The numbers are in and we just had another scorching January. From the National Climate Data Center at the NOAA:
According to NOAA scientists, the globally-averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for January 2014 was the highest since 2007 and the fourth highest for January since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It also marked the 38th consecutive January and 347th consecutive month (almost 29 years) with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average January global temperature was January 1976 and the last below-average global temperature for any month was February 1985.
That was news to me. Much of my weekend was spent using a one-two combination of snow-shovel and drill to plant campaign signs in the frozen earth. And that’s the problem with climate change politics in a nutshell. We experience weather and we mistake it for climate.
It’s been very cold this year in Chicago, but here’s what’s interesting about that from a climate perspective, again from the NOAA report:
Temperature departures were below the long-term average across the eastern half of the contiguous U.S, Mexico, and much of Russia. However, no regions of the globe were record cold.
Though locally we’ve had some climatologically interesting summers in recent years, this winter was only extraordinary because it’s outside the recent local norm. And also because it has been weird. Extremely weird. That weirdness is the only dimension of climate change that we reliably perceive. That makes it very difficult to communicate the reality and impact of climate change to a public who do not generally understand the underlying science.
Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.
GOPLifer 
I haven’t read through all the posts, but it’s not a proper climate change thread without someone invoking the “it’s all about redistributing wealth to China” claim, so I don’t doubt it’s down there somewhere. But who exactly are these people/ organizations taking the notion of human contributions to climate change so seriously? Let’s find out.
Here’s one, Shell Oil: http://blogs.shell.com/climatechange/?s=Sequestration
They’re actually sinking some serious $ into carbon capture and storage. Other companies are in on it too
http://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/carbon-capture-and-storage-research/carbon-capture-and-storage-industrial
(The plot is thickening!)
It seems the Pentagon is also considering ramifications of climate change:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/22/climate-change-forces-new-pentagon-plan
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121352495
I really do want to read more details about why and how the Pentagon and Shell Oil are so motivated to divert wealth to China. Get cracking on connecting those dots!!!
“1) John and others have suggested a carbon tax. How would they be applied and enforced? How would we impose and exact such taxes on China, India, Mexico, Canada, Venenzuela, Russia and others? Would we form a world government and do away with national soveriegnty? What about nations, or even states here, that resist? War to conquer them?”
That economic leverage known as a tariff. They apply the carbon tax to their goods in the same manner we would, or we impose that tax on all goods they export to us. Oh they would bitch and moan something fierce to start, but given that 1) they really do want to sell stuff to us, and 2) China would rather see such taxes collected by Beijing rather than Washington DC (same for all other countries), so the choice would be inevitable.
Tariffs only hurt the end consumer, that being the middle class and poor here. They would be the ones to pay the higher prices. You “solution” does nothing to curb pollution in China, it is only aimed at U.S. citizens.
And that’s where the offsetting tax cut part of the plan helps out. If people pay less income tax, that covers the increased costs of consumer goods. People who choose cleaner goods can pay even less.
http://energyandenterprise.com/
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The controversy is clear in this site, from the opening graph, which plots temperature data collected by four agencies in three countries, to the conclusion that 97% of climate scientists agree on AGW (found in the link to the statement from the National Academies of Science), to the statements of 18 other American scientific societies, to the statement signed by every national science academy in the G8 countries plus Brazil, China, India, and Russia, to the links to nearly 200 other scientific societies, from the Academia Chilena de Ciencias to the Zimbabwean Academy of Science. Seriously, Zimbabwe. Even that screwed up and miserable country seems to see what Sternn, Objv, and Dan deny.
It’s also interesting to note that when scientists do change their minds, they are converting from deniers to believers. Richard Muller and Bjorn Lomborg were very high profile deniers who recently switched sides.
Again, politics. Those nations have no desire to curb their own production or pollution. It is all aimed at nations like the U.S., to curb our economy, boost “developing” nations and pay the poor nations. Why wouldn’t “developing” nations and poor nations sign on with that?
Sternn, governments are NOT telling these scientific societies what to say. That’s not how it works. The scientists are saying that because they have looked at the data and reached a conclusion.
Those “scientists” refuse to allow their data to be peer reviewed and are working for those governments. They have admitted that they would destroy the data rather than allow anybody else to look at it. Still a political agenda.
