AMEN…....

nothing left to say….GOOD NIGHT

Where has Al Gore “profited” from this exactly?

Unlike the Clinton’s who showed their tax returns,
Gore is a private citizen.

“All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,...”

However, to truly understand what is going on, it’s
necessary
to have perspective and see the big picture.
Nobody in this thread, IMO, has explained this better
than:

TAO Walker, February 22 at 10:40 pm, when he said:

“Meantime, the climate change “debate” still serves
effectively (along with a multitude of other bait-
and-switch schemes)
as cover for the auto-phagiac proclivities of the
eCONomic ‘operating system’ of the globe-girdling
“civilization” CONtraption.”

If wanting to be spoon-fed all the time prevents some
people from looking up ,e.g., autophagia,
then they will continue to curse & fear the darkness
rather than light a candle.

I have read that the rip in the ozone is back
and as big as ever.

I real NASA projection,,

is that like,  gotta be true , it was on 60minutes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
Main article: Ozone depletion
NASA projections of stratospheric ozone concentrations if chlorofluorocarbons had not been banned.

In 2009, nitrous oxide (N2O) was the largest ozone-depleting substance emitted through human activities. [4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer

N2O is a GHG with one molecule = 269 molecules of CO2. Also the same ones who promote the radical climate change as “hoax” were against any kind of limit on CFC’s. Think about that.

“So in addition to the war on terror hoax perpetrated
by the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL
CONSPIRACY, which keeps the masses in a state of fear
to justify perpetual wars
and make military employment versus unemployment seem
attractive, the global
warming hoax allows the fascist oligarchs to pass
laws to make them even richer
& we the people even poorer. Just remember, Al Gore.”-LieCatcher

Where has Al Gore “profited” from this exactly? Is it just from making money from speeches as everyone does or are you against Capitalism in toto? (He did end his family’s long and rich affair with tobacco on his own didn’t he?) Hate to tell you but the fascist oligarchs already have a lock on CONG and that is better for their bottom line than a total switch to non-carbon technology. Also the radical climate change will enable them to gain power more easily than if we stop or mitigate it. So you have it backwards, and it supports their status quo! Alarmed! You should be. They have you fooled into think in ways that help them not hurt them.

That s/he presumes to ‘speak’ about “peyote” at all, is ample proof rfidler actually knows nothing whatsoever about it.  That’s often been said about the TAO, too, but nobody ever admits to having said it….for obvious reasons.

So let’s be clear.  It is not Peyote this Old Indian is referring-to here, but rather the self-confessed (at-least cultural) ignorance of someone perhaps thinking they’ve come-off as clever, instead.

Meantime, the climate change “debate” still serves effectively (along with a multitude of other bait-and-switch schemes) as cover for the auto-phagiac proclivities of the eCONomic ‘operating system’ of the globe-girdling “civilization” CONtraption.

HokaHey!

Yes indeed,  I embace the climate collapse.
We are all going to find out just what is important.
Even though, I am not quite that nieve to believe
that it won’t be me or my posterity that starves to
death.

well we are also the nation that put a dumb behind the desk, and did it again in 2004, so never misunderestimate this country.

According to a poster at a site I frequent:

I’ve been reading this book, “The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism” by two-time Pulitzer prize nominee Barry Sanders.

http://www.amazon.ca/Green-Zone-Environmental-Costs-Militarism/dp/1904859941/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266445931&sr=8-5

If every person/country/corporation in the world cut their carbon emissions to zero, the U.S. Military would push the planet into the furnace all by themselves.

I was shocked by the figures in this book. The amount of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and other carbon equivalents, plus the amount of ordnance dropped on Baghdad, plus the amount of depleted uranium and other toxic pollutants that have been sent into the earth’s atmosphere to circle the globe for us all to breathe, etc., etc.

