th, 2009 at 1:37 pm===========================================================
This coming from someone who attends teabag parties and supports domestic terrorism of right wingnut fringe. Go figure.
This post is growing so fast. It always does when the subject is global warming. I’m with Katy @ #8, I’ve seen it change drastically in my lifetime. And, it’s been documented to have changed the world over.
Since the only people who gain from the denial are big business owners, I wonder how bright the people are that post
June 26th, 2009 at 1:38 pmtheir disbelief. And it looks like they were just ready to pounce on this one. What’s their cumulative IQ?
a hoax, like the heliocentric solar system, electricity, humans being able to withstand travel at speeds exceeding 15mph (truly a concern to those afraid of steam powered trains), human flight, moon landing… etc…
truly, conservatism in the ‘humans weren’t meant to develop technology beyond that which jesus had in the bible, but we’ll take advantage of what heathens have developed and use it to enslave you’ sense of the word.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:38 pmOkay lets go over the republican play book:
Republicans against saving the planet (check)
Republicans against affordable health care (check)
Republicans against the freedom of choice (check)
Republicans against peace (check)
Republicans for corporate welfare (check)
Republicans against any form of social programs (check)
Republicans for tax cuts for the wealthy (check)
Republicans for tax breaks for mega corporations (check)
Republicans against diplomacy (check)
Republicans against the poor & middle class (check)
Why do Americans vote for republicans again????????
June 26th, 2009 at 1:39 pmSomeone needs to explain to the denialists that the hoax story doesn’t work–because the people warning us about climate change aren’t acting the slightest bit like hoaxers.
When a hoax is exposed, the hoaxers normally have very little to say. Once the game is up, they generally leave by the back door, if they can.
But the scientists and others who are warning about global climate change are acting in just the opposite way. They are not acting like hoaxers exposed, but are aggressively pressing their case.
It’s a scenario problem–one of the Right’s weak areas, cognitively speaking.
The scientific community is not backing off. Hardly a day goes by without some new, alarming study about how bad the problem is and how quickly our chances are dwindling. The cognitive dissonance level among denialists must be deafening.
The denialists are the ones acting like hoaxers. Every single one of them has a different story, based on his/her own chosen sources.
There is also their tendency to capitalize every third word. These are sure signs you have entered Delusionville.
PS: You are invited to enjoy watching Rupert Murdoch in Pain.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:42 pmbackup Says:
Some rich people would make a little less money.
ElBruce. I’m not sure it’s that simple. If you tax the corporations, we do they get the money to pay the tax? Do they just hit up rich shareholders to pitch in?
I don’t think that’s what happens. I believe those costs are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
If we are paying higher prices for things that we buy, aren’t we paying the taxes?
best argument for not taxing corporations at all /sarcasm
June 26th, 2009 at 1:43 pmlokidog. Here’s another way to think about it.
3 years ago all the great financial experts thought that home prices would rise forever. And because the experts thought it, the policy makers thought it, and the general public thought it.
There was consensus.
And we made mistakes in policy based on that consensus.
The few people that were questioning the assumptions of rising housing prices were considered rubes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
My point is this: Just because a majority of people, or even a majority of ‘experts’ believe something, doesn’t mean there isn’t room for skepticism.
Maybe if we would have questioned the financial experts a little more, we could have avoided the policy decisions that exasperated our current financial environment.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:43 pmBuh-bye FML.
Pathetic
June 26th, 2009 at 1:43 pmGreat News:
from the associated press
June 26th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Some people thought b-cup was changing his ways lately.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:44 pmAgain, I will tell you he can’t wait to back stab someone
Why,oh, why do so many people think they can trust this guy?
As Fred G Sanford said : I trust him as far as I can toss a ten ton banana.
This thread will soon have more manure on it than you could find on a horse ranch.
I really think we need an ignore button, I’m tired of dealing with 3rd grade trolls.Same shite, another day.
tony and lido
Uncle Fester, don’t forget:
Republicans against education (check)
Republicans against gays, or any minority (check)
Republicans against sane gun control (check)
Republicans against immigrants, except their servants (check)
Republicans for family values, against being held to account (check)
Republicans against anything Democratic (check)
I’m so certain there are more…
PEACE
June 26th, 2009 at 1:45 pm(ignore) this person is a nitwit.(#73)
June 26th, 2009 at 1:48 pmtony and lido
b-cup’s right; whenever there seems to be a consensus, the obvious TRUTH of the situation is THE EXACT OPPOSITE!
it’s the only explanation that makes any sense.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:48 pmIt has become more obvious to me that the wingnut party is not filled with the smartest people this country has to offer. They are dumb.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:50 pmWarren Buffett was an Obama supporter. I assume his view is not partisan.
Here’s his view on whether cap and trade is a tax and who he thinks will pay:
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/nswift/warren-buffet-cap-and-trade-a-huge-tax
June 26th, 2009 at 1:50 pm-republicans against the disabled.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:50 pm-republicans against the homeless.
-republicans against science.
-republicans against a healthy country.
-republicans against the educated.
and on and on it goes.
tony and lido
backup Says:
FreeMarketLiberal Says:
RealityCheck Says:
Republicans Love Facts Says:
Can one of you deniers please take a stab at answering comment #15.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:51 pmI need a good laugh, one of you knuckleheads must be up to the challenge.
These are the same people that gave us creationism/ID. Anti-science through and through.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:51 pmthe online right is working the phones and email inboxes on cap and trade. it’s something they actually might be better than us on. here’s a link that covers it and also provides the contact info for reps they’re giving out:
http://blahgblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/direct-action-by-the-left-and-right-online/
June 26th, 2009 at 1:52 pmI’m not sure the forced clapping from what sounds like two of the distinguished gentleman’s own staffers is worth calling attention to. Still, the guy is obviously a major asshat.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:52 pmFor the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. 1 Timothy 6:10
How very true. The love of money or greed has caused much corruption within our government. It has caused industries to pollute and endanger our planet for maximum profit. It has led to the high price of prescription drugs and health care in our country. It has led to US corporations having no more loyalty to the United States Of America.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:52 pmFREE MARKET, RLF, Tell me, do either of you know WHY, it’s
advisable that you limit your predator fish meals to one a week ?
You can deny anthropgenic climate change forever, butyou can’t
deny the damage of coal burning plants to the lakes and oceans.
Mercury pollution, and acidification of the oceans WILL result in the total loss of shellfish and corals within a century. That also includes krill, the most important species
June 26th, 2009 at 1:53 pmat the bottom of the food chain.
It’ll create “1.7 billion new jobs”?! My, my, wherever will we get the people to fill those jobs?
June 26th, 2009 at 1:54 pmYou seem to invoke the tragic Jonestown mass suicide in many of your posts. Have you been contemplating suicide? Trolling is often a desperate attempt by deeply depressed and anxious individuals to exert power over a world in which they feel powerless. You should consider devoting time to actually improving your mental health; trolling may be giving you a short term “fix” from your feelings of helplessness, but it isn’t resolving any of your problems.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:57 pmHere’s my stab at #15. The world is a complex ecosystem. Heat on the planet is uneven and travels. (by currents, winds, Earth’s relation to the Sun, etc)
I believe there have been temperature variations across the Earth thoughout history.
I believe there is evidence that antarctic ice is expanding:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Global-Warming/Antarctic-ice-growing-not-shrinking-/articleshow/4418558.cms
If we want to chalk up the loss of the alpine glaciers to global warming, how do we account for those places that have more ice or cooler temperatures?
June 26th, 2009 at 1:58 pmWHY – O – WHY do these fools continue to get away with this?? WHERE was ANY Democrat to stand up and call this fool a LIAR TO HIS FACE?????
This “Oh I’m afraid of hurting someone’s feelings” crap has GOT TO STOP!
If your a Democrat, and have the balls to stand up to the Republican LIE MACHINE then DO IT and quit acting like a bunch of cry babies!!!
June 26th, 2009 at 1:58 pmIt would be great if all these wing-nut conservative Christian Republicans would get themselves raptured up ASAP – the world would be a lot better off without them.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:58 pmrhf. That’s a good point.
Let me ask you, if it costs more money for business to produce whatever they produce (due to the cap and trade regulation), where do you think the money will come from, to pay that increased cost?
June 26th, 2009 at 2:00 pmRemember, these are the same people who claim that evolution is a hoax.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:01 pmrhf. Okay, try this link:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/antarctic_020822.html
June 26th, 2009 at 2:03 pmb-cup, the Antarctic ice thickening argument is a favorite of deniers.
only problem is, it supports rather than disputes the warming theory.
You see, Antarctica is one of the most arid places on the planet. Very little annual precipitation.
Warm air holds more moisture than cold air. Thus, a warmer atmosphere is predicted to carry more moisture; hence, more precipitation over a place like Antarctica.
That is why the interior ice sheet is growing on the continent. The ice shelves, however, which are more vulnerable to the warming effects of climate change… not so much.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:05 pm‘Nuff said.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:06 pmb-cup, here’s a hint. Weather and climate are two different things.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:06 pmI read the trolls comments because they are so ridiculous.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:06 pmEvery troll that comments on TP always gets smacked down by the regulars here. I wonder why these clowns keep coming here.
I figure thats all they have left,throw a monkey wrench in the engine of progress. The trolls just follow their leaders in the repug party. Just say no to anything that the dems. try to accomplish wether its good for our country or not.