Bullshit. You haven’t the slightest idea how science works or where this data comes from. All the data these conclusions are based upon are peer-reviewed by (usually competing) scientists. If you think governments are telling their national academies what to say, then you have clearly not met any members of a national academy (which I am quite sure is true).
“You haven’t the slightest idea how science works or where this data comes from. ”
That, right there, is the rotten, putrid heart of the problem. The level of ignorance in the American public about science and how it is done is truly mind-blowing. The accusations of conspiracies and scams would be laughable except for the real damage such cossal ignorance causes.
JohnG: I’m not a climate change denier.See my (entirely too) lengthy reply below. At worst, I’m a climate change agnostic. I have some belief- yet I am not ready to bow to a specific deity.
Not that this matters to the brick wall for a brain deniers….
“NASA scientists say 2013 tied with 2009 and 2006 for the seventh warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures.
With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record.
Scientists emphasize that weather patterns always will cause fluctuations in average temperatures from year to year, but the continued increases in greenhouse gas levels in Earth’s atmosphere are driving a long-term rise in global temperatures. Each successive year will not necessarily be warmer than the year before, but with the current level of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists expect each successive decade to be warmer than the previous.”
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20140121/
From NOAA and NASA, “Both assessments noted that nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred during the 21st century. Only one year in the 20th century — 1998, an extreme El Niño year – was warmer than 2013, NOAA noted.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/how-hot-was-it-2013-joins-top-10-temperatures-experts-2D11967298
Click to access 2327-4581-1-101.pdf
Quick review:
Texan says no one claimed humans create Global Warming. Just too easy.
Changing the goal posts, a handy liberal trick, is being deployed early.
Face it, the science isn’t settled on cause so why act as if it is?
Well, Kabuzz, seems they are all about “the sky is falling” and just claiming that science is settled, even after explaining to Tutt that science is never settled.
Thing is, only John came up with the slightest suggestion of any actual solution, but no means of actually implementing or enforcing it in any way that could make any difference at the global level. Might make one wonder how serious they realy are.
Ok, how about some serious questions of those that believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. First, let assume they are right and go from there to find the solutions, as Turtles suggests..
1) John and others have suggested a carbon tax. How would they be applied and enforced? How would we impose and exact such taxes on China, India, Mexico, Canada, Venenzuela, Russia and others? Would we form a world government and do away with national soveriegnty? What about nations, or even states here, that resist? War to conquer them?
2) Would such taxes even be effective? Maybe the nations or corporations would pay and still find profit in polluting? Would we then shut them down and force compliance? And by force, that means force of arms, war again.
3) Or if such taxes would force them into bankruptcy or cause goods and services to be so high only the rich could afford them, what would happen to the middle class and the poor? Would they be given services and goods for free provided by others? But then we would still be polluting, causing AGW, anyway.
5) If we had such a world government, how would our rights be protected? If there is no such world government, how would these taxes be imposed and collected? How would compliance be enforced on nations like China and India? If this is such a serious crisis, is it enough to impliment said world government, or is it such a non-issue that this idea should be given no credit, nothing at all should really be done?
And for us doubters, where is the proof that human activity causes climate change to begin with? Don’t claim that all scientists agree because that is not true. There is no consensus and consensus is garbage anyway. Like the consensus that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. Water vapor makes up 95% of greenhouse gases. If the “science” is so sound it should be easy to hold it out there and show how obvious it is.
I will be very suprised if any that support the idea of AGW will even try to take these questions and give serious answers and explanations. Suprise me.
“And for us doubters, where is the proof that human activity causes climate change to begin with? ”
No one, I repeat, no one has claimed that human activity causes climate change. Human activity has significantly increased the rate of climate change.
“Human activity has significantly increased the rate of climate change.”
Proof?
Well I can post about a gazillion different links to the science, but instead I will post these jokes instead.
A climate scientist and a climate change denier walk into a bar. The scientist surveys the room and says to the bartender, I’ll have what 98 percent everybody here is having. The bartender turns to the denier and says, how about you? The denier replies, I’ll wait to see what the other two percent think.
A climate scientist and a climate change denier walk into a bar. The denier says, bartender, show me your strongest whiskey. The bartender says, this one here. It’s 95 percent alcohol. The denier slams down his fist and leaves the bar in a hurry. The scientist says, you know, that’s the problem with these guys. You show them the proof, and they still don’t buy it.
