I wonder if the American public or for that matter the world at large is aware just how much the US spends on its military and just how corrupted its “democracy” has become. The governments inaction on climate change is victim of this corrupt system.

Considering the USA uses 10X the amount of money as all the other nations combined! So redirecting 90% to this problem would be money well spent. But they have an empire to build and a republic to wreck and are not interested. They could even use the unrest caused by it to empower their military resource and geopolitical missions to far flung parts of the world to secure oil, gas and water supplies. To also make subject nations into vassal states to work for the American Empire to be. Neo-colonialism still at work.

Klephra,

You will believe what you want to believe and I guess its too much to expect you to actually consider the facts before constructing your beliefs.

The science is well established, based on evidence and has been rigorously reviewed over and over again. No credible, peer reviewed work is available to disprove that. If it were the lucky scientist would be amongst the favorites for the next Nobel Prize.

Of course the future affects of the warming can not be known for sure but modeling based on what is known gives a reasonable indication of what is likely.

Even if predictions of future affects did happen to understate the real problems of sea level rises etc etc. and the likely disastrous disruptions to our civilization, surely the costs involved in effectively mitigating these are worth bearing. The US could easily manage it if only by applying half its enormous military budget to the matter.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/slideshow/25115/retesting_the_greenhouse_gas_theory.html?cat=58

Even NASA has admitted that solar activity has been responsible for pastwarming - not people or C02
http://www.dailytech.co/NASA+Study+Acknowledges+Solar+Cycle+Not+Man+Responsible+for+Past+Warming/article15310.htm (make sure you are liked up on your URL address.

Yes “past warming” but there are other factors and until you can find for me that the upper atmosphere has been heating to show it has been more the sun than other factors then you are wrong. Don’t you think they would have tested that first thing? Which they have and it isn’t. If it was cooling then we would see it but we haven’t. No general cooling of the oceans have been found either. I wish they were because the alterations going on there are dire for us. More bacterial growth, red toxin algae tides, death of the coral reefs are just a start. Better tell the Australians its the sun that is turning them into a desert continent. Their rains come but it falls 200 miles away in open ocean now. No indication of any reversal at this time.

Night-Gaunt says: “And it is asinine to say that CO2 doesn’t affect temperature
it does and has shown it has for as long as it is in the atmosphere. That is why
the earth isn’t colder in the first place.”

Hrm…  No, I disagree:

Retesting The Greenhouse Gas Theory With A New
Experiment.

The Original Greenhouse gas experiments were conducted by putting
suspected heavier than air gases in sealed bottles and exposing those bottles
to the sun. The original experiments seem to lack important scientific controls.

This experiment lacks an important scientific controls. 1. The bottle itself has a
greenhouse effect and 2. The Earth Atmosphere is not sealed under pressure
with a bottle cap.

(http://www.associatedcontent.com/slideshow/25115/retesting_the_greenhou
se_gas_theory.html?cat=58)

Even NASA has admitted that solar activity has been responsible for past
warming - not people or C02
(http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+Acknowledges+Solar+Cycle+Not+Ma
n+Responsible+for+Past+Warming/article15310.htm).

It’s an act of faith to believe in AGW, because it’s not rooted in science.  It’s
every bit as much a religious concept as God sitting in the clouds, Saint
Michael’s disdain for fallen angels, and purgatory.

If only it were as simple as you portray it Khephra, but it isn’t and there is more than just one climate model. It is algorithmic so they have a continuum of models based upon variables in action.

The oceans are still heating, the methane is still being released and it takes time to see what will happen next. More clouds will cool & more debris in the atmosphere will first heat then cool. So it isn’t so simple as you put it. And it is asinine to say that CO2 doesn’t affect temperature it does and has shown it has for as long as it is in the atmosphere. That is why the earth isn’t colder in the first place. Just that methane, and nitrous oxide and other GHG’s affect it many times more and they are less easily handled. Don’t be so eager to discard it until more data is in and it isn’t looking good for us.