Its sad that the right has a following of 20%. How fcking stupid can a person be?
repugs just like to see things die.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:09 pmI’ve got to go do something else, but this is what I don’t understand.
There are obviously forces that want to deny climate change so they can profit from the status quo. So we have to be skeptical of their charges.
But, additionally, there are forces that will profit from the introduction of climate change initiatives. They charges also need scrutiny.
Both parties have their scientists, legislators and lobbyists.
If the positions being considered were free, I don’t think there would be any purpose for debate.
But, the reality is the policies being considered are not free. We are making decisions about the economy to address what we feel may be a problem with industry and climate.
We have to weigh the costs of our plans against the significance of the problem.
The costs will be great, so the need to have exhaustive debate is appropriate.
I know that proponents of the climate change policy would rather not expend the time and effort.
But, because the stakes are so high (either way) that difficult debate should continue.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:13 pmrhf. This would make more sense, if I believed in God.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:15 pmGive me a freakin break teabaggers! We give away more money than this. Your wars cost more.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:16 pmralph. that’s a good argument around #101.
I’ll think about it.
See ya.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:16 pmUtter, complete phucknozzles like Broun are the folks who make me not unhappy that I shall likely not live long enough to enjoy the fruits of their ignorance.
And I am downright GLAD that I never had kids, because they or their kids will be the ones to bear the burdens that this shitheel will impart as his “legacy.”
June 26th, 2009 at 2:20 pmrepugs will deny that potatoes are a starch.
How can they be so stupid?
repugs is the world a sphere or is it flat (like your reasoning and ideas?) This is not a trick question.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:21 pmBroun, citing misleading statistics, also claimed that the bill would hurt the poor
When did the Republicans ever care about the poor?
June 26th, 2009 at 2:23 pmNot much of a fan of Teh Google, are ya, watchpup?
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=evidence+world+temperature+is+rising&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
June 26th, 2009 at 2:26 pmAnd so we bid adieu to our dear b-cup, ever the master of the false equivalency.
But at least he offers the appearance of being reasonable.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:27 pmB-Cup says: But, because the stakes are so high (either way) that difficult debate should continue.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
It is just for complicated conditions like this that the “Precautionary Principle” was developed.
Via Wiki:
It is antithetical to ‘entrepeneurism’ in commerce, science, and other areas of human endeavor wherein the reach may exceed the grasp. Bidness people hate it, because it cautions them against the proclivity for their greed to outstrip their “common” sense.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:28 pmGame of Life Says:
repugs just like to see things die.
…including their own Party.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:30 pmbackup Says:
But, additionally, there are forces that will profit from the introduction of climate change initiatives. They charges also need scrutiny.
Waaay too iffy to make that claim. As the markets for alternative energies aren’t developed yet, it’s all a venture cap situation. Nobody currently invested in the “ground floor” of these technologies has an inside shot at capturing the future mainstream market. It’s like the Internet boom – most of the companies you might think were going to be bajillionaires in 1988 didn’t even exist by 2000.
.
watchdog Says:
Where is the evidence that the global temperature is rising?
AKA: “Start back at square one. Never mind how many times we’ve had this discussion before, how many times you’ve gathered all of the research and presented it to me, I forgot all that and now you have to do it all again. And the next time a global warming thread comes up I’ll wander in like I have amnesia and demand that you prove it to me again. And every time after that. Eventually you’ll get tired and I’ll ‘win’ the debate by default.”
OK, I’ll start with this.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:31 pmBackup”
Antartica has nothing to do with my question, I am going to have to call you out on that sly attempt at diversion.
You forgot that the glaciers in question are alpine. Be that as it may, computer generated climate models have predicted some accumulation in Antartica due to changes in weather patterns and ocean currents.
Backup, lets try using something called logic.
The alpine glaciers have been around for tens of thousands of years, there have been periods of growth and periods of retreat, but overall the glaciers have been relatively stable since the last ice age.
We now are finding trees aged 60 thousand years old in recently exposed ice. That means that for the first time in 60 centuries these trees have been exposed to the light of day.
This ice loss is historically unprecedented and it happened in the matter of only only a few decades, please explain that.
Do you even understand anything about alpine glaciers regarding how they accumulate and flow downhill?
June 26th, 2009 at 2:32 pmwhat is it with georgis sending all their retards to represent them in the house of reps? is it their way of ridding the state of these clowns or are these “best and brightest” the state has to offer?
June 26th, 2009 at 2:35 pmThis is exactly why it’s important for blogs like TP to eport on the batshit of the GOP. These freaks are still effing dangerous in their greed and stupidity.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:36 pmCrap! “…report on the batshit…”
June 26th, 2009 at 2:37 pmFreeMarketLiberal Says:
Greed…Corruption…but the Zeitgeist bunch worships these overpaid Incumbents. The working middle class and poor will get slammed with this tax..So much for cutting taxes!! Thanks Obama Carter!
Serves you right for voting for someone who started 2 wars and sent the country into never-seen-before levels of debt.
Now shut up and pay your dues, and stop complaining.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:37 pmBTW. This is one of the better resources I’ve found about climate change. The full report is long, dry, and moderately technical so we can be sure that not troll of GOoPer will ever read or comprehend it.
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts
June 26th, 2009 at 2:41 pmAs I read the debate about “Global Warming”, I realize just how poor the “educational system” is in the developed world, especially in the United States. As my grandfather used to say “They give you books, and give you books, but you still don’t know nothing”.
In US high schools, at most, people are required to have 1 and in some cases 2 years of a science class. In college maybe 6 credit hours (semester system). These classes are so dumbed down that anyone can pass with very little thought or reasoning (rocks for jocks ring any bells?). It is no wonder that when it comes time for a serious debate about a complex scientific concept, people are so clueless that they just can’t understand basic concepts.
Global Warming (I actually prefer to call it Global Climate Change) is probably the most complex area of scientific research in history. I say that because it touches on so many scientific disciplines that it is difficult for even the experts to deal with all of the variables. When you have someone that barely passed college algebra, their science classes were geology or astrononmy for non-science majors (i.e. rocks for jocks) it is no wonder they can’t understand complex scientific research.
Until we start doing proper education instead of job training, we will continue to have idiots in political positions as well as average people that can be manipulated by greedy corporations that will do anything to keep their revenue stream through the next quarter and to hell with anything beyond that.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:42 pmbackup, when you want to read something other than opinions and random claims by skeptics, start digging through this.
And, please, no more crap about what you “believe” to be true until you have.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:43 pmCrap, again! My fingers aren’t working. That should have said, “… no troll or GGoPer…”
June 26th, 2009 at 2:44 pmgummble-bee-itch Says:
And, please, no more crap about what you “believe” to be true until you have.
You hit the nail on the head.
Belief has nothing to do with this, we are talking about science based on cold hard facts.
If they want to base it on belief, then they should start a climate deniers religion.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:51 pm@ Reggie:
If they want to base it on belief, then they should start a climate deniers religion.
They have: It’s called “Young Earth Creationism”
June 26th, 2009 at 2:55 pm“Belief”.
There’s the whole crux of the problem. Some people are taught to learn things based on experience. Others are taught to believe things based on faith. The bad part is that it’s nigh impossible to teach someone anything that contradicts their beliefs.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:55 pmThe climate change deniers are almost all radical/fundie/evangi god-blighted nutjobs.
I am pretty sure they do their “climate change denial” shit in revenge for the rational, intelligent, materialist refusal to believe in their “God.”
There’s a difference, of course: the planetary climate-change mechanism doesn’t rely in any part on whether anyone “believes in” it or not.
Whereas “God” ONLY exists, like tinkerbelle, if you believe and clap REAL HARD!
June 26th, 2009 at 3:01 pmUntil we start doing proper education instead of job training, we will continue to have idiots in political positions as well as average people that can be manipulated by greedy corporations that will do anything to keep their revenue stream through the next quarter and to hell with anything beyond that.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I’ll betcha you could lose a teaching job in Oklahoma, or Arkansas, or Tennessee or Kentucky, or Mississippi, or Louisiana, or Alabama, or an appalling number of other states for teaching a science curriculum founded upon education for climate awareness…
June 26th, 2009 at 3:04 pmReggie. The alpine glacier story is compelling.
But, consider the lost squadron. A squadron of new P-38’s that force landed on the ice in Greenland in 1942 while positioning for the war effort in Europe.
http://www.p38assn.org/glacier-girl.htm
When you consider that our carbon footprint as probably been steadily increasing over the past 60 years, how do we account for the 250 feet of ice that had accumulated on top of the planes?
If our activity has been making the planet warmer, wouldn’t there be less ice instead of more?
June 26th, 2009 at 3:05 pmgummitch. you believe in realclimate.org. It’s what you believe.
Pointing to realclimate.org as the ultimate or undeniable source is like pointing to God as the ultimate or undeniable source.
Our willingness to question a source is probably related to how comfortable we are with the findings.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:15 pm@ tokin librul:
I’ll betcha you could lose a teaching job in Oklahoma, or Arkansas, or Tennessee or Kentucky, or Mississippi, or Louisiana, or Alabama, or an appalling number of other states for teaching a science curriculum founded upon education for climate awareness…
Point taken, but actually, one of the main benifactors at Oklahoma State University is a man by the name of T. Boone Pickens. He made his millions drilling for oil in Oklahoma. Recently, he as started a push for renewable, green fuel sources. I don’t think anyone would lose a job at OSU if they pushed a climate awareness curriculum.