For every source you can provide I can provide five against it.
But again, you not only have no proof, you fail to even attempt to address your “solutions”. That is one big reason this discussion never gets anywhere. Your side just blames, blames and blames some more. Some at the global political level have put forth their ideas of what to do, and when we try to discuss them, y’all scoff and cry “conspiracy”. But you put nothing forward as to what you think should be done. You have no proof and you have no “solutions”. Why should we take you seriously?
Yes, the global climate changes. It has for billions of years and will continue to do so. Human presence is insignificant here on this planet. We have less of an impact than termites. Not to mention all other species like other insects, land and sea life.
As with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, I am asking supporters to give me something. They could not. I studied, did research and changed my mind on my own. I have put the time and research into this man made climate change, and have come up with more evidence against it than for it. Even corruption, political agenda and outright lies from those supporting it. Do any of you have anything solid to offer? I am listening.
“There is no consensus and consensus is garbage anyway. Like the consensus that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth”
OMG, You are trying to compare the non-scientific consensus of the dark ages with the scientific consensus of today? Man your are nuts!
I notice you did not address any “solutions” or how to enforce them. Don’t worry, I am not holding my breath waiting for any of you to do so.
I notice you are to stupid to know the difference between the dark ages and modern science.
500 years from now they will view our times as dark ages compared to modern science.
Captain,
I know you don’t want to admit to it , but the consensus of the scientists who actually use the word ‘climate’ in their job title is human use of fossil fuels accelerated a global warming trend starting in the late 19th century.
You are right, the problem with declaring fossil fuel usage as something bad for the planet means we are telling countries just now emerging into market economies that they need to slow down and stay poor, oops our bad. We got ours but India, you only need one car per twenty residents, or China, electricity good, coal made electricity, not so much.
One thing we could do is declare we are falling behind the Russians in fuel standards, an MPG Gap, start a new government program aimed at energy, but how would that work? I mean, Houston and NASA shows what a dumb, wasteful idea that is, doesn’t it!
Crogged, I see most, if not everybody, ignored my previous entry here. The end on the 19th century saw the end of the Little Ice Age, which was preceded by the Medieval Warm Period. There was a time when glaciers covered most of North America, and times when the planet was glacier free. So climate change happens, it is natural.
Now, where is the proof that it is caused or even affected by human activity? Solid, indisputable proof? And once proven, what are the solutions? If it is so serious, shoudln’t we take global action to “solve” it? If it is so serious, should the use of force to save the human race and the planet take precidence over all else? Or is it really not so serious after all?
Your questions seethe with such right-wing paranoia about one-world governments and are so completely devoid of any understanding of science or economics that to do so seems like talking to a brick wall.
The Captians sources,
The first source is dated 2005 and is an opinion piece.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1489105/Leading-scientific-journals-are-censoring-debate-on-global-warming.html
2012 and another opinion piece with no source notes that I could see.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural
This piece has source notes with dates for the papers and or books dated as follows,
2004,2001,2003,1998,1993,1996,1994,2001,2002.
Nothing up to date as of 02/24/2014
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N1/C1.php
And this last pice does not even show the author or the date it was first posted.
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef
What else ya got Cap.
Evidence, schmevidence.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/03/the-war-on-reason/357561/
The idea that human activity controls the global climate is an opinion held by very few scientists and a great many politicians, but there are not scientific facts backing it.
The fact that there is no consensus and that some scientific journals are refusing to publish both sides has been exposed, that is not opinion.
What else ya got, Texan?
“The idea that human activity controls the global climate is an opinion held by very few scientists and a great many politicians, but there are not scientific facts backing it.”
What is it with your reading comprehension? No one has said that human activity controls the global climate, they have said that human activity is contributing to the acceleration of climate change.There is a scientific consensus, you just refuse to acknowledge it.
Contribution maybe 0.001%. And there is not even a consensus about that. Not that a consensus matters, see above.
Where is your data, peer reviewed, showing only 0.001%
In the links provided, Texan. As I guessed, you didn;t read them. You didn’t suprise me at all. Now where is the proof of your claim?