So, the news is good, yes?

my scenario doesn’t paint quite as a pretty
picture as the industry models do. They do give us
that 2050 time period to address the climate collapse.  This time period is not new and the first
thing industry incorporated into their models back
in the late seventies.
I believe mans mobility is going to become very
restricted in the next twenty years. Of course this
is bound to happen anyhow because of already existing
ecological destruction.  Life is going to change very
much on this planet, we are seeing it now.
With the type of agriculture we employ, we can’t feed
the world’s population.
The last glacial retraction was about 10,000 yers ago
the advancement was about 100,000 years. The previous
one seemed to be the same. Man lived through it
This time, who knows, the present C02 levels are
much higher than ever recorded.
Nobody can predict this outcome, and no one is going’
to bring the C02ppm down, even if we were to shut
down all emmisions today.
That does not mean that responsible stewardship of
of our planet should not occur, many good things
have come from the climate debate…

Hey, Dummy: Climate Change Is Real
Posted on Feb 18, 2010 By Eugene Robinson

Whenever a writer insults his audience, it’s normal
to ask: “which came first,
the ignorance or the greed”. Unlike the chicken/egg
question, I believe I
found the answer while revisiting Michael Moore’s
documentary “SICKO”.
A British historian told Moore that: “An educated,
healthy, & confident
population is harder to govern / control.” On the
other hand, keeping people
hopeless & pessemistic as well as freightened,
demoralized & poor made
enslavement easier.
The greedy fascists have been numbing & dumbing we
the people for decades.
They’ve always use debt as an enslavement tool (some
original settlers came
from debtor’s prisons as indentured servants), and
are currently using starvation
both for enslavement & genocide with over one billion
people worldwide being
starved to death each year. People in the U.S. who
have trouble getting to
charitable food pantries don’t vote.
So in addition to the war on terror hoax perpetrated
by the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL
CONSPIRACY, which keeps the masses in a state of fear
to justify perpetual wars
and make militay employment versus unemployment seem
attractive, the global
warming hoax allows the fascist oligarchs to pass
laws to make them even richer
& we the people even poorer. Just remember, Al Gore
is one of them.

Night gautlet

I don’t know this to be true, but have heard that
the rip in the ozone is as big as ever again

Have you heard of any recent report of this?
Mine was mostly here say.

If we would have controlled the CO2 out put the way we did with CFC’s we would be in better shape. Projections are that if we hadn’t stopped the use of CFC’s we would be much farther along in GHG effects. We could be what it has been projected for 2050 right now if we hadn’t. But we are still climbing faster than previous predictions. The models of worse case are happening faster.

One can see that in the time you can cross the tundra. It is 3 wks shorter now than before. For the summers last longer and the muck doesn’t freeze for as long as it had done before.

Most of you have read my other posts on this dig
so i won’t repeat. By reading them you probably
understand where i believe we are heading.  Scientific data does not support the shifting of the
earths axis as the reason for past glaciations.
In the past, the recycling of the carbon has been
a process of about 120,000 years, taps into ice cores
have proven this.
It is the C02 that provides the massive amount of
energy to go from intra to inter glacial periods.
It seems that this happens at at a fast rate.
It is my belief the evaporation caused by the
warming of the atmosphere is the catylist for this.
And that were are in that stage right now and the
atmosphere is still warming.
It is my belief that in twenty years or less there
will be no melting ice.
The industry models give idustry much more time to
address this pending crisis

I believe in climate change…i term it climate
collapse.  The theory i suscribe to has warming in
it but not the ends. I fist became interested in
the CO2 debate in the early to mid eighties. At that
time NOAA was only gathering C02ppm in the atmosphere
every five years. There were only three or four
stations capable of doing this. To my surprise, at
one point they were even calling me after a meashure
ment had been taken.

In the seventies there were many debates among those
studying the rise of C02 and its affect on climate.
It was rising faster than ever recorded. As you all
on this blog know, a bell curve, on which the C02
is recorded, is nothing more than a parabolla that
at one point heads into infinity.  At 380ppm the
plotting on the graph reached the point on the curve
that it starts heading up to that point. There were
many alarmist at the beginning of the eighties
reporting to gov, especially to cap hill that this
needed to be addressed right now. The manner in which
they wanted addressed would have changed our economic system. They told cap hill, it still is a
long shot that we may bring the C02ppm down, but if
we start immediatly we might, maybe , have a shot at
this.
Of course this alarmed the principle spewers on
wall street.  Using their extensive influence, they
were able to gain control who studies, what studies
, what funding of climate models, would get the ear
of cap hill. All other studies got censored and
buried.  i believe they really thought they could
eventually control the ppm, they were told they
couldn’t by many that had been researching this since
the sixties.