Even at these universities, I don’t think you would necessarily lose a job pushing climate change / awareness if you were in the science and engineering departments. My complaint is with the lack of science, mathematics, philosophy, logic, literature, art, etc. education in the degrees geared towards job training (i.e. business administration).
It is when you have a degree and think you are “educated”, but have only vague concepts outside of your degree. I would like to see more time being spent on general education especially in the lower division classes and a little less on degree specific classes. I think it would make for a more rounded person to understand thing outside of their area of expertise.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:17 pmSo, for whatever the price, this man is willing to sell you and me, along with his soul, to the big money polluters of God’s precious gift to us all – Life On Earth! Damn him and those who make him fat!!!
June 26th, 2009 at 3:18 pmbackup Says:
When you consider that our carbon footprint as probably been steadily increasing over the past 60 years, how do we account for the 250 feet of ice that had accumulated on top of the planes?
Because it has kept snowing in the last 60 years. Maybe without global warming, the planes could have been found under 500 feet of ice. It’s not about the quantity of ice on top of them, but about the rate in which snow has been depositing on top of them.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:18 pmPoint taken, but actually, one of the main benifactors at Oklahoma State University is a man by the name of T. Boone Pickens. He made his millions drilling for oil in Oklahoma. Recently, he as started a push for renewable, green fuel sources. I don’t think anyone would lose a job at OSU if they pushed a climate awareness curriculum.
Most secular universities still preserve the formal niceties of academic freedom. Even in Oklahoma (I taught at OU, in Norman, for 6 endlessly long, enervating, horrible years: I tell folks I taught 30 years in Oklahoma, between 1994 and 2000.
I was actually talking about a pre-university/college curriculum.
I think the only chance anyone has to change any of this is to get the kids into the “precautionary” (at least) program.
But in Okiedom, at least, I am pretty sure that if you opened a science curriculum at Edmunds Hi in climate change science, you8 get the boot…
June 26th, 2009 at 3:22 pmThere is one conclusive difference between believing science, and belieiving “in” God.
You don’t have to believe “in” science. It doesn’t matter the least whether or n ot you believe “in” gravity or thermodynamics. Nothing changes.
But “god” is like tinkerbelle. It doesn’t exist unless you BELIEVE IN it, and clap (or pray) real hard.
Pray in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets all stinky…
June 26th, 2009 at 3:26 pmLuis.
I’m asking because I don’t know.
The ice doesn’t melt from the top?
June 26th, 2009 at 3:26 pmbackup Says:
When you consider that our carbon footprint as probably been steadily increasing over the past 60 years, how do we account for the 250 feet of ice that had accumulated on top of the planes?
If our activity has been making the planet warmer, wouldn’t there be less ice instead of more?
Not everywhere equally at the same time. Some places get warmer and other places get cooler, which is why when we say the Earth is warming, we’re talking about the average temperature change. Given atmospheric fluctuation, if everywhere on the Earth was all warming at the same time, the rate of warming would be so severe we’d all be dead already.
.
backup Says:
you believe in realclimate.org. It’s what you believe.
Pointing to realclimate.org as the ultimate or undeniable source is like pointing to God as the ultimate or undeniable source.
No, that site presents scientific data and logical conclusions. The thing about science is you don’t have to “believe” it, you can potentially verify all of its findings yourself. Not so with God.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:27 pmbackup Says:
I’m asking because I don’t know.
The ice doesn’t melt from the top?
Nope.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:30 pmtokin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
For 40 years the scientific community thought this was the missing link.
It’s what they believed.
This idea that science is infallible is inaccurate.
Even if the intent of scientists is to be objective, they (and their findings) are imperfect and influenced by factors outside the issue.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:34 pmElBruce. That’s pretty good.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:36 pm@ tokin librul:
I totally agree about the High School problems in those states, and even in my own state of Mizzery. The only chance the world has is if we can get rid of the shockingly stupid conservitave philosophies and create true education starting in pre-school and continuing through college. Only then will humanity be able to survive.
I also understand about OU. I got my undergraduate degree from K-State and while I enjoyed my time there as a student, I wouldn’t want to live and teach there as a profession.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:40 pmElBruce. Again, I’m asking because I don’t know.
Does realclimate.org present data that contradicts the idea of man caused climate change?
June 26th, 2009 at 3:42 pmAnd b-cup again produces evidence that at some point in the past, “the scientific community” was wrong in its conclusions, so we have no reason to believe what they say today.
That’s almost as compelling as his “250 feet of ice accumulation over 60 years” anecdote, which averages out to four feet two inches per year.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:43 pmIn Greenland.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:44 pm@ Backup:
And just who was it that determined that Piltdown Man was a hoax? Was it the bible-thumpers? NOPE. It was, sit down for this, SCIENTISTS. Yep, it was those godless scientists that have created a self correcting mechanism that corrects errors and discovers hoaxes. Also the belief that Piltdown Man was the “missing link” was not universally accepted. There was a lot of skepticism that created a lot of research to uncover the hoax. Global Climate Change, while is still a growing science, has its core principles on solid scientific ground.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:46 pmtokin librul Says:
There is one conclusive difference between believing science, and belieiving “in” God.
You don’t have to believe “in” science. It doesn’t matter the least whether or not you believe “in” gravity or thermodynamics. Nothing changes.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
_____________
If you take a very broad, aggregate view of faith and science, sure. There’s a concrete difference between religious and scientific belief. However, once you drill down a few levels, the line gets a bit blurrier.
Belief in gravity is a very good example. To a certain extent, there’s no need to believe in it. There is an absolute certainty that it exists – drop an apple and it falls. Every time. Without fail. Gravity exists.
But when you start delving into the details of what gravity actually is, then it gets trickier. Is gravity a force, as Newton said? Is it a curvature of space and time, as Einstein said? Is it a subatomic particle? Is it electromagnetic energy? Is it a vibration of a very tiny string? Is it all of the above?
There are many physicists who will give you many different answers to the question, all of whom can cite data that points to what they believe gravity is. This data is, by necessity, based on second- and third-hand testing of different aspects of gravity since can’t actually see a graviton or superstring.
When you zoom this far in, the very nature of quantum physics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle makes the very particles of our existence a subject of belief. We cannot see an electron, we cannot determine its exact position and nature, because it is changed by the very act of measuring it. All evidence points to the conclusion that the electron exists, and thus we have a scientific consensus – a belief – that it is there, despite actual concrete proof.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:48 pmralph. I’m no rocket scientist, but is the question that ridiculous?
The Earth’s getting warmer but we have planes stranded 60 years ago buried in 250 feet of ice.
I’m open to Luis and ElBruce’s explanation, but it’s a legitimate question.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:50 pmbackup Says:
Does realclimate.org present data that contradicts the idea of man caused climate change?
June 26th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
_____________
Yes and no. In all studies they cite, there are margins of error and outlying data points that are contrary to the overall warming trend. However, the conclusion of the vast majority of actual scientific literature supports the consensus view that the climate is changing and that human activity is a primary cause.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:52 pmWell said, toasterhead. There is a fundamental kinship between science and belief at a deep level where scientific inquiry necessarily becomes more and more abstract.
But the fundamental difference between the two ways of viewing the world is this:
Science strives to test its theories under repeatable controllable conditions.
Belief has no such testing mechanism or urge. It doesn’t even have a need for them. Thus science is continually updating itself, as Lefty noted. Newer, more complete information replaces older, outdated information and often forces adjustments in theories or understandings.
Belief can last forever.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:57 pmtoasterhead. I agree with that.
I find it difficult when I consider the possible conflation of individual scientific readings into an unquestionable consensus.
I’m open to the idea that a preponderance of the information favors climate change. I part ways when I’m told those assumptions can’t be questioned.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:01 pmLefty. I agree. I don’t believe in God and favor science.
I’m only making the case that science is fallible.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:02 pmThe question is absurdly simplistic and even juvenile.
Your primary postulate seems to be that, since the earth is warming, there should be no snow accumulating anywhere.
The fact that snow does accumulate in areas that have ALWAYS seen snow accumulate seems to you to be solid evidence that the earth is NOT warming.
Doesn’t this seem absurd to you?
You present no comparative data on the accumulation of precipitation or movement of the ice shield that might give your anecdote some relevance or meaning; you simply say “this happened; if what you say is true, shouldn’t it NOT have happened”? And you let that rhetorical question stand as a speed bump. You don’t attempt to resolve the question by further inquiry or research. You simply challenge others to explain this anomaly you have found.
Simply put, contrary to your suggestion otherwise, the fact that 60-year-old planes are buried in 250 feet of ice is NOT incompatible with the notion that measurements show the earth’s climate warming by degrees.
I’m sure others can dispense with this particular argument far more efficiently than I have, and I look forward to a discussion of local effects being largely irrelevant as proof of climactic shifts.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:07 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
And so we bid adieu to our dear b-cup, ever the master of the false equivalency.
But at least he offers the appearance of being reasonable.
June 26th, 2009 at 2:27 pm Recommend (1) | Report Abuse
June 26th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
@ Ralph and chiroptera
Just to underscore a point, when NASA sends a probe to the outer planets such as Saturn, they use Newtons laws of motion, not Einstein or Quantum theories of gravity.
To listen to the fundamentalist block-heads, you would believe that Newton’s laws are no longer valid since Einstein has a theory that “works better”.
The fundamental purpose of science is to understand the universe and everything in it. To this end, we must be able to make reproducible predictions based on our best understanding at the time, find discrepancies, and then make adjustments based on those findings.