I read then, they are opinions. Only one link show references to the date used and that date is old and not up to date. Good day Captain, I will spend the rest of my time talking to a brick wall, the brink wall is about half as dense.
“data used”
Show me something that is not opinion, then give serious answers as to the solutions you would suggest. Until then, as you say, good day.
Chris, with people like this running for office in the GOP, science and reason have no chance and climate change will never be debated honestly.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/24/republican-senate-candidate-paul-broun-vows-to-vote-only-for-biblical-bills/
Well, Mr. Bennet WAS in our great state about a month ago to perform in Austin and Dallas/Fort Worth, so maybe he heard Dan was at Houston’s and just had to check him out.
Now, THAT reply is totally out of place but funny, so I will leave it there.
I’m happy you can mark one item off your bucket list Tutt, the conquest keeps us young. Sounds like you and the Capt had a great time.
Thanks, Rush. I’d actually seen Tony Bennett in concert several times “platonically” with friends and family and even once alone, but I looked forward to seeing him with Cap.
Thanks, RoR. We did indeed.
Good one.
“The sky is falling, the sky is falling”. So say the liberals.
“The video caused the spontaneous riots in Benghazi” Obama.
“You can keep your insurance” Obama
“I need a trillion dollars for shovel ready jobs” Obama.
The list goes on so the lesson is: Obama lies so why believe his words on Global Warming??? You can’t.
Global Warming may be cyclical which a good margin of scientist do think, but the libs are bound and determined to blame humans. It comes with the self loathing.
Does this sound familiar, buzz?
“over the years I have blamed both sides equally for taking party, themselves over country. Glad to see the realization. Party’s want nothing more than to divide us so we don’t pay attention to what is going on. Keeping the common folks (us) in a defensive position benefits them.”
FYI, that was you at 7:04 this morning.
I have no idea what you are connecting. But through your hateful prism, probably something nonsensical.
The “Hateful Prism” strikes again! Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!
Well loma, you know how us lefty liberals are. Just a bunch of haters.
Wasn’t The Hateful Prism a radio show back in the Forties –wait, I was confused, it was a game show in the Seventies emceed by Jack Palance…….
Drink!
desp: As a physician who graduated from Harvard University, Krauthammer is imminently qualified to give his on the concept of settled science.
My reply from above was supposed to be to desp’s reply below … sorry …
I think this quote by Dr.Kaku applies here.
KAKU: “I think they’re lacking some of the background and they get intimidated. Because the skeptics are not fools, they’re not stupid people. They also read a lot but then they put it in in an ideological context and they see everything through this lens and they don’t do the homework. They don’t do the computer programs. They don’t critique the mathematics.
And so for us there’s nothing to debate. We cannot debate them, because they have no programs, no data, no formulas. There’s nothing but ideology.”
“Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge.~ Charles Krauthammer
For an interesting take on the matter go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html
Key word. Opinion.
You know what they say about opinions. Everybody’s got one.
Seriously, though, even scientists have different opinions, albeit expert opinions.
Charles Krauthammer is not a scientist.
True, and neither am I, but does that mean we can’t opine on the humanity of scientists — daring to simply suggest that maybe scientists make mistakes?
Funny, the author’s post is about people who confuse climate with weather, as is Mr. Krauthammer’s column, but for some reason he’s just not as direct about his point. And if Mr. Obama had said “Evolution is a fact” would Mr. Krauthammer made the same, not really related to the subject, statement that SCIENCE isn’t static?
He’s clever and he is right, we really don’t know what will happen if we keep pouring tons upon tons of carbon into the atmosphere. His conclusion is it’s more important to point out Democrats making a logical mistake than doing anything about the carbon……….
My discussions the other day with tthor, fly, and john galt touched on that question, and they seemed to agree that science is not impervious to challenge, and that there’s even disagreement among scientists themselves, but that it’s nonetheless necessary to use scientific methods (with some intuition thrown in, per tthor) to work toward any conclusions.
desp: Charles Krauthammer is a physician who graduated from Harvard. He’s qualifed to speak on “settled science.”
Do you feel that way about all Harvard grads or just Krauthammer?
desp: What I was indicating was that Krauthammer had taken enough science classes at a well regarded university to be able to give his opinion on science in general. As a MD, he would have had to research and write scientific papers and read numerous journals to graduate and become board certified. In that regard, he is not overstepping his bounds in writing about settled science.