By Anarcissie, February 21 at 10:13 pm #

“At the moment my theory is that, for liberal and leftish authoritarians, the authority model is school, as compared to rightists, whose authority models are the church and the military.  When you’re guilty of wrongthink among rightists, you’re “ungodly” or “disloyal”, but among liberals and progs you’re “stupid”.  You didn’t carefully swallow what teacher handed out and regurgitate it later on command.”

I agree totally with that theory, except the leftist elite’s so-called alliance with the “working man” is something they are totally uncomfortable with, because “working man” is not up to their intellectual standards.  Also, the the alliance of the MIC right with the religionists is also a non-sustainable one, as too many religionists are re-thinking the principles of Christ, which were “turn the other cheek”.  The alliance of the working man with the religionists is a more sustainable model, and one which is basically being workekd out right now in the so-calleld Tea Party.  At that point the MIC’s and intellectual elite will become minorities, in my opinion, and drained of much of their current power. 

In the meantime, the following post certainly highlights your theory on the left side of the spectrum. 

By holy carp, February 21 at 7:59 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

“Reading the moronic, idiotic posts of the global warming skeptics, further illustrates just how badly we need fundamental education reform in this country.  Teaching logic and critical thinking in grade school might be a good start.”

Incredible, the unbelievable cant being spouted about the “agenda” of “global warning” or “climate change”, this is not some kind of plot or conspiracy, this is a real problem, with potentially catastrophic effects for humanity.

China doesn’t have an EPA, why are they forging ahead with stiffer environmental regulations and restructuring their economy to be more globally competitive in wind, solar and mass transportation technologies.

America is importing 3/5’s of its oil from countries that are either politically unstable or hostile to us, don’t you think it would be a good idea from a security standpoint to stop doing that?

I agree that there are other ecological concerns that are not being given their proper place, factory farming, water purification and conservation, etc… I am not advocating doing nothing about those problems, I think we can address them as well and should do so immediately.

Carbon burning is not killing the planet, its killing the ecosphere where humanity can exist, we have to stop burning fossil fuels and substitute other technologies or we fail to provide for future generations, period.

This is not some plot by the nuclear industry, it is a real dilemma and we should address this problem with as many approaches as possible.

Many economic arguments can be made against necessary change; however, existential crises are acute by their very nature and whatever the economic impact we must deal with this problem, and soon.

Hey, Dummy: Climate Change Is Real
Posted on Feb 18, 2010
By Eugene Robinson

Hey Eugene Robinson:

We’re the nation that let “W” steal two elections,
let Bush3 continue the same song & dance, have the
fattest population, fell for the ethanol hoax,
believes that the cataclysmic financial collapse is a
“recession” & that the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM is a
government agency, that nuclear
reactors will free us from “our dependence on foreign
oil”, & haven’t accepted the fact that “DEMOCRACY IN
AMERICA IS A USEFUL FICTION”.
Now the nation has to deal with two global “threats”,
terrorism & warming. The terrorism “threat” yielded
perpetual wars & the warming “threat”
will yield cap & trade, along with fear, confusion,
unemployment, starvation -the stuff enslavement
thrives on.

However, what the nation has learned is that
mainstream media giants like Fox & Washpo are able to
hire good writers to spew the party line
to screw we the people & enrich the elite 1% who own
& control everything. We’ve also learned to profile
people & know that birds of prey flock
together, and that Al Gore, the Clintons, the Bush
Crime Family, Bush3, & Cheney are predators.
Furthermore, we’ve learned to follow the
money and the trail leads to Goldman Sachs, aka,
Government Sachs, who will make the market, in a new
London Exchange, for cap & trade ,
once that hoax is passed. That’s right, the same
miscreants who did credit default swaps & received
$trillions of taxpayer borrowed money with
no strings attached.

Paolo—I’m afraid you’re speaking to the deaf.  I’ve made similar observations around here to no avail.  The beat goes on.

I’ve been thinking about that.  At the moment my theory is that, for liberal and leftish authoritarians, the authority model is school, as compared to rightists, whose authority models are the church and the military.  When you’re guilty of wrongthink among rightists, you’re “ungodly” or “disloyal”, but among liberals and progs you’re “stupid”.  You didn’t carefully swallow what teacher handed out and regurgitate it later on command.

Of course, calling people bad names doesn’t make infidels knowledgeable or intelligent (or godly or loyal) but it probably serves to keep the faithful together.

Without addressing any of the many arguments for or against global warming, let us take a moment to observe the tone of Mr. Robinson’s article.