One of the best descriptions on science advancement is by one of my favorite authors Isaac Asimov.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
That’s nice that you’re “open” to it.
When you “recognize” it, then we’ll be getting somewhere.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:08 pmHumm, for some reason my link didn’t appear. Trying again:
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
June 26th, 2009 at 4:09 pmtony and lido, I trust you noted that I said “he offers the appearance of being reasonable”.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:09 pmUCSBKitty Says:
Broun, citing misleading statistics, also claimed that the bill would hurt the poor
When did the Republicans ever care about the poor?
June 26th, 2009 at 4:11 pm“““““““““““““““““““““““““““
That would be never Alex…. ;)
Backup:
Remember my question regarding whether you understood how alpine glaciers accumulate, flow and retreat?
I wasn’t doing a survey, it was a relevant question and by posting that link, you gave me your answer.
You don’t know squat.
“as the planes had been buried under 25 stories of ice and drifted over a mile from their original location.”
The fact that it was 250 feet under the ice is to be expected and what that tells us on average 52 inches of ice has accumulated on top of the planes each year.
What we don’t know from this link is what is the difference in glacier mass balance between the time of the crash and the present time. We also need to compare the location of the glacial terminus at the time of the crash and it’s present location.
Unless you prove that the glacial terminus is static or has advanced, along with an accumulation of glacial density, all you have done is posted an IRRELEVANT LINK.
Thanks Backup, after 30 years I finally used some knowledge from the boring 4 hour lectures in advanced glacial geomorphology.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:11 pmbackup Says:
ralph. I’m no rocket scientist, but is the question that ridiculous?
The Earth’s getting warmer but we have planes stranded 60 years ago buried in 250 feet of ice.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
___________
Even with the effects of climate change, Greenland’s southeastern coast – where the Lost Squadron was lost – still gets between 57 and 87 inches of precipitation per year, mostly snow. It’s really not hard to imagine how 47-87 inches of snow per year could add up to 250 feet in 60 years. Increasing snow does not necessarily mean that the planet is cooling, either. It could indicate a local warming trend – more evaporation of North Atlantic water due to warming means more precipitation of that water as snow.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:12 pmAnd as Lefty notes, science is aware of its fallibility. Hence its focus on testing its hypotheses through repeatable experimentation and research.
If further research determines that humans have no discernible impact on the planet’s climate, the science will adjust itself to reflect that.
Currently, however, the “preponderance of the evidence” suggests otherwise. And to dismiss the uncomfortable implications of that reality by citing “fallibility” or simplistic anecdotal evidence really isn’t providing the service you think it is.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:12 pmBackup:
Read the article that I linked to written by Isaac Asimov. He is far more articulate on the subject of scientific fallibility than I could ever be. He made a career out of writing about science concepts for lay persons (in addition to science fiction and just about any other subject you could imagine).
June 26th, 2009 at 4:17 pmLefty Liberal Says:
Just to underscore a point, when NASA sends a probe to the outer planets such as Saturn, they use Newtons laws of motion, not Einstein or Quantum theories of gravity.
To listen to the fundamentalist block-heads, you would believe that Newton’s laws are no longer valid since Einstein has a theory that “works better”.
The fundamental purpose of science is to understand the universe and everything in it. To this end, we must be able to make reproducible predictions based on our best understanding at the time, find discrepancies, and then make adjustments based on those findings.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
________________
Well, there’s a difference between being right and being practical. For all everyday practical purposes, Newton works. If you want to predict the path of a batted baseball or a ballistic missile or a Jovian moon, Newton does quite well.
But when you try and understand how subatomic particles behave, Newton falls apart. When you’re trying to figure out how a 13-billion-year-old universe can be over 30 billion light years across, Einstein falls apart. In a century, there’s a chance future scientists will look back at string theory and the Higgs boson and laugh. However, it doesn’t make any of these wrong – it just makes them the best theories of their time based on the best data available.
Climate science is in the same realm. It’s not possible to clone our planet and use the clone as a control – stopping greenhouse emissions on one while letting emissions run unchecked on another and then comparing the Earths in 100 years to see who was right. So we have to do the best we can with the models and data and climate theory we have. And the vast preponderance of data and the vast majority of climate experts (not think-tank economists and oil-company shills) believe that human activity is a primary cause of climate change.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:27 pmScientists say it is a hoax perpetrated out of the scientific community.
If it were a hoax out of the scientific community, wouldn’t that mean that scientists AREN’T saying that ?
Ya can’t have it both ways
June 26th, 2009 at 4:34 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
tony and lido, I trust you noted that I said “he offers the appearance of being reasonable”.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:09 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
——————————————————————————–OOps, sorry.Have to have LIdo start proof reading for me, I guess
tony and lido
June 26th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Maplestreet:
Learn something about science and then you will be able to answer your own question. Just to give you a start, the key phrase to understand is “self corrective mechanism”.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:42 pmchiroptera toasterhead:
I think we are arguing about what percentage grey an object is. I say it is 15% you are saying it is 16% and our meter can only distinguish shades of grey in 5% increments :)
The point I was trying to make is simply this, just because new data becomes available, doesn’t necessarily mean that an old theory is no longer useful. In the case of the laws of motion, Einstein’s equations are more accurate at any speed. It is just that the margin of error at speeds that humans experience are so small with Newton’s equations that it is not necessary to use the more accurate and more complex formulas developed by Einstein.
This is the area of Climate Change that we are approaching. The overall formulas are at the Newtonian Physics phase. Basic concepts, generally workable, but there are areas where the theory starts to break down. In a few more decades, especially as more advanced supercomputers become available and climate models become more advanced, there will be a lot of modifications to the science, but the fundamentals, the correlation between CO2 and rising temps are on very solid scientific ground. The mechanism for the increase in CO2 emissions is likewise on solid scientific footing.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:53 pmGlobal warming deniers certainly understand the power of erosion.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:54 pmOk.. Maybe I should weigh in as someone who has lived 5 years in NY and a year in Alaska recently… We have all these self proclaimed scientist documentarys saying that its “getting warmer” and yadayada… Why are the ice caps getting bigger the past few years? I urge u to do some research… I do believe we should get away from too much oil use/emissions/dont pollute BUT more in terms of AIR QUALITY not warming. THX
June 26th, 2009 at 5:05 pmWhy are the ice caps getting bigger the past few years?
Do you have any scientific documentation to share or are you blowing smoke out of your a$$ again?
June 26th, 2009 at 5:15 pmThat smoke outta my A$$
(http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent)
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
A New Record for Antarctic Total Ice Extent?
While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979.
This can be seen on this graphic from this University of Illinois site The Cryosphere Today, which updated snow and ice extent for both hemispheres daily. The Southern Hemispheric areal coverage is the highest in the satellite record, just beating out 1995, 2001, 2005 and 2006. Since 1979, the trend has been up for the total Antarctic ice extent.
While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting, which explains the increase in total extent. This dichotomy was shown in this World Climate Report blog posted recently with a similar tale told in this paper by Ohio State Researcher David Bromwich, who agreed “It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now”.
Indeed, according the NASA GISS data, the South Pole winter (June/July/August) has cooled about 1 degree F since 1957 and the coldest year was 2004.
This winter has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa. We will have recap on this hard winter shortly. See full story here.
June 26th, 2009 at 5:28 pmmore smoke if u need it….
June 26th, 2009 at 5:29 pmAnytime a Republican starts talking about saving the poor, my bullshit meter explodes.
June 26th, 2009 at 5:30 pmMore smoke from my A$$… From a canadian… (he has free health care woo!)
Is Global Warming Getting Colder?
By Alan Caruba
Thursday, March 30, 2006
The first thing we have to do is fire all the reporters, editors and headline writers who have not got a clue about “global warming” except that it scares the hell out of readers and sells newspapers.
In late March, my local daily carried an Associated Press article by Randolph E. Schmid with a headline, “Global warming warns Earth of a sea change.” It ran the story across six columns and threw in a photo of the Greenland ice sheet.
Such stories are best distinguished by how many times the words “probably”, “may”, and “could” occur in the body of the text. These are very slippery words used by so-called scientists trying to justify their latest “findings.” If you look for something hard enough, you are bound to find some signs, some indicators, and some intimation that something is happening or about to happen. Every day people find a reason to buy stocks whose value disappears for unforeseen reasons.
Schmid began his article with his opinion that “The Earth is already shaking beneath melting ice as rising temperatures threaten to shrink polar glaciers and raise sea levels around the world.” You had to read to the end of the second paragraph to learn that he was proclaiming all this would occur thanks to “new research appearing in today’s issue of the journal Science.” The only problem is that this pathetic excuse for a scientific publication has been banging the global warming drum for so long, its editors are desperate to publish anything to support the theory.
At this point, all of us have been deluged with “research” that is cited as proof of global warming, ranging from the migration of a few thousand feet by some furry creatures in a national park to the momentary melting of snow on some African mountaintop. At no time is the activity of the Sun ever mentioned, nor is the increased volcanic activity in the Earth’s oceans, nor the fact that no one knows why clouds do what they do.
The Schmid article is just one long list of horrors, all of which, we have read and heard about for years. The research claims that the Earth’s temperature by 2100–a century from now–will “probably be at least 4 degrees warmer than now…” Since few of us will be around 90 years from now, no one will be able to confirm this prediction. Other scientists cited in the article predict “Melting could raise the sea level one to three feet over the next 100 to 150 years…” And “increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the next century could raise Arctic temperatures as much as 5 to 8 degrees.”