Night-Gaunt says: “True, hit that heat peak in 1998 but we haven’t gone below it
either so “cooling” is relative to that.”

Well, that’s not exactly what the theory of AGW predicts, now is it?  If the AGW
model is correct, as CO2 increases, global mean temperatures will increase.  Since
we now have clear evidence that CO2 is *not* tied with temperature, the theory
has failed.  If CO2 continues to rise, but temperatures remain static or decrease,
the AGW model has failed.

This is how empiricism works.  All the rest is just hype, spin and propaganda.

Internet and computers may be one of the early casulties of trying to do something about the environment because of electricity inefficiently used by scripting languages. 

Thermoelectric generation apparently consumes on average of .47 gallons of water/kWh

Google ‘scripting languages pollute’. 

Search for .47 for a link to professor webber’s article which contains a paragraph on the contribution of water to electricity generation.

True, hit that heat peak in 1998 but we haven’t gone below it either so “cooling” is relative to that.

Night-Gaunt says: “We should have been in a cooling cycle now but it hasn’t
happened and now they are saying we are due for a warming!”

Which contrasts starkly with Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany’s Leibniz Institute:

Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is
the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for
the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has
contributed significantly to the IPCC’s last two five-year reports that have
stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the
planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN’s World Climate Conference—an annual
gathering of the so-called “scientific consensus” on man-made climate change
—Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we
are likely entering “one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.”

(http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Scientists+pull+temporary+about+face+global+warming/1994959/story.html)

Personally, anything Al Gore’s selling, I’m not buying.

Credible to you perhaps but the glaciers still retreat, less snow on the mountains so less melt and less river, climate changing all over. Too soon, not enough, too much or in the wrong place is common now. Also in places “100 year storms” are now happening every 2-3 years so something is up. As for cooling in some places it is due to the melted ice forming a layer of fresh water on top of salt making it cold indeed. Ironic no? Some slight thickening on the eastern portion of Antarctica while on the western side it is still calving and breaking off in larger numbers.

We should have been in a cooling cycle now but it hasn’t happened and now they are saying we are due for a warming! Not good for us.

Kulu,
I’m not trying to “fool” anyone. My message was that facts such as 11 full years of zero increase in global temperature, thickening polar ice caps, and growing glaciers are an indication that there is time to get a better understanding of the situation before jumping off the precipice.

I made the comment that people should at the very least understand what credible scientists are saying on the “other” side of the issue before coming to a conclusion.  How is that trying to “fool” anyone?

Finally, I made the observation that catastrophic climate activists have changed the incredibly successful branding of “global warming” to “climate change”.  Why would they do that if they didn’t conclude that there is no global warming after all?

By the way, regarding the stat you quote regarding 1998 being the hottest year on record: this falls in line with the theory that it is the sun’s cycles that overwhelmingly drive earth’s global temperatures.  If this theory is correct, we will see declining global temperatures for the next 150 years.

I second that, cooler is a relative term if it is gauged by a new mean like 1998. Suddenly when they say “cooler” it is a misrepresentation of reality. It is still hotter, over all than before 1998 and that is the point they are trying to hide. Those glaciers are still retreating at a faster pace and less snow is on those mountains that feed the major rivers of the earth that are going to start drying up. Some already have. Then what?

Andress,

The highest average global temperature recorded was in 1998. Until that record is surpassed it is quite obvious all other years will be cooler. So what?

In the eleven years since 1998 the world has experienced about (I can’t recall the exact number) eight of the ten hottest years on record. It is disingenuous to cherry pick data and use them selectively to try and make a case.

I have responded to your post only so others will not be fooled by your assertion. I suggest anyone interested in the real facts and scientific hypotheses about future climate change scenarios can listen to excellent talks by some of the actual scientists engaged in the relevant research.

Stephen Schneider, James Hansen and Richard Somerville are three such scientists and quite a few of their talks are accessible on Google Video or Youtube.