It is incredibly condescending, much like Al Gore’s tone of voice. If you question the Received Truth of Global Warming, you must be (in Robinson’s own words), unaware that the earth is round and “really, really big.”

Robinson’s attitude would have to rise a few levels in politeness to achieve the level of “snide.” 

Again, I am not arguing for or against the theory, at this time. I am only pointing out that those who put forth the theory should learn a different approach, and especially, be open to the concept that they may have overlooked important facts or data.

Snide comments and condescending attitudes do not describe true scientists.

Why need a new tax when we can carbon tax and reduce our military/corporate/surveillance complex by 90% and still be safe. Actually more safe than now since war and conquest creates more enemies in those countries attacked by our forces. The military is also the chief polluter too.

hello again. OK, DnotR.Zing, i will take your bait. you must be one of these subversives, living outside our country: to never have heard of the Environmental Protection Agency. you are not aware that they slap the hands of businesses, with petty fines; while cleaning up after them. you are also not aware of them driving private chicken agribusiness into the ground, with ground water contamination regulations. you are not aware of vehicle emission regulations, that are compromising advances in diesel engines; while reducing harmful exhausts over the past generation: to a point where an individual can now suck on a tailpipe, and not die from it. you are not familiar with our handling of nuclear waste. yet somehow, you agree it is necessary to tax working citizens: because the planet may be warming. if businesses are responsible for this, (and i failed to mention atmospheric scrubbers in electric power plants), then they should be required to stop. this “cap and trade” tax, is a subversive’s attempt to undermine good government, and good economy: with bad government and bad tax. tax is not the answer- to people needing handouts. tax is for specific needs, and fearmongering to revenue a tax, will end in us calling your bluff. the oceans are not boiling fish. this Earth is huge. get out and walk across whatever country you live in, and then tell me how significant our CO2 output is in your opinion. CO1 is what has been linked to cancer. fight the right fight. climate change is no reason for new tax.

By Go Right Young Man, February 19 at 2:50 pm #

“Helloooo Mr. Robinson.  The sun warms the planet.  Just as it has for billions of years.  Just as it has risen and receded for billions of years.”

Been there checked that no go. The upper atmosphere isn’t heating, it is the lower atmosphere which shows that it is human made. If you would have checked on that you wouldn’t have made the above snarky & ill informed statement. Check the ocean temperatures—still rising. Animal life moving north. Not a sign of cooling is it?

That is why climate scientists call it Global Climate Change (GCC) instead to not confuse the average person educated in our schools. Where it tends to stop as a-literalism is rampant here.

Yes the peak was in 1998 and it has cooled some but not below that high.

ofersince72 not me, have you asked them why?

hark, February 19 at 1:25 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

“What I can’t grasp is why the deniers oppose an alternative, renewable energy and transportation revolution.”

For the same reason they are against birth control and sex education and for the teaching of Creationism in the schools. You will find they are generally in the same group.

Here is a recent report from “Earth Week” for February 12, 2010;

“A group of Galapagos fur seals has for the first time in recorded history abandoned its world-famous nature preserve home to live in the steadily warming waters of coastal Peru. The Organization for Research & Conservation of Aquatic Animals (ORCAA) says about 30 of the marine mammals appear to have been attracted to ocean temperatures 1,000 miles to the southeast that are now similar to those in the Galapagos archipelago. The Peruvian Geophysics Institute says ocean temperatures around the country’s Foca island, where the fur seals now live, have warmed from 63 degrees Fahrenheit 10 years ago to a little above 73 degrees this year.”

Rollzone said:

forgettabouttit. businesses are responsible for cleaning up their environmental foot print, and enforcing regulations already enacted suit me, because i have a dial on my thermostat that goes up AND down. this is just a tax hoax. EPA is already over the top out of control, and perhaps needs to be reevaluated.

D.R. Zing replies:

Grasshopper, do you find your matchbox comfortable? Good. You will soon be sharing it with a cockroach.

Translation:

We are destroying the ecosystem that allows us to thrive, my friend. That’s not to say we’re all going to die, just that our descendants may have to forgo dining on the cockroaches of the sea (shrimp) and simply settle for cockroaches, whether in middle of an ice age or a drought.

Remember.