Meanwhile, back on Earth, on March 12 a late season storm dropped 8 inches of snow on northern Great Britain and, a week earlier, there were blizzards in Western Europe that killed 17 people. Some regions of Germany, France, Switzerland, and Italy saw the heaviest March snowfall in nearly three decades. In February it had snowed for 50 straight hours in Sichuan, China, and a record freeze occurred in Russia that destroyed an estimated 30% of its winter crops. “This is the worst winter in 28 years,” said Alexei Gordeyev, the Agricultural Minister. Are we looking at a trend? Nobody really knows.
While the editors of Science magazine were pumping up the hype about global warming, the Earth was providing a panorama of very cold events whose intensity appears to be growing. And why not? The Earth is currently at the tail end of a 12,000 interglacial period. In other words, if the cycle holds true, we are due for another Ice Age.
On a recent CBS “Sixty Minutes” program, NASA’s James Hansen proclaimed that humans now control the Earth’s climate. Do you get that funny feeling that there is a major, coordinated, propaganda campaign to convince us–one more time–that global warming is real?
Dr. Hansen cited as evidence that the edges of the Greenland ice sheet were rapidly melting. He attributed this to man-made greenhouse gases. Apparently Dr. Hansen had not read up on the history of Greenland because, as Dr. Dennis Avery, a senior fellow for Hudson Institute, pointed out, “Melting around the edges is exactly what the Vikings saw on Greenland 1,000 years ago when they named the island–for its green coastal meadows.”
During a period climatologists now call the “Medieval Warming”, the Vikings thrived for some 300 years. Then the “Little Ice Age” began and, by 1408, Greenland was, well, really cold and the Vikings had abandoned the place. Dr. Avery points out that “Our panic-prone scientists seem to have forgotten their own ice cores, drilled deep into the Greenland ice sheet in the 1980s.” Those ice cores revealed that the Earth is in a constant cycle between hot and cold climate.
It is instructive that, after the 1970s during which environmentalists were warning of a coming Ice Age, they changed course and began telling everyone “global warming” was coming. And where were all those man-made greenhouse gases in the pre-industrial age of the Vikings and elsewhere around the world that experienced the Medieval Warming? And why didn’t they fend off the Little Ice Age?
The warming that has occurred, 0.8 degree Celsius, “virtually all occurred before 1940,” notes Dr. Avery, “and thus before much industrial development. Ice cores from the Fremont Glacier in Wyoming “show it went from Little Ice Age cold to Modern Warming warm in the ten years between 1845 and 1855. Naturally.”
That’s the operative word. “Naturally.” It has to due with massive climate forces that were and will remain beyond any “control” by mankind. Is it just my imagination or is global warming getting–dare I say it–colder these days?
Alan Caruba of The National Anxiety Center maintains an Internet site at http://www.anxietycenter.com. Caruba writes a weekly column, “Warning Signs”, posted on the site and excerpted widely on many others. Alan’s new book, “Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy” has been published by Merril Press. In 2003, a collection of his columns was published by Merril Press. Alan can be reached at: letters@canadafreepress.com
June 26th, 2009 at 5:42 pmSide note PAY ATTENTION TO VIKINGS AND GREENLAND haha I’m partial cause Im Norwegian anyways..
June 26th, 2009 at 5:43 pmThat smoke outta my A$$
more smoke if u need it….
Please, no more smoke, I had to open a window.
Exxon-Mobil funds the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep
/19/ethicalliving.g2
Tell Twajie to send someone with an IQ above 75 next time.
June 26th, 2009 at 5:49 pmtoasterhead. I appreciate you responses. They are very reasonable. Thank you.
I am not well versed on the topic. But, your explanation seems very plausible. That explanation of the P-38’s makes sense to me.
What is difficult for me (and maybe for other skeptics) is a seeming propensity for climate change proponents to neatly fit any data back into a pro climate change narrative. (I concede that opponents would also do that, if they can).
For example: You make a point about the possibility of a local warming trend. That sounds plausible to me. I understand the possibility of a local warming causing more snowfall.
But, Reggie asks the question about the alpine glaciers. I know it may be simplistic (I am, again, not a climate expert), but if Greenland could be experiencing local warming, is it possible that a similar localized warming is responsible for the shrinking of the alpine glaciers?
Why is it possible that localized warming is increasing the snowfall in Greenland, but not possible that localized warming is responsible for warming data taken elsewhere?
June 26th, 2009 at 5:52 pmAbout that ice
link
June 26th, 2009 at 5:54 pmBackup:
You are disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
You were the one who brought up Greenland!
What happened to all the glaciers in Alaska?
What about the ones in Chile?
Need I have to ask to the ones in Africa especially Mount Kilimanjaro?
Need I even bother mentioning the Alps and Himalayas?
They are being decimated by climate change
June 26th, 2009 at 6:02 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
No one is GOING TO TAKE THAT TITLE away from GEORGE BUSH no matter HOW you 21%ers
LMAO at the stupidity of the facts you are posting. First off…LiberTURDs are the ones only comprising 21% of the population! 40% of the Country call themselves Conservatives!
Second off…CBS/Times poll was outed as skewing their results this last week on the poll they took about HC…by polling LiberTurds two to one over Republicans! B.O. is just another political hack from Chicago…who will use the money of all the children not born yet…to accomplish his Socialist agenda!
For you personally…eat feces and bark at the moon jack!
June 26th, 2009 at 6:03 pmBroun & all others like him are a hoax.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:06 pmSome excerpts from an article in Cosmos Magazine on the topic of scientific language
And a statement from an abstract on the same topic
Emphasis added
June 26th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
ralph. or anyone.
It seems that many use the information in realclimate.org for their positions on climate change.
(I’m sure it’s not the only source, but a very significant source).
My question is, do they ever present information that contradicts the idea of manmade climate change? (and not just present it to refute it).
The Earth is a large place with an almost infinite set of factors that could influence any particular local climate.
My assumption is that some scientific data would naturally be generated that might contradict manmade climate change (or global warming) in some cases; even if the world as a whole is getting warmer due to man. If only due to the abundant variation in possible test sites and conditions.
If someone could provide information that realclimate.org presents that contrary evidence (and not just presents it to refute it), I would find that site more likely credible.
If they aren’t presenting those contradictory findings (objectively), it would seem more likely the site is cherry picking the data to further an agenda that manmade climate change is a significant problem.
I think there is a difference between that behavior and objectively publishing findings, whether they support the premise or not.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:15 pmAhh now it’s big oils fault… U don’t like what they do… Don’t buy thier products… Anyways I’m out and about so I’ll send more smoke anyhow later – :P
June 26th, 2009 at 6:24 pmbackup Says:
For 40 years the scientific community thought this was the missing link.
It’s what they believed.
This idea that science is infallible is inaccurate.
Correct; science doesn’t treat itself as infallible, which is why it continues to improve. Wait, are you criticizing the concept of science in general here? What alternative would you propose to science itself?
.
backup Says:
Does realclimate.org present data that contradicts the idea of man caused climate change?
Go look at it and quit asking me. It presents data based on scientific methodological soundness, not based on what the conclusion ends up being.
It’s not there to say “we’ll take 3 opinions that are pro-this-subject and 3 that are con-this subject and present them both.” It says “we’ll take 6 studies that are relevant to the subject and are done using scientifically sound methods.”
Look, let’s say I tell you that maybe gravity doesn’t work, and you direct me to a site explaining Newtonian physics, why it works how it does, and how I can test its predictions for myself. But I refuse to study the information there unless you can first assure me that it also presents my anti-gravity theory “and not just to refute it.” The result of the data isn’t what it is because somebody politically wants it to be that way; the result of the data is what it is because that’s what it is.
The fact that we have to explain the basic concept of what “science” is to you over and over again is starting to explain the real problem quite well.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:24 pmReggie. I’m not an expert on climate. I understand that people may want to ignore climate change to profit from the status quo. I also understand the potential for an exaggeration of manmade climate change to be used to profit or force environmental policy.
I know that are a majority of scientists and the public that support the idea. There are also many detractors with contrary information.
I’m not an expert. I would like to understand it better and yes, I come to the table with a preconceived idea that the issue is being used for political reasons (both ways).
I ask questions to try to ferret out the discrepancies in my mind and the objections I hear from deniers.
I don’t understand how the translates into intellectual dishonesty.
I prefer to chalk it up to imperfect knowledge and/or miscommunication on my part.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:28 pmYou said look at Alaska… No I ask you too as a matter of fact pull up some averages on snowfall and rainfall for the past couple years buddy… Refuse to be spoon fed and grab a fork
June 26th, 2009 at 6:29 pmbackup Says:
It seems that many use the information in realclimate.org for their positions on climate change.
I think that link was just thrown out there because you were demanding all of the information supporting a manmade link to climate change in this thread. That site compiles a great deal of it. But not because that site in particular is viewed as a “leading authority” on the subject.
Science is not based on authority.
Science is not based on politics.
Science is not based on presenting “controversies” and voting for the winner.
Science is based on deductive logic and mathematics following from testable observation.
Are you starting to get it yet?
June 26th, 2009 at 6:29 pmMy question is, do they ever present information that contradicts the idea of manmade climate change? (and not just present it to refute it).
Have you been drinking?
Do you not understand concept of peer review?
And what about the preponderance of evidence, which in the case of global warming is overwhelming.