I’m rather disappointed with Amy’s coverage of environmental science.  Last
week Democracy Now! had an interview with a leading stooge for Al Gore &
David Suzuki, then tried to pass him off as “unbiased”.  He was arguing that
there’s no “debate” in the scientific community about “global climate change”
(the newly rebranded “global warming”), but he was lying through his teeth and
Amy’s silence in this matter is truly disturbing! 

And the Maldives?!?  Get real!!!  How many other examples of islands disappearing beneath the oceans could be cited?  THOUSANDS!  This is *normal* oscillation!  Those who are propagandizing the Maldives would do well to study some paleoclimatology!  This has been happening for billions of years!

I encourage Amy and Democracy Now! to stop pandering to ignorance!

See:
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm (“The Myth of Global Warming”)

We need strong policy to address legitimate environmental concerns, but C02
is *not* our biggest threat.  Dioxins, heavy metals, gene drift, feminization,
etc, are all *significantly* more threatening than C02.

This shoddy reporting is unbecoming for an iconic journalist like Ms. Sullivan.  I
hope she corrects that mistake soon, and stops proselytizing for fascists (e.g.,
Al Gore - http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth).

Although your proposals would delay the temperature rise they will not stop
it. Somehow humans will have to add 6 million acres of land capable of
growing vegetation to the surface of the earth. The excess atmospheric carbon
allows the temperature to rise enough to trigger the melting of the
permafrost, the permafrost melting releases methane which we cannot remove
so easily. Collecting rain fall from the sea would not only slow the rise of the
sea but could be used to irrigate the deserts. A system of cisterns and
aqueducts could collect torrential rains on land and distribute the water where
needed while it prevents floods. The Romans and ancient Persians could have
built such a system, but they were much brighter than us.

By outback kid, October 25 at 10:32 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

The fact is that we have the technology these days to do something to change
our previous habit of spewing filth into our atmosphere.

Perhaps climate change is a good thing, it will probably eliminate most of the
parasitic virus also known as homo sapiens. This virus weakens the host to the
point where it can no longer feed the virus. Just as nature uses fever to kill
micro organisms in your body it is using fever to remove us. Do not get the
idea that an imaginary intelligence is behind the fever, it is just one of many
control mechanisms nature uses to maintain equilibrium. Some of the virus
may survive and hopefully it will have mutated so as to no longer threaten the
host.

It will help the rag weed grow but not the corn. Corn will become stunted by the increased temperatures. You can’t plant just anything in the tropics can you? No.

32,000 scientists agree that increases in CO2 is a GOOD thing! It will help the crops grow, it will help the trees grow.

Too many think either the train is too far away or it is on another track and will wait till the last possible moment to do anything before it hits them. A foolish thing to do. Some things you can’t procrastinate on when it is your way of life is at stake. Especially since you can’t move from that track you are on.

The propaganda is fierce and relentless backed by the CONG industries that have nearly bottomless pockets, powerful influence, enough hubris and ego to fill the galaxy. All they need is doubt to win, even if it just delays by some decades it is still an “win” in their financial column. Authoritarians and their follows have been shown to be so self destructive and selfish along with short sightedness that they would start a war that could end civilization as we know it rather than parley. A greed for power and all it entails like heroine addicts—-never enough.

If I am wrong I will be stuck with a self sufficient tropical island off the coast of
Brazil, if you are wrong your genetic line may disappear.

stcfarms - Both sides in this argument take the chance of being wrong.One good thing about the IPCC - Al Gore climate scare is that it did raise awareness of the importance of understanding the effects of climate change on food production during a period of rising population.
The evidence is reasonably clear that there is an approximate 1000 year cycle in climate. In general warmer periods are also wetter and crops and civilisation prosper . eg Roman Times, the MWP and the last century. Cooler periods are dryer and produce failed harvests ,associated plagues and famines, eg the Dark ages and the Little Ice Age.
CO2 rises as a consequence of temperature rise not vice versa. Obviously fossil fuel use adds somewhat to this natural fluctuation - the reality is that until we more fully understand the natural fluctuations which are controlled mainly by the sun - earth interaction we cannot even begin to estimate the anthropogenic CO2 contribution to warming with any degree of accuracy. However we do know 20 - 30 years of cooling is somewhat more likely than a continuation of the 20th century warming. We have never faced a spell like this with the enormous population the earth now has. Already this year US corn and soybean crops have been reduced by early frosts. Two or three future years of possibly failing US harvests would cause enormous difficulties world wide, These risks are much greater than any from a slightly warmer wetter world which would be better for mankind. 25% of the 20th century food production increase was due simply to the CO2 increase.
Viciousmeow makes a good point - the misplaced obsession with CO2 has drawn attention away from the much more serious environmental problems of land use patterns,  habitat loss, and overfishing.Problems for which real solutions to real problems may be found.