DaveZx3—Many of our supposedly dispassionate scientists seem to be also influenced by business and personal advantage (and not just on the AGW side).  However, I think we are going to see a big switch in the near future, because nuclear is coming back in a big way.  The idea that all of our problems, present and threatened, are attributable to CO2—which has become gospel and dogma to progs (just look around) is an ideal platform for pushing a major expansion of nuclear power.

Global Warming scientist, Phil Jones now states that there is no evidence of increased global temperatures for the past 15 years, despite increased CO2 emissions. 

Scientists now predicting mini ice ages over next 10 to 80 years.  While the UN Climate Chief resigns abruptly a couple of days ago. 

I have been trying to read up on this stuff, but the science is all over the map.  Apparently the scientists are all lined up according to their political persuasions.

How you can trust any of it is beyond me.  I am still trying to get over that archaeoptrix was a fake. 

It is all political and manipulated to further an agenda, which is basically to move money to the powerful.

Ya really gotta wonder why Eugene Robinson, et al, cannot leave this one alone. Change is one of the few constants in the universe. There may be people who deny that “climatechange” (now that it’s a single word) is real. So what?! There are people who believe that milk is manufactured, that food comes from stores.

The issue up for grabs is whether climate change is influenced by or attributable to human activity. None of the posters here, myself included (and I suspect the author of this piece, too), are in a position to determine which scientific position is valid. Meanwhile so-called “progressive” journalists perpetuate the cover argument: whether climatechange or global warming is real.

In the meantime serious issues are ignored: The effects of all the chemicals we are dumping into the biosphere are an undeniable problem. The destruction of indigenous ecosystems continues unabated since Europeans discovered the “new world”. Industrial agriculture is ruining soil and draining aquifers. These serious issues are not discussed much. Instead we have the drivel above.

Ya gotta wonder who Truthdig is working for?

For those who believe that climate change has been disproven because the the
great winter storms, have you actually read the science?  It says greater
precipitation.  But this shouldn’t even be an issue.  With science, it is important to
look at the aggregate to see a pattern, not specific numbers, as the author
commented, anecdotes can swing both ways. 
And science being created for tax purposes?  Really?  Bush had some of the
highest taxes and and did not believe in the science of global warming.  And since
when do we have to “believe” in science?  I understand if it were only a few
scientists contending the existence of global warming, but this is simply not the
case.  A huge number of reputable scientists have proven global warming.
I suggest that people read the science before making false comments.

However,  the C02 is above 400ppm
so we are all going to find out
probably real soon.
i agree
with the tax thing
thats my biggest argument
man cannot pull the ppm down
tax and trade is rediculous
corps have never been responsible for cleaning up
when???
see ya. duuuummmmmmmmmm mmmmy

hello. hey dummy, we call it Autumn, Winter, Spring, and Summer. sure, the poles may be shifting, and government climate manipulations may need to shift attention into other realms. sticking your tax revenuer hand deep into my pocket to support dictators, and United Nations recipients, under the misnomer of fearmongering climate change: is just business as usual, and i will not pay any climate tax. forgettabouttit. businesses are responsible for cleaning up their environmental foot print, and enforcing regulations already enacted suit me, because i have a dial on my thermostat that goes up AND down. this is just a tax hoax. EPA is already over the top out of control, and perhaps needs to be reevaluated. the environment protects itself, and when we abuse that fact: we have enacted regulations to punish the abusers. this hoax is just to scare the sky is falling supporters into action, to raise taxes and raise more taxes; and raise taxes. we are going to fry if the Earth begins getting closer to the sun. we are going to be covered with miles of ice if the Earth gets farther away. we do not steer the course of Earth through space. politicians make secret promises to gift monies for special interests, and this is just a means to generate taxes. politicians have to begin reducing taxes, to rediscover good politics. this is a taxing hoax.

hello. hey dummy, we call it Autumn, Winter, Spring, and Summer. sure, the poles may be shifting, and government climate manipulations may need to shift attention into other realms. sticking your tax revenuer hand deep into my pocket to support dictators, and United Nations recipients, under the misnomer of fearmongering climate change: is just business as usual, and i will not pay any climate tax. forgettabouttit. businesses are responsible for cleaning up their environmental foot print, and enforcing regulations already enacted suit me, because i have a dial on my thermostat that goes up AND down. this is just a tax hoax. EPA is already over the top out of control, and perhaps needs to be reevaluated. the environment protects itself, and when we abuse that fact: we have enacted regulations to punish the abusers. this hoax is just to scare the sky is falling supporters into action, to raise taxes and raise more taxes; and raise taxes. we are going to fry if the Earth begins getting closer to the sun. we are going to be covered with miles of ice if the Earth gets farther away. we do not steer the course of Earth through space. politicians make secret promises to raise taxes for special interests, and this is just a means to generate taxes. politicians have to begin reducing taxes, to rediscover good politics. this is a taxing hoax.