Hacks funded by oil companies are not impartial
June 26th, 2009 at 6:31 pmFireman09 Says:
You are way out of your league, go back and play with the intellectual midgets at Blogmocracy.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:34 pmElBruce Says:
Are you starting to get it yet?
BU never “gets it” on threads about climate change or racism.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:38 pmbackup Says:
I ask questions to try to ferret out the discrepancies in my mind and the objections I hear from deniers.
I don’t understand how the translates into intellectual dishonesty.
You’re demanding evidence from commenters at a political website. If you were really just trying to edumacate yourself, there are a lot of better sites out there to do that. In fact, you have already been directed to one, but refuse to look at it unless you can be assured that it doesn’t reach any conclusions you might disagree with.
.
backup Says:
I prefer to chalk it up to imperfect knowledge and/or miscommunication on my part.
I chalk it up to intellectual dishonesty. You’re lying about why you’re asking the questions you’re asking and about why you’re presenting the arguments you’re presenting. Don’t get much more dishonest than that.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:40 pmElBruce. If there is a relative absence of contrary results, the assumption would be that either those results don’t occur or that the source is not really objective.
It’s possible that of all the scientific studies being performed 99% percent show man caused climate change.
It just seems difficult to believe that with all the variation in the world’s different ecosystems, that the results would be that uniform. Even if man caused climate change is occurring.
I’m suggesting that if the site doesn’t offer those contrary results (that I assume exist and are plausible), the site might be communicating less science and more dogma.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:40 pmBackup, you have the gift of muddying the waters. There is a scientific consensus on global warming. Period. Then there is shills and dupes. Das ist alles. Nein mehr.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:46 pmYou’re right. I don’t get it. I don’t get the pressure to end debate on man’s role in climate change – although we want to fundamentally change our economy to address it. I also don’t get how people either don’t see the double standard in terms of judging racism by race or somehow seeing that double standard and feeling it’s justified.
I’m not saying that I’m right, but on those topics, I have not been convinced otherwise.
I could say that I ‘get it’, but that would be intellectually dishonest.
(Although I admit that it would be more congenial).
June 26th, 2009 at 6:47 pmReggie. The CDO’s that contributed to our current financial meltdown were peer reviewed by credit rating agencies.
The peer review adds to the weight of the findings, but doesn’t account for the possibility of groupthink.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:56 pmYou’re right. I don’t get it. I don’t get the pressure to end debate on man’s role in climate change
Nobody has ever said that the debate has to end!
June 26th, 2009 at 7:05 pmDoesn’t it seem foolish not to start working on the solution while there is still time?
If it turns out we are wrong about climate change, the economic and environmental benefits of green energy, as well as the jobs created will well be worth the short term costs. We will have cleaner air and water, which will reduce heath care costs, as well as improve the quality of life.
It will also reduce the trade deficit.
backup Says:
Reggie. The CDO’s that contributed to our current financial meltdown were peer reviewed by credit rating agencies.
Now you are being an idiot, but then again once a troll, always a troll.
Why can’t you let go, why grasp at straws?
Captain Mantastic, you are a pompous twit>
June 26th, 2009 at 7:09 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
Maybe we should all start addressing under his old troll name, CAPTAIN MANTASTIC
It would remind all the other posters who and what we are dealing with.
June 26th, 2009 at 7:13 pmReggie. I honestly still don’t get it. But, I know you believe what you believe. I know I won’t change that. And my goal is not to get people upset.
Again, my point is not that climate change is a hoax. I think that it is probably happening. (how significant; I don’t know) My objection is to the idea that those that question the premise or the policies are chastised. I think a strong argument pursues objections to discount them.
That’s it. But, Peace. I’ll give it up.
June 26th, 2009 at 7:17 pm“your GOAL is to be a CONCERN TROLL“
DING DING DING
We have a winner!
June 26th, 2009 at 7:27 pmbackup Says:
Reggie. “I honestly still don’t get it.”
CAPTAIN MANTASTIC: Please allow me to make a correct.
“I still don’t get it.”
There, that is better.
June 26th, 2009 at 7:48 pmoops: make a correction
June 26th, 2009 at 7:49 pmO.K. backup, take one idea at a time and let it sink in. If it seems fuzzy to you, the fuzz is in you. The answer is not to add more fuzz, but to return to these ideas, read them and ponder them until it all sinks in. This is a truth about science—not an opinion, not a political stance, not jargon.
.
At least since the time of Popper, scientists have understood that science provides falsification, but not “proof.”
.
In the world of environmental and technological controversies, however, many observers continue to call precisely for “proof,” often under the guise of “scientific certainty.”
.
Closer examination of real-world disputes suggests that such calls may reflect not just a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science,
.
but a clever and surprisingly effective political-economic tactic—”Scientific Certainty” Argumentation Methods, or SCAMs.
.
Given that most scientific findings are inherently probabilistic and ambiguous,
.
if agencies can be prevented from imposing any regulations until they are unambiguously “justified,”
.
most regulations can be defeated or postponed, often for decades, allowing profitable but potentially risky activities to continue unabated.
.
An exploratory examination of previously documented controversies suggests that SCAMs are more widespread than has been recognized in the past, and that they deserve greater attention in the future.
Don’t fight it. If you don’t recognize truth here, then at least be intellectually honest enough to admit that it’s your inability to understand this that’s the problem.
June 26th, 2009 at 8:03 pmGOOD LIFE GODO WORK!
.............................................
June 26th, 2009 at 10:42 pm.............................................
There are two issues here:
1) whether global warming is happening at all
2) whether it is being caused by humans
#1 can be demonstrated easily by simply looking at the historical record over the past three decades. It is most dramatically demonstrated by considering the disappearance of glaciers, and the dissolution of ice shelves in Antartica.
#2 is certainly a far more complicated point to discuss, but that’s really not what’s going on in the debate, since most of the global warming deniers refuse to concede point #1. A few more intelligent people admit that global warming is happening but that, considering the long term, the Earth has cooled and warmed in the past and it’s no big deal. That kind of blase attitude ignores just how quickly it’s warming right now, and usually comes from scientists who are not conversant with atmospheric science and/or how the loss of the ice caps could accelerate the process of warming.
For me, though I’m an applied mathematician who doesn’t specialize in climate science, I could not say that the arguments behind the mathematical modeling are as much of a slam-dunk as those in evolution (where I’ve worked a lot). But I’ll say that I’ve yet to hear an intelligent rebuttal of the arguments I’ve heard that say that global warming is happening. I am suspicious of some of the things I see in the denial camp: like scientists feeling empowered to make authoritative-sounding claims outside their realm of specialty. As somebody who’s seen a lot of the evolution debates, I can say we’re real tired of hearing from engineers chiming in on things they don’t understand.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:10 amEver wonder why so many republicans think global warming is a hoax? They spend much of their time dumbing down their constituents. This is why they do not like public schools, and would like to privatize schools. Then the rich people who own the schools can write history as they see fit. Now while they are dumbing down americans, it is easy to get their vote by just fearmongering or hatemongering. If americans woke up to this they would have to come up with real solutions to problems. Something they have never done.
First climate change wasn’t real, then it wasn’t man-made. Now we are back to it isn’t real.
When a conservative reads up on the greenhouse effect, they call it “liberal media bias”. When all else fails, blame the media. Notice Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is blaming the media in his country. He is a conservative……
June 27th, 2009 at 1:22 amRealityCheck Says:
LMAO at the stupidity of the facts you are posting. First off…LiberTURDs are the ones only comprising 21% of the population! 40% of the Country call themselves Conservatives!
Second off…CBS/Times poll was outed as skewing their results this last week on the poll they took about HC…by polling LiberTurds two to one over Republicans! B.O. is just another political hack from Chicago…who will use the money of all the children not born yet…to accomplish his Socialist agenda!
For you personally…eat feces and bark at the moon jack!
O boy, the socialist charge. You ever read the constitution?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution says that if Pennsylvania pays 200 billion in taxes and Maryland pays 100 billion in taxes, they are both entitled to 150 billion from the federal government. That would mean 50 billion of Pennsylvania tax money would goto Maryland……. That is socialism. Our founding fathers wrote this document….. Why do you oppose our founding fathers?
BTW, Tax Credits and subsidies for corporations that don’t pay taxes is corporate socialism. Why is it you support socialism for the rich?
Your poll said that 40% of americans consider themselves conservative. If that were true then Obama wouldn’t be president. You are just a prime example of conservatives dumbing down america so they can just fear/hatemongering people into a vote.
I got something that will stump you for a while. What was the last republican president to lower taxes on the middle class :)
June 27th, 2009 at 2:04 amWhat’s truly astounding here is that among scientists, human-caused global climate change is rapidly losing credibility as a viable theory, but nobody on this page seems to keep current.
There has existed no observable evidence supporting the claim that humans are causing climate change since the ice core data proved that global CO2 is driven by temperature and not the other way ’round, which was determined in about 2002. Since then, the only evidence supporting the claims of human-caused warming has been from models; and the returns from NASA’s Aqua satellite have pretty thoroughly put paid to that source of evidence, since it’s abundantly clear that rising CO2 produces negative feedback in the form of cloud cover, but all the models assume that CO2 produces positive feedback. That explains the exodus from the anthropogenic warming bandwagon reported here.
Inhofe may be biased, but at this particular moment, science is on his side.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:13 amInhofe may be biased, but at this particular moment, science is on his side.