Re: “global warming phony”/“climate change hoax”. Stop enjoying the drama and arguments and get real. It doesn’t matter if it’s real or not. What is real is the destruction of rain forests, species, eco-systems, and the way of life for indigenous peoples. We need to work to repair our planet, which we HAVE harmed grievously, whether or not it has anything to do with climate change/global warming/your personal drama.

I guess that you are right. It must be that he is a criminal hired by the oil
companies. He is a Senator from Oklahoma, you do the math. The information
is out there if you look for it, wasting my time doing your homework is
illogical. When I was in school I got $5 a page for doing homework for people
like you, with inflation I will have to charge you $200 a page. I am not trying to
sell you the truth, I do not give a damn what you believe. We are both betting
the future of our progeny on the answer of climate change, only a fool would
be willing to chance being wrong.

stcfarms- As is usual with AGW believers you don’t or can’t refer to the basic data.  Note - the output of climate models is not data -  you just get out at one end, slightly repackaged, whatever assumptions you feed in at the other.
Do you think calling those of different viewpoints idiots is a useful contribution to a serious dicussion?

Do you believe that quoting an idiot will prove that climate change is a hoax?

Sen. Inhofe On Global Warming: ‘This Thing Is Phony’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skf8bpl8WSg&NR=1

Yeah, the world is flat, god loves you and Santa will bring you a Hummer…

By Dr Norman Page, October 21 at 6:54 pm #

Oddly enough the Sahara was created by man, we cut down the cedars that
once ringed the Mediterranean and ruined the micro climate that they created.
That micro climate made the Sahara similar to the Serengeti until the trees
were removed. A system of cisterns and windmill powered pumping stations
could take the EXCESS water away from flood prone areas and transfer it to
drought areas. The deserts are excellent for growing vegetation and any water
delivered will fall 5 times as rain before returning to the sea. Next time that
you are standing asshole deep in flood run off remember that you could have
sent it to the desert instead.

By Night-Gaunt, October 21 at 2:37 pm #

Our water is too precious to be wasting it in deserts where it doesn’t belong.

One of the good things about our Great Depression Frank, is that fewer of them are coming to a growing third world country. The milk and honey are drying up and even they are seeing it past the continuing hype. [Things are far worse than the CMSM is letting on.]

http://www.solarfurnace.netfirms.com/ Now it should be activated with the autonomic controls for the url, Stcfarms.

The best we can do is to mitigate the affects and try to keep it from reaching the very deadly 6 degrees C. We’re at 0.7 generally, but with some places much hotter like our Mid West at 1.7C and at the poles 3-5C. Which is why the North Pole could be ice free during the summer within 10 years instead of 50 years. When enough of the methane is released from the melting permafrost and ice methalhydrate it will boost the warming tremendously.

In the Earth Week ending October 9,2009- climate affected aggression is being noted. Wild animals in E. Africa have shown a marked tendency to attack humans that they didn’t exhibit before. Blamed on climate change by the Kenyan Wildlife Srv. (KWS) Driven by the need for food and water all kinds of animals have been attacking human settlements.

As for hurricanes look beyond the N.American continent for some whoppers.

I wouldn’t trust Tony Blakely for much beyond his extreme right wing slant.