Inherit the Wind…I am going to give you the same
lecture that GRYM did this morning…

If you are not reading the posts in chronilogical
order, don’t make a comment on me…I am happy for
your critisizm otherwise.

The list that I was discussing was not the same
list that you scolded me for.
I was talking to JEFFERSON SMITH.
read his post then read mine….
and no,  all those climate scientist ringing the
global warming bell were NOT ringing any bell
in 1980 up through Gore’s nuclear power industry
funded thing that he did.

There is not much use discussing it.  If one is even mildly skeptical, one is given a torrent of abuse.  I’m bored with that.  I note that public skepticism is increasing, so I think maybe abuse isn’t the way to go, if you’re looking for political action, but I seem to be speaking to the deaf.

Ofer:

“Where were the scientists?”  That’s not the question. The question is where were YOU?  They were there, warning us about climate change going ALL the way back to Carl Sagan using his fame to warn against the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica.

As for the list of “scientists’” signatures that challenge global warning?  Well, I found one on the list I know PERSONALLY, and he’s neither a scientist nor a climate scientist—he’s a medical doctor and a surgeon.

Gore simply stepped in with his fame and prestige to focus lay interest and concern on what the scientific community already knows.

Those that doubt global warming fall in with those that believe the “Flintstone Museum” is real science, and that “Intelligent Design” is an actual scientific theory: The ignorant with a political and religious agenda.

the number of scientist i don’t know
I have heard that 2000 figure somewhere before

But where were these 2000 scientist 25 or 30
years ago?  Why did they wait until well after
Gore’s movie to alarm the world?

This isn’t a new phenom,,,,,where were they?

If you read all my posts ,,,,I never denied
the greenhouse gases or warming…..just the outcome
and time for proper prepardness.

Mr. Smith you make a very good point about the
electrician.
Gore is a politician…....relying others message.

I have been tracking the C02 crisis since the early
eighties….
I do know this…..the oil and chemical industries
were very concerned back then about the direction
climate studies (the greenhouse gases were discussed
back in the sixties) would take the emmisions spew.
With all their extensive influence, they were able
to shape just what climate models would be funded .
All others shit canned.
There were several that alarmed government including
Capitol Hill of the pending C02 crisis by 1980.
They forgot the ground wire….

Never come to a Debate with just one supportive agrument.
The left has failed to comprehend the art of succeesful debate.
Attack the arguement by hitting it from various perspectives.
“Global Warming” itself is far above the average GOPers abilities to understand ‘cause and effect relationships’....We’re talking to people who deny Evolution. KISS is the Rule.
“Climate Change” is easier for these peoples minds to digest.
The Left handed the opposition that one.

We also need to focus on a designated stratedgy. Go after the most agregious offenders in a unified concerted effort.

And who really are we opposing at this moment? Who are the most vulnerable for political attack? Not GOP’ers who think humans have only been around for 6000 yrs (who gives a shit)- but those who’s business it is to harvest and profit from the decay of the ‘fossil’ record.Oil.

Oil has been the Root of all evil for the last few decades. Wars, conflicts, covert operations to control it. Mad raping of Our Great outdoors, often leaving ‘their DNA’ in our oceans, shores and waterways. Gouging US not only at the gas pumps, but also ultimatley our grocery stores, our heating bills on speculation (Greed/manipulation).A perpetuator of air pollution that can engulf a city in it’s sludge, increasing health problems for millions.

Don’t believe in Global Warming- so What. Still doesn’t change the facts Our oil consumption, esp foreign is literally killing US.

Intellectually- debatively- speaking, at times, The Left is like a Jet/ Shark showing up to a Crips/Blood fight with just a knife.
Shit you haven’t even bothered to enlist the Faithful in an attempt to save ‘Gods Green Earth’.
Actually for some so called ‘Progressives’ a knife in their hand would be an improvement..