Science that is bought and paid for by Exxon Mobil. WSJ has lowered itself to the standards of it’s new owner, News Corp.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:28 amI haven’t finished reading the U Mass study cited in this article, but from the parts I’ve read (including the discussion of their model methodology) it’s a crock, a piece of work perhaps worthy of a general studies sophomore. They count only the stimulatory effect of huge capital expenditures without even considering where the capital is supposed to come from; in the minds of these researchers, capital grows on trees, and the more of it we spend, the better.
In reality, where these mooks apparently use their brains only as hair stands, when the government raises $200 billion in taxes to spend on incentives, and electric utilities raise $150 billion in capital to build plants, that capital comes from somewhere, and in fact gets diverted from other economic uses. So the chances are, for every job that gets created by the spending they mention, there’s one being lost elsewhere in the economy because there’s no capital available, perhaps more or less depending on the sector.
If you want to understand why spending jillions to build shiny new high-tech electrical plants doesn’t really stimulate the economy, ask yourself why it won’t work to stimulate the economy if we just break all the windows in all the businesses in America. I mean, they’d have to spend jillions to replace all those windows, right? They’d have to hire lots and lots of workers, truckers, ramp up glass factories, and so forth, right? So, why is that not a great idea for stimulating the economy?
The answer, in case you haven’t grasped it instantly, is that instead of replacing perfectly good glass just to get back to where we were, we could have been building new factories, digging new mines, building new houses, and so forth, all of which add to our wealth. Instead of creating wealth with all that money, we had to use it to replace wealth that was wasted.
Same thing with forcing utilities to spend jillions on new plants: instead of increasing wealth, we’re replacing it. There’s an opportunity cost of capital, and if we use it to build redundant plants, it’s wasted.
And then, there’s the other problem they seem to have ignored in the U Mass study: artificially jacking electricity prices high enough that expensive alternatives actually become economically attractive. Doing this necessarily causes GDP to decline. Why? Because we’re all paying more money for exactly the same amount of product. This means we have less to spend on other things. All other things being equal, if product stays the same but demand for product drops (because there’s less available for things other than electricity), then prices drop, sales drop, and GDP drops. But the U Mass study completely ignores this effect.
Heck, you can just look at their results and conclude that they’re pulling numbers out of dark places; they assert right up in the Executive Summary that clean-energy plants employ three workers for every one worker employed by oil, gas, or coal plants. Anybody who knows how labor-intensive coal mining is, knows that has to be wrong. Besides, if we replace coal plants with solar or wind, the steel is probably going to come from China, so any jobs that get created will go to Chinese workers.
I don’t know anything about Ben Bergman, who wrote the article here, but I suspect he ought read more than just the Executive Summary of the research he posts here, and he ought to read news more critically, rather than simply accepting it because it helps him win a round of discussion.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:44 amPlumb Bob Says:
——————————————————————————–
What’s truly astounding here is that among scientists, human-caused global climate change is rapidly losing credibility as a viable theory, but nobody on this page seems to keep current.
There has existed no observable evidence supporting the claim that humans are causing climate change since the ice core data proved that global CO2 is driven by temperature and not the other way ’round, which was determined in about 2002. Since then, the only evidence supporting the claims of human-caused warming has been from models; and the returns from NASA’s Aqua satellite have pretty thoroughly put paid to that source of evidence, since it’s abundantly clear that rising CO2 produces negative feedback in the form of cloud cover, but all the models assume that CO2 produces positive feedback. That explains the exodus from the anthropogenic warming bandwagon reported here.
Inhofe may be biased, but at this particular moment, science is on his side.
Your kidding right? This is a guy who believes in creationism. And his studies that he produces, check the people in his studies…… Business owners, economist, construction, etc. Not one climatologist.
You would think the ice caps melting would be an eye opener. Guess they will wait until we are all dead before they concede defeat.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:46 amSure thing, mook. Where’d you get that from, the ads in Mother Jones?
If you want to understand where the “bought and paid for” science is coming from, ask yourself what happens when governments of the world suddenly dump $50 billion into hiring scientists to produce climate studies, creating previously-unheard-of 6-figure salaries for government-employed scientists — but the scientists can only keep their 6-figure incomes if their results say humans are causing climate change.
Of course, the $10,000 blind contribution by Exxon’s Corporate Social Responsibility unit is more than enough to offset that effect. Right?
June 27th, 2009 at 2:47 amIf humans are not causing the melting, then there’s no point even worrying about the ice caps, because we can’t control them. And whether you want to believe scientists or not, they’re rapidly coming to the conclusion that humans are not causing the ice caps to melt.
We could spend $7 trillion over the next 30 years to produce reliable rain cloud generators, too. All the farmers would love that. Problem is, we can’t control the formation of rain clouds, so the money would be wasted.
Same with attempting to save the ice caps by reducing carbon emissions. If carbon emissions isn’t melting them, then reducing emissions won’t affect the ice caps, and the money we spend trying to reduce carbon emissions is all wasted.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:59 amPlumb Bob your still stuck on supply-side economics?
Some history and numbers for you.
Reagan: 2 trillion dollar debt increase = 16 million jobs
Clinton: 1.5 trillion dollar debt increase = 22 million jobs
What was the difference between these 2? Reagan cut taxes for the rich and Clinton raised taxes on the rich. Republicans are just not credible on economics anymore. That and a Democratic budget during the Clinton years balanced the budget and gave us a surplus. If it were not for the Bush tax cuts, we could have been out of debt by now. Being fiscally responsible means paying your bills, cutting taxes doesn’t pay the bills.
Laissez Faire in the 1920’s created the great depression. FDR spent lots of money and halfed the unemployment by 1937. In 1938 the republicans made him cut back spending and balance the budget, unemployment went back up to 20%. It took the biggest spending spree in history (WW2) to finally get out of the depression.
I know conservatives like to re-write history, but this is how it went. Like it or not.
and climate change……
http://www.criacc.qc.ca/assets/smogQue0502.JPG
I guess that smog is liberal media bias huh? All natural………
June 27th, 2009 at 3:06 amPlumb Bob Says:
——————————————————————————–
You would think the ice caps melting would be an eye opener.
If humans are not causing the melting, then there’s no point even worrying about the ice caps, because we can’t control them. And whether you want to believe scientists or not, they’re rapidly coming to the conclusion that humans are not causing the ice caps to melt.
We could spend $7 trillion over the next 30 years to produce reliable rain cloud generators, too. All the farmers would love that. Problem is, we can’t control the formation of rain clouds, so the money would be wasted.
Same with attempting to save the ice caps by reducing carbon emissions. If carbon emissions isn’t melting them, then reducing emissions won’t affect the ice caps, and the money we spend trying to reduce carbon emissions is all wasted.
The problem with your argument is that there is plenty of proof and a vast majority of climatologist agree that humans are causing it.
Again, we can’t do anything about this?
http://www.chitambo.com/clouds/cloudsimages/low/smog_losangeles_jul02.jpg
Ships have been trying to get throught the northwest passage for centuries, yet the first time anyone got through it was just recently.
The only people who don’t believe humans are causing it are fox news viewers. Everyone else is pretty much in agreement. I mean first you guys claim the climate change wasn’t happening, now that there is proof, the claim is that humans are not causing it. Your already starting the next claim, “It’s here and there is nothing we can do about it”. At one time the world was flat and there was no way we could ever get off this rock. Nothing is impossible.
Don’t you realize that cosnervatives will take the opposite side on any issue? No matter how dumb it sounds….
June 27th, 2009 at 3:15 amEven if man-induced global warming is a hoax, how exactly does a green economy impair the well-being of the U.S.? A combination of increased energy efficiency, cleaner air and water, and utilization of renewable forms of energy makes perfect economic and environmental sense, even for the poorest among us. As for poor people around the globe, taking steps towards reducing pollution and conserving resources will only improve their lives as well as neutering petro-dictators. Again, what’s not to like?
June 27th, 2009 at 4:46 amDaniels wrote
There is zero observable evidence that humans are causing the melting of the Arctic ice cap. If you know of some, feel free to post it here. Please note that evidence showing that the ice cap is shrinking does not prove anything about the cause.
The claim that a “vast majority” say humans are the cause, was never really true, but it was a lot closer to being true in the 1990s. Times change, science makes progress, and people change their opinions. Today, thousands of scientists dispute it, and their disagreement has nothing whatsoever to do with Fox News. It has to do with honest evaluation of a growing body of evidence supporting the claim that the climate is not sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2. I’ve already provided some support for this, but in particular you should search for information regarding NASA’s Aqua satellite.
Showing a picture of Los Angeles smog is hardly an argument relevant to the ice cap. Humans did cause LA smog; that wasn’t part of a natural cycle. Humans then solved it by improving auto technology. If humans did not cause the shrinking of the ice cap, it’s unlikely that we can cause it to grow, either — granting for the moment that making it grow would be a good thing, which is doubtful.
The Northwest Passage being open is just another way of saying the north polar ice cap is shrinking. I have not disputed this, I’ve simply said man is not the cause.
The exploration of the Northwest Passage by the British during the 19th century was initiated by observation of a massive melting of the ice cap taking place around Greenland and the Bering Sea; icebergs were observed as far south as 40 degrees latitude from the breakup. While formal measurement of the ice cap extents has been possible only since satellites have been able to photograph it (about 30 years), it’s clear that growing and shrinking of the ice cap is normal, and took place long before man began emitting CO2. There is no reason to believe that the current extent of the ice cap is abnormal, nor that observed changes in global temperatures are abnormal.