Our water is too precious to be wasting it in deserts where it doesn’t belong. We need to construct our cities in the deserts and cultivate in the normally green areas and indoors. Eat less meat especially beef. Reduce it to 1/10 would be a good start.

So far the peak global temperature was reached in 1998 and it hasn’t gone down below it. So “cooling” is a relative term in this case. Things continue to change as the lower atmosphere heats up or maintains its current higher temperature.

Climate change, global warming, global cooling… Obviously not all scientists agree on what’s going on, and neither do the politicians. What IS obvious is that regardless of whether or not the globe is warming or cooling, we (mankind) are not living sustainably. Living sustainably would mean living in a way that does not destroy the environment in which we live, or the fellow people and animals that we live with. Living in a way which hurts environments, people, and animals is only sealing our own death sentence. It doesn’t matter which “side” you’re on—We need to make some enormous changes in the destructive way we’re living, if we want mankind to continue beyond the next handful of generations. This doesn’t just mean reducing the carbon footprint of the common man. No amount of individual carbon footprint reduction can make up for the mass destruction of oxygen-supplying rain forests; or the pollution from coal plants, which, in the U.S., generate more CO2 than ALL of the U.S.‘s cars, trucks, and planes combined.
The people in charge need to stop this ridiculous arguing and face the truth. Regardless of climate change, mankind can’t sustain this destructive lifestyle.

de profundis clamavi, “Left, Right, and Center” is the weekly show that gives Robert Scheer his microphone.

You may not want to listen to diverging opinions, but you should control your urge of impeding others from do so.

By Andress, October 21 at 8:27 am #

As Tony Blankley stated a couple weeks ago in “Left, Right, and Center”, there is no global warming.

* * * * *

“Left, Right and Center”? Any show that gives Tony Blankley a loudspeaker ought to be called something more accurate, like say, “Extreme, Right and Fascist”.

U.S. government leadership will be critical to clinching a substantive deal in Copenhagen, but the Senate has not finalized any climate legislation, which essentially ties the hands of U.S. negotiators. Oil, gas and coal interests are spending $300,000 a day lobbying the government. The moment of climate-change truth is upon us, and the professional deniers are up to their old tricks.

* * * * *

The Senate, the Senate, the Senate. I am so sick and tired of hearing and reading about Senators like Max Baucus, Olympia Snowe and Harry Reid. They perpetually stand in the way of democracy.

In 1788, representatives of the richest and most influential class of citizens of the new American Republic feared that if the democratically elected House of Representatives were allowed to govern, there was a danger that they might establish a “tyranny of the majority”, so they created an upper chamber of the legislative branch, to be selected by state legislatures, not popular election. Today, the Senators are directly elected, but the Senate continues to perform brilliantly as the anti-democratic, conservative institution it was designed to be. It was designed to act like the House of Lords in England, as a conservative bulwark against the democratic will of the people, and it has always worked that way.

Slavery could not be abolished through the “democratic” constitutional processes of American government because Southern Senators stood in the way. Instead, the country had to have a civil war. After the Civil War, there was a missed opportunity to fix the problem, but that opportunity was missed.

Today, we are again held hostage by a few Senators from states where there are very few people, wringing their hands, looking concerned and acting in the interests of the rich and powerful against the unquestioned will of the people.

In England, the power of the House of Lords was finally broken by the Commons cutting off money for the government.

If the Senate cannot be abolished, the Senators must at least be compelled to abandon their self-imposed, unconstitutional filibuster rule. Even with the filibuster in place, the Senate serves as a brake on change. With the filibuster in place, the Senate ensures there can never be any major change in policy on behalf of working people until at least 50 years after it’s needed. If the Senate makes us wait until 50 years from now for action on health care, climate change and fairness in the economy and workplace, most of us now alive will be dead, and our children and grandchildren will be suffering the consequences.

The Earth is now nearing the end of one of its naturally occuring cooling cycles. Man’s activities managed to cancel out the natural cooling. Hang on, if you can, as we enter into a natural warming period compounded by man’s activities.

As Tony Blankley stated a couple weeks ago in “Left, Right, and Center”, there is no global warming.