Physicians are in no way qualified to speak on “settled science”. I teach both medical (M.D.) and graduate (Ph.D.) students and I can tell you that medical school teaches lots and lots of facts and fairly basic flowchart-style methods for decision making. Krauthammer may be a smart guy, he may have gone to Harvard, but his opinion about climate change is no more knowledgable than any other educated person and is made somewhat suspect by the overt political ideology he has adopted.
If you want opinions of smart people who actually were trained in generating and analyzing data, then ask actual scientists. Those who have been trained in climatology seem to have no doubt about the warming climate. It is, as Chris’s post states, warming rapidly.
Now, here comes the uncertainty:
1. Is this warming persistent, or are we in a temporary, albeit long, period of aberrant climate?
2. Is human activity responsible for all, none or some of this warming?
The climatologists have concluded the most likely answer to (1) is that it will be persistent and to (2) that human activity is responsible for at least some, and potentially most, of this warming.
In neither case would any reputable scientist regard these conclusions as “fact” regardless of what media, pundits, or politicians might say. I believe the evidence is strong enough that carbon emissions are a pollutant that impose externalities that are not priced into fossil fuel use. The most reasonable economic action is a carbon tax to properly price these fuels, which could be offset by reductions in other taxes, as Fly mentioned above.
That said, there are some physicians who are excellent scientists, but it is not the nature of medical school to train them for original science. We, in fact, have specific training programs to help those few individuals who want to do both gain the research skills needed.
JohnGault: If you read the article, Krauthammer states: I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier. I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Krauthammer is not giving an opinion on if climate change exists; he is merely saying that the science cannot be completely settled. This meshes with the uncertainty you mentioned among climate scientists as to the degree of global warming taking place. And, yes, I do believe that we should leave the science to the scientists. The biggest problem is that this topic has become political and both sides have become entrenched.
As a layperson, I confess I do not have the required education to make an informed decision on global warming. Even my daughter, who has a master’s degree in geology, doesn’t have the background to make a judgment call in this area. In grad school, she took a class on climate change. One day, they had a speaker come in to present an opposing view to what was being taught. My daughter was curious about some of the speaker’s points that seemed to be valid, so she asked her adviser his personal opinion. He said that although he believed that man was causing some warming, the change was probably less extreme than was being portrayed to the general public. He noted that some of the effects could potentially be beneficial.
Personally, I am for taking care of the environment and believe the potential for climate change should be taken seriously. I live in a beautiful area of the country. I don’t want it polluted. However, there are electric plants in the area which use coal and provide well-paying jobs. I have mixed feelings on a carbon tax. On one hand, the electric plants undoubtedly cause pollution (although much less than in foreign countries), on the other hand many people here (especially the large Native American population) have strong ties to the area and the energy connected jobs do much to mitigate poverty and provide a good standard of living. Our area is already in a recession and many people have lost jobs. My main concern is if the current hysteria generated by politicians is merited, or should be taking a slower and more balanced approach?
A thousand years ago the human race had the global climate right where they wanted it, quite warm, the Medieval Warm Period. The human race thrived and crops were good. But some doubted, they thought that by keeping the climate warm, they were destroying the planet. They gathered and convinced the people of the danger, and all agreed to cool things down.
They were successful, the global climate cooled considerably, bringing about the Little Ice Age. But there were consequences, crops failed, there was famine, pestilence, disease, plagues and death. The great minds gathered once again and thought of the suffering caused by cooling the global climate, and may even bring glaciers back to Texas. Oh no! They must warm things up. All agreed and the human race brought the climate back up a notch or two.
But by the 1970s things were once again looking grim, the global climate was cooling instead of warming. The alarm was sounded and all humans came together and, with serious sacrifice and hard work, again reversed the climate trend and got the warming trend going again. Sometime around the late 1990s the great minds decided we were at about the idea global climate, so they stopped the warming trend. We must only guard against the cooling trends now.
Yay humans! We have done it. Let us all celebrate our acheivements, but be ever warry of those nasty cooling trends.
ahem, as posted in that bastion of conservative thought, from yesterday’s Houston Chronicle
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/02/23/the-death-knell-for-climate-change-orthodoxy/
ouch
So you take this guys opinion over 95% of scientist, OK.