And just for the sake of your education, the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen first made the successful voyage through the Northwest Passage in 1905. I think what you mean is that the passage is now open for shipping. I’ve heard that it was also open for shipping in 1945, but could not find corroboration. The bulk of our CO2 emissions occurred after 1950.
June 27th, 2009 at 10:22 am“I believe what I see” asked:
If such a thing occurred by way of consumer and producer choices, it would probably not impair our well-being at all. However, that’s not what’s being considered. What’s being considered is forcing the US toward a green economy by artificially jacking the price of electricity through the stratosphere. Common sense should tell you that if you raise the price of something everybody uses in large quantities without changing any other variable, you necessarily shrink the sales of everything else by exactly that much. Therefore, GDP will drop by exactly the amount we raise the price of electricity.
A carbon tax is exactly that, only it affects more than just the price of electricity. It’s going to demolish our productive capacity.
June 27th, 2009 at 10:27 amDaniels wrote some pretty funny distortions about the Great Depression, but that’s hardly the topic of conversation here, so I won’t spend much time on it. Suffice to say, your understanding of the causes of the Great Depression is no more cogent than your understanding of the exploration of the Northwest Passage. It’s possible that laissez-faire had something to do with the recession at the beginning of the Great Depression, but there’s pretty general agreement these days that beyond the initial incident, Smoot-Hawley tariffs and other government intervention by the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations turned a somewhat severe downturn into a decade-long disaster.
What your shallow, unthinking recitation of DNC talking points about Reagan and Clinton have to do with the discussion, I cannot fathom. Again, this is not the topic of conversation here, so I’ll only ask you reflect on the bromide you should have learned back in 6th grade civics, “Congress holds the purse strings.”
June 27th, 2009 at 10:34 amPlumb Bob. Nice work.
June 27th, 2009 at 12:29 pmbackup Says:
Plumb Bob. Nice work.
Says the racist troll
June 27th, 2009 at 1:17 pmbackup Says:
Plumb Bob. Nice work.
Says the racist troll
June 27th, 2009 at 2:22 pmPlumb Bob Says:
——————————————————————————–
Daniels wrote some pretty funny distortions about the Great Depression, but that’s hardly the topic of conversation here, so I won’t spend much time on it. Suffice to say, your understanding of the causes of the Great Depression is no more cogent than your understanding of the exploration of the Northwest Passage. It’s possible that laissez-faire had something to do with the recession at the beginning of the Great Depression, but there’s pretty general agreement these days that beyond the initial incident, Smoot-Hawley tariffs and other government intervention by the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations turned a somewhat severe downturn into a decade-long disaster.
What your shallow, unthinking recitation of DNC talking points about Reagan and Clinton have to do with the discussion, I cannot fathom. Again, this is not the topic of conversation here, so I’ll only ask you reflect on the bromide you should have learned back in 6th grade civics, “Congress holds the purse strings.”
No distortions about the great depression. All true and facts to back em up. You in post 229 claimed that there is nothing we could do economically to fix the issue of climate change. I just made the argument that cosnervatives such as yourself have no credibility on economics. And “most” economist agree that Roosevelt policies helped get us out of the depression. Smoot-Hawley wasn’t a Roosevelt policy. Like all conservatives, you just try to re-write history or what people say. But that wasn’t the only time the U.S. created stimulus to boost the economy. Clinton did it and what did we get in the 90’s? The biggest economic boom in history. And Clinton didn’t need to invade a country to do it.
But hey, don’t listen to economist, look for yourself and research it.
1934 unemployment rate – 25%
1937 unemployment rate – 14%
1938 unemployment rate – 19%
1944 unemployment rate – 1%
The stale and worn out argument that Roosevelts policies prolonged the depression just have nothing to back them up. At the end of the 1800’s we had a 20 year depression. They used laissez-faire principles to attack the depression. Just let it run it’s course and it will be over in no time…… Problem is it lasted 20 years. Now, I’m no math wiz, but 20 years seems longer then 10 years.
If you really don’t believe the science of the greenhouse effect, then there is no point in trying to convince you. Conservatives will only believe what the party platform tells them to.
Here is a guide for those who misrepresent the science.
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
And no DNC talking points here. I research this all by myself to come up with my own conclusions. The only one making false statements or using talking points seems to be you.
June 28th, 2009 at 12:22 amPlumb Bob Says:
Not completely true, it would be better to say the bulk of our co2 emissions occurred after 1880 (as they did). A large chunk occurred immediately during the 1880’s then decreased significantly (onset of centralized electricity, increased use of hydroelectric, decrease of coal heating in individual housing, decrease of clear cutting through crop and forest burning, decrease of rampant forest fires due to man, decrease in home burnings etc) however, we also provided the impetus for much of the worlds carbon release. It then increased to the 1930’s when it was at it’s height in terms of per person CO2 then stagnated until the eighties and has generally increased again. Per person we would have most recently overcome carbon production at it’s height in the thirties. In terms of actual release we have been stagnant in terms of carbon release with the greatest increase from China and other third world countries. Notably the easing of emission standards on vehicles happens the same year our emissions greatly increased
A melt which was caused by a normal warm up period in the earths climate at the end of the little Ice age events that naturally would have caused great scientific and commercial interest but at the time they could not find a true passage.
Roald Amundsen was not a fraud however his traversing the Northwest passage is somewhat fraudulent in the basic understanding of what it means to traverse by boat, as he did not by his own means exactly. For one, anyone who studies and plots his course will note that the ice, more than anything, allowed for the passage of his boats. That’s right two, not one. He had his seal boat, and used a secondary local boat for ice chipping and tugging. As the ice spread from points across the arctic you will note the speed of which they move can be incredibly fast, faster than Greenlands glacier at 4 miles per year. he was stuck in the ice for three years of winters. Even at it’s thickest, the British estimated the closed portion of the passages only accounted for 15 miles of water covered by the ice sheet. While 3 years would only traverse 12 miles an ice chipper and sled dogs would help for the rest. But the accounts of some of his crew mates cannot be ignored who say he actually lifted his boat out of the water at times speeding it (slowly) along over the ice. Did he really cross completely via water and the power of his own vessel: No, and that is historical fact.
Here is an interesting article regarding the Aqua Satelite
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
notice they say “Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned.” but they also say “Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?”
And to quantify it they use the measurement of the amount of water vapor feedback specifically “Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere”
corollary to Occam’s razor principle in science comes to mind concerning Carbon increases and warming increases. Without adding any assumptions you can justifiably say that both are increasing as observed. We know that increased temperature does melt permafrost resulting in increased CO2, therefore temperature change causes CO2 increases, however we also know that humans release a vast amount of CO2 through burning of collected fossil fuels. That is just one of the many sources of carbon in the air. I can’t recall all of the various sources but let’s say they are twenty. The nature of the planet is such that when carbon is released at one point it also has a sink at another point. For instance the carbon sink in the ocean or the carbon sink in the perma frost. Humans are also a vast carbon sink, the very existence of animals is a carbon sink. Carbon sinks generally are solid or liquid in nature (back to chem 101 so no arguing semi state here) Let’s call all carbon sinks on land solid. By burning the solid we decrease solid carbon and increase a greater amount of CO2.
There are a variety of tests to show that CO 2 increases temperature when present. For instance. In a field test of CO2s forcing nature (from College Physical Chemistry at Purdue) we can observe that an increased amount of CO2 in a closed or semi open system will increase the relative temperature related to the total forcing. Or put better in three tubes, each filled with a steady mix of air, when heat is applied temperature increases to a maximum at a certain rate and is decreased at a certain rate when the heat source is removed. When Co2 is increased in one tube and decreased in another we can see that as the heat source is applied the temperature quickly increases in the first and somewhat less than the standard in the other. When mixed with a heat source increased CO2 increases the rate of temperature change. Now in that feedback loop from NASA we know that the forcing (the sun) hits increased CO2 (the catalyst) which then increases heat which increases vapor which is a natural feedback. While not saying Carbon is a forcing on the planet, it is a catalyst. In a reaction a catalyst increases the speed of said reaction or can decrease the negative output of other forcings. Or it could also be the limiting reagent in some chemical equation that we yet understand. Humans are observably increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore humans are observably increasing a catalyst to the water vapor feedback loop. the water vapor feedback loop has been observed to increase temperature. temperature change increases the speed at which ice caps melt, making the length of time the ocean is covered more limited each year that carbon above a sinkable amount is released. In fact there is no valid way to say that recent ice melt is not directly due to anthropogenic causes. However anthropogenic ice melt may be the only effect of the increased carbon in the air, as we don’t really have a firm grasp of dissipation of CO2 and longterm effects of increased CO2 and really CO2 is less a factor in climate change than some other greenhouse gases like methane, which is a very scary greenhouse gas. One molecule has ten times the impact that one molecule of CO2 does.
I’m not targeting plumber bob for his statements as I don’t agree entirely with climate change theory, or at least have my reservations. But more valid disagreements regarding climate change come from the sun cycle, the maunder minimum and its cycle, planetary heat change, disposition of fresh water and the decrease of fresh water (which is also anthropogenic) and personally my favorite is the lunar position theories. All of which have some valid points and impressive credentials working towards proving. Then there is the increase of methane due to solar collection but that theory seems pretty bogus so far.
June 28th, 2009 at 7:03 pmThey have killed millions of jobs under their 8 years, now they are trying to put on oBama
June 29th, 2009 at 12:12 am