Mounting evidence from credible scientists is making it clear that the earth’s warming period has peaked, and we are going to enter a cooling period.

It has now been eleven full years of ZERO increase in global temperature.  The predicted super hurricane storm epidemics have not materialized.  The arctic cap thickness is back to 1970’s levels (therefore no impending polar bear extinction). Some glaciers are actually growing. The list goes on, but you get the idea.

The leaders of the catastrophic global warming movement have recognized this, and have changed their phenomenally successful branding of “global warming” to “climate change”.  This speaks volumes as to the reality of “warming” on a global scale.

I know most contributors to this post will summarily dismiss my comments as evil lies, but those who want to do their own thinking should read up on the arguments from reasonable people and credible scientists on the other side of the issue.

Charging forward under the incorrect assumption that humanity is in immediate danger of succumbing to unimaginable catastrophies brought about by global warming will lead to dire and long term consequences to ourselves and our progeny.

The eleven years of zero increase in temperature is an indication that we have time to be prudent, step back, and make a serious assessment of ALL the scientific body of evidence prior to jumping off the precipice.

Good article.

Quote: “This past Monday, the activist-artist group The Yes Men staged another of its hoaxes, with one member posing as an official from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, leading what appeared to be a legitimate press conference and stating the chamber’s complete reversal on its historically adamant opposition to climate-change legislation.”

I happened to notice, in the news, this same “COMPLETE REVERSAL”....  kinda makes you “wonder”.  Regarding these “latest developments” many are jumping ship as far as “the chamber” is concerned.  It’s late, but the writing is on the wall.  I could go on, but where I am, it truly is late….  Soldier on.

I have a plan that you might support. Get your wealthy friends together and
offer the refugees a bribe to leave, for $30,000 each I will build them a self
sufficient homestead raft on the ocean. They will save your ass and have no
reason to return. It is a win/win situation, you will not have to see Memphis
turn in to a sea port and they get to live.

By Frank, October 20 at 11:43 pm #

Americans are making changes to reduce their carbon footprint in many ways,
but it matters little. The problem is that these modest efforts are far
outstripped by the number of immigrants pouring across the southern border
to become high-consumption ‘Americans’.

Step one in any serious plan to slow climate change is to SECURE THE
BORDERS and repatriate existing illegals back to their lower-consumption
points of origin.

Despite the major positive impact this would have on both the economy and
the environment, it isn’t likely to happen. This is where all the
environmentalists will suddenly turn mealy-mouthed and show their
impotence and hypocrisy with respect to the environmental costs of
immigration.

There are a few ways that we can deal with the problem. If the ancient
Romans and Persians had been faced with this problem they would have built
aqueducts to carry water from where it was plentiful to massive cisterns in
desert areas that could dispense just enough water to make the deserts
bloom. Of course we could not do this today because we no longer have the
glial capacity to envision such an undertaking.

We could build a geostationary orbit solar furnace to create water and
hydrogen energy from sea water but this would cost as much as Obama gave
the bankers for stealing our houses. The massive solar furnace http://
solarfurnace.netfirms.com/ would also be able to remove pollutants from the
atmosphere.

Massive islands built from our trash could grow vegetation, collect rain water
and generate clean energy. I would rather try one of these questionable
methods to reverse climate change than to just stick my head up my ass and
die.

Americans are making changes to reduce their carbon footprint in many ways, but it matters little. The problem is that these modest efforts are far outstripped by the number of immigrants pouring across the southern border to become high-consumption ‘Americans’.

Step one in any serious plan to slow climate change is to SECURE THE BORDERS and repatriate existing illegals back to their lower-consumption points of origin.

Despite the major positive impact this would have on both the economy and the environment, it isn’t likely to happen. This is where all the environmentalists will suddenly turn mealy-mouthed and show their impotence and hypocrisy with respect to the environmental costs of immigration.

We could sure use stunts like this directed at Wall Street crime! (in fact, one of the Yes Men is a dead ringer for Hank Paulson)