William O’Keefe
Title: CEO
Company: George Marshall Institute
Member Since: 12/19/2005
– Bio –
William O’Keefe is the Chief Executive Officer of the George Marshall Institute. O’Keefe is also President of Solutions Consulting, Inc. He has also served as Senior Vice President of Jellinek, Schwartz and Conolly, Inc., Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Petroleum Institute and Chief Administrative Officer of the Center for Naval Analyses. Mr. O’Keefe has held positions on the Board of Directors of the Kennedy Institute, the U.S. Energy Association and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and is Chairman Emeritus of the Global Climate Coalition.
From wiki,
he George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is an American politically conservative think tank established in 1984 in Washington, D.C. with a focus on scientific issues and public policy. In the 1980s, the Institute was engaged primarily in lobbying in support of the Strategic Defense Initiative.[1] Since the late 1980s, the Institute has put forward environmental skepticism views, and in particular has disputed mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, although it continues to be active on defense policy. The organization is named after World War II military leader and statesman George C. Marshall.
Naomi Oreskes states that the institute has, in order to resist and delay regulation, lobbied politically to create a false public perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion.[2]
There is no 95% of scientists that believe in AGW. That was a lie from the beginning and has been deb unked over and over. But hey, guess you follow the concept of repeating a big enough lie told often enough will eventually be accepted as truth.
Then by all means Cappy, provide a link to prove it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615
I think this quote by Dr.Kaku applies here also.
KAKU: “I think they’re lacking some of the background and they get intimidated. Because the skeptics are not fools, they’re not stupid people. They also read a lot but then they put it in in an ideological context and they see everything through this lens and they don’t do the homework. They don’t do the computer programs. They don’t critique the mathematics.
And so for us there’s nothing to debate. We cannot debate them, because they have no programs, no data, no formulas. There’s nothing but ideology.”
Sure, here ya go.
Derp!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1489105/Leading-scientific-journals-are-censoring-debate-on-global-warming.html
Want another?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural
I would post tehse all at once, but that doesn’t work here.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N1/C1.php
One more, not that you will read any of it since it doesn’t fit in with what you want to believe.
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef
FYI, Texan, the IPCC is a politicla organization, set up by the United Nations, endorsed by the General Assembly and has a political agenda. Not exactly a reliable source.
“But hey, guess you follow the concept of repeating a big enough lie told often enough will eventually be accepted as truth.”
Oh the irony.
“I would post tehse all at once, but that doesn’t work here.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1489105/Leading-scientific-journals-are-censoring-debate-on-global-warming.html
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N1/C1.php
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef
I had no problem, that tells me your knowledge of climate change is no better than you knowledge of posting on this blog.
Someone who finds the Hearst owned Chronicle as ‘left leaning’ needs to just give up and read Generalissimo Francisco Franco’s diary every day (yes, he’s still dead). Clearly if you take the term ‘scientist’ and then start arguing the subject is too broad. If you narrow it the term to ‘climate scientists’ then you might have a percentage which has some meaning.
Really? Some people had comments wauting for moderation because they had two links in on post. At least that was the reason Lifer gave in the past. Oh well, maybe he changed some settings?
Texan5142 is one Chris’ special animals.
Written by William O’Keefe, former Executive VP and COO of the American Petroleum Institute. Very objective, I’m sure.
“…lobbied politically to create a false public perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion.”
Nice source, Dan.
yeah, my source was the Chronicle which is the surprising thing, they usually provide only the most obtuse left leaning slant to every issue
Like their endorsement of Romney?
Well as I said the other day, if you are ill, who are you going to believe, the 95% of doctors who say a certain treatment is what you need, or the 5% who say different?
CNN had a good discussion on the subject with Dr.Kaku, what caught my eye was this,
STELTER: Do you find that journalists in general are the ones that interview, the ones that talk to you, do they have enough knowledge, enough background in order to explain this to their audiences?
Or are they lacking some of the scientific background they should have?
KAKU: I think they’re lacking some of the background and they get intimidated. Because the skeptics are not fools, they’re not stupid people. They also read a lot but then they put it in in an ideological context and they see everything through this lens and they don’t do the homework. They don’t do the computer programs. They don’t critique the mathematics.
And so for us there’s nothing to debate. We cannot debate them, because they have no programs, no data, no formulas. There’s nothing but ideology.
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/23/climate-change-is-not-debateable/
Also the US military and CIA, etc. are preparing for climate change.
http://www.livescience.com/38167-national-security-impact-of-warming-climate.html
Dick Cheney said that if there is just a 1% chance of a terror threat we should prepare for it, why not prepare for climate change it is a bigger threat than terrorism to our future in my opinion, in fact climate change most likely will fuel terrorism as the water wars begin.
I’m fine. Please don’t call anyone on my behalf.
Yes indeed. It was a devastating 76 and sunny in this hot box down here. My have to add chlorine to the pool a bit earlier than usual.
“Yes indeed. It was a devastating 76 and sunny in this hot box down here. My have to add chlorine to the pool a bit earlier than usual.”
“And that’s the problem with climate change politics in a nutshell. We experience weather and we mistake it for climate.”
Read before commenting. It might keep you from looking foolish. Not that it has ever stopped you before.
oh boy! libs are talking about anything except their policies of failure. Dinosaurs are yawning again…minimum wage!!!11!!
Don’t forget to put the summer windshield wiper mix in the Lamborghini, Des!
Desp….you really expect him not to look foolish.
Have sympathy for him Des. Compulsive willful ignorance is a sad sight to behold.
Nah, not when it’s Danny.
Pass the popcorn…
“Compulsive willful ignorance is a sad sight to behold.”
The irony. It burns!
Where have we heard that before?
As a response to every one of your irrational, fact challenged screeds Cappy.
So many conservatives don’t want to admit to a problem because they seem to think that automatically gives the liberals all the rights/responsibilities of crafting solutions. And by not offering up any plans of their own, they make it a self-fulling prophecy.
Solutions are hard and sometimes make you reflect on your actions. The modern conservative is unwilling to do so because they may be forced to admit that they were wrong on the issue. If liberals, moderates, or anyone else not doing an Ostrich impersonation is allowed to be right then they might have to admit about being wrong on other issues. Safer to deny and lie. Because solutions are hard and conservatives cannot ever be wrong.
y’alls problem is no one believes a word you say anymore. Period. Every solution to every problem you perceive is liberal democrat dogma. oh, and you’re a racist.
“y’alls problem is no one believes a word you say anymore. Period”
No one except rational intelligent people but not the rest. So I guess we agree.
Turtles, here are the suggested solutions so far: Restrict emissions from the leading nations, mainly the U.S.. Force our energy prices to skyrocket be forcing us to use alternative fuels. Place no restrictions on developing nations like China or Venenzuela, in fact, allow them to pollute as much as they want, encourage more so they can grow to compete with the leading nations. Finally, force the leading nations to pay financial damages to poor countries for the damages the leading nations have caused due to AGW.
And then the scientists, even the ones supporting AGW, end up saying it will make no difference. There really is nothing we can do to stop global warming, or global cooling, climate change.
Explain how these “solutions” actually help anything other than China and poor nations.
So, Stern…the answer is to just do nothing and ride it out?
HT, the reality is that we don’t and can’t control the global climate to begin with. So yes, we just adapt. We have done a lot in the way of conservation and cleaning up the environment over the past few decades. That is good, but we don;t need to bring our economy and nation down chasing rabbits that don;t exist to begin with.
We should also put a lot of pressure on nations like China to clean up their acts. Have you heard or seen what they are doing to tehir environments? We could also cut down on using plastics, go back to using glass bottles and paper bags. We have a big plastic mess out in the Pacific now due to those people that wanted to save the world 30 years ago.
There is this myth from the left and other AGW supporters that the other side wants no regulation at all. That is as false as the claim that tea party folks are anti-government anarchists. As a person that was a Boy Scout, a hunter and now travels the roads enjoying the scenery, I greatly value our environment and want it preserved as much as reasonably possible.
I also enjoy electricty, natural gas, refrigeration, air conditioning, grocery stores and the many luxuries our moder way of living provides. No desire to go back to living in caves to save the world.
The issue is that many people like you refuse to even acknowledge the real debate. You rather rant about claims that no one has made or propose hidden conspiracies to defraud the public. This is done to change the focus of debate and confuse the issue for people, it is the attempt by fundies to avoid acting on this problem. Congratulate yourself it is working and we are living much poorer lives for it.
Never heard of or read the Kyoto Treaty, Turtles? Never actually listened and learned what both sides are saying and suggesting? And you suggest those that are informed are “fundies”, whatever that is supposed to mean in this context?
Why don’t you explain it for us? Tell us what “solutions” the UN has for the pollution problems in China? What environmental protections are being pushed on India? Seriously, rather than running around yelling that the sky is falling and suggesting that anybody that uses critical thinking and does some research, show us the solid proof that human activity controls the global climate.
Or maybe you are unwilling to do so because you may be forced to admit you are wrong on the issue? Maybe those not doing an ostrich impersonation are allowed to be right, the others might have to admitb being wrong about other issues? Safer to deny and lie because real solutions, facing reality, is hard and doesn’t fit the agenda? I know, it can be tough to learn the facts and change your view and opinion.
I had to really change course when I learned my position against the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong. It was tough, but the facts backed the invasion, so I did an about face and starting supporting it. Do you actually have anything to change my mind about human beings controlling the global climate? If you can come up with it, I will change my opinion just like I did on the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Or will you simply fall back on insuts and name-calling?
“Seriously, rather than running around yelling that the sky is falling and suggesting that anybody that uses critical thinking and does some research, show us the solid proof that human activity controls the global climate.”
Again, no one is claiming that human activity controls the global climate. As for your critical thinking skills, it is hard to believe you have any when you keep making such comments about the arguments people are making. But it is still refreshing to know some things never change.
As for Kyoto, we did not sign it so it has no bearing here. We spent almost two hundred years contaminating the environment to get where we are today, China only 30. It is hard to take the moral high ground when we seek to chastise other countries for acting in the same manner as we did. But that has nothing to do with trying to switch from fossil fuels to alternative energy. We are not going to do anything that damages ourselves economically (Iron Law) but that does not mean we do nothing.
China is already trying to clean up its act but the old “why do we have too, they don’t” argument doesn’t work for my kids and I would hope adults would be more intelligent to try it as well.
Turtles, we have already done a whole lot and cleaned up our act, and it wasn’t 200 years in the making.
Now, again, if this is such a global emergency that we must act immediately, even to the point of drastically increasing costs here and harming our economy, then why dismiss the growing damage to the environment other nations are doing? If you really believe that the planet is in imminent danger of being destroyed, shouldn;t we be doing something globally about it, even by force? If not, then do you really believe that the planet is in immenent danger?
Again arguing things no one has stated. The planet is not in danger of being destroyed and I did not claim that is was. Unless the Death Star is on its way the planet will be fine. It is our quality of life that is in danger. Doing nothing solves exactly that and even if the worst predictions are wrong then at least our children and grandchildren inherit a better place.
Fly, as a non-scientist, I’m curious to know what role FOG plays in climate change/global warming. And I’m not referring to foggy thinking.
I LEFT MY HEART . . . IN BILOXI !
And a few dollars. 🙂
Great weekend and show.
And lots of fog ! My cargo ship is still stuck in port.
Sounds like you had a great trip. Welcome back!
Thanks, OV. We went to see Tony Bennett in concert at the Beau Rivage Casino in Biloxi. We ran across his daughter Antonia in the lobby after the show and said hello and shook her hand. She opened for her dad and also sang with him.
I sat behind Tony Bennett at Houston’s on Westhiemer a couple of months ago. He sounds a lot like Alec Baldwin in his rants.
I’ve never heard any of Alec Baldwin’s rants, so I have no frame of reference.
The important question is — can he sing? Can he charm the pants off you with a romantic ballad?
Really don’t care about his political or personal views. My lady has been talking about seeing him in concert since we got together, but he was always out of reach. Last year she saw he would be in Biloxi, and that was just within our reach.
To add, we actually stayed at the Beau Rivage, 20th floor overlooking the Gulf. We left the curtains open when we went out so we would be met with the view when getting back to the room.
Isn’t it strange that whatever the situation, Dan has some personal frame of reference. There’s generally a term for people like that. Liar.
poor despo, trying to get in front of the meme that defines your party, its funny watching you flail so pitifully
I believe Kristen Wiig and SNL writers owe Daring Danny royalties and copyright infringement.