You are trying to construct Bumper sticker One Trick Pony Talking points and you are actually screwing us up.
Dems win because they have more than one Point. We’ll build our arguement or deconstruct yours piece by piece in a disgestible manner.
Boring but when people are worried, frantic, desperate it helps to explain your reasoning to assure and soothe them. Reason Obama Won.
Remove the GOP/Energy Corps/Morons excuse of “Warming” from the debate and see what they have left to debate with- Nothing.

I am not a climate change scientist, I am also not an electrician; however, when an electrician tells me that I have a problem with the wiring in my house I tend to believe the electrician. Specialization is the basis of the current world economy, that doesn’t mean that specialists are always right; but, since they spend their professional lives involved in their specialty and I do not, I tend to listen to them.

Over 2,000 scientific specialists: climatologists, oceanologists, hydrologists, meteorologists, physicists and others have published hundreds of studies in peer reviewed literature supporting the finding that global warming is occuring and no significant number of other scientists have been able to refute their findings. The findings of the few scientists that do contest “global warming” or “climate change” do not dispute that warming is happening, only that it is being caused by human activity.

I tend to look at the problem a little differently, it doesn’t matter whether the cause of global warming is 100% based on human activity or only 1% is caused by human activity. We should address what we can. As humans we have a responsibility to do what we can to eliminate the use of polluting elements no matter what they cause and put a better world into the hands of our children.

Only a fool ignores a problem that he has even some control over and can fix.

An old BABOON friend shared this theory with me,
has a lot of merit…..at least as much as Gore’s

One conclusion we all seem to agree on

The powers that be are more concerned about economy
than ecology.

or this…  However long they may delay action
        they make another buck…

        so any theory that gives the most time to
        make the most money will win out because
        of our Wall Street mentality.

        And that is exactly what the excepted
        models do…....DO DA DAY…!!!!!

As the atmosphere warms, it can be concluded that
an expotential rise in evaporation will occur.
This will end up in the atmosphere supposedly.
refracting sunlight, or albedo.

So maybe the trapped heat from the greenhouse
supplies the energy needed for a glaciation.

So, good gracious, let me see if I understand your argument.  1998 was the hottest YEAR and the 10 years since have been slightly cooler so that makes the previous DECADE (1989-1998) was hotter than this decade.  By your argument, we should average the temperatures from 1989-1998 to form one decade and the temperatures from 1999-2008 to form the second.  That would still make this last decade the warmest.  You cannot compare apples to oranges (one year’s temperature against the ensuing 10 years temps) and decide that the previous decade was hotter.  You are still wrong.  But the decade comparison is based on the natural decades ... 1990-1999, 2000-2009, etc.  That is how we describe a decade.  Not some random combination of years to support your argument.  The atmosphere is still warming up ... PERIOD!

Hell , lets through another theory in the mix…

Glaciation starts when the minerals in the soil are
so depleted that they cannot support plant life.

Forests, jungles, and other plant life become subject
to destruction from disease, insects, drought, and
fire.  Ultimately most of the carbon in the plant
life winds up as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Re: Marshall

Bullseye! Well played.

We’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.

If we react too soon and harshly, we might collapse the global economy. If we wait for a preponderance of evidence to accumulate, it’s probably too late.

“Look before you leap, but he who hesitates is lost.”

Fidler, you need to take the blinders off: The ice caps are melting and the ocean is rising. That, by itself, is CONCLUSIVE proof of global warming.  That’s all you need to know to be CERTAIN global warming is real.

It’s a little tougher to prove that Man is the cause, but that the warming is real is simply undeniable, even to a dogmatic propagandist like you.

By Smudge Martens, February 19 at 6:33 pm #

I’m with you up to the place where you draw your conclusion that if you
supported invading Iraq, how can you not support GCCI?  I draw exactly the
opposite conclusion,  that if you did not support the Iraq invasion (where
consensus was wrong), then how can you justify supporting a preemptive war
on greenhouse gases regardless of the source?

Of course there are several other holes in the logic as outlined, like the
assumed outcomes of global warming (which are speculative), and the
assumption that the cost/benefit ratio is in favor of said preemptive war on
greenhouse gases.  In fact, these issues are currently unknowable, which itself
is an argument against expensive initiatives.  Which goes to your other post
about lay opinions formed on complex science: you are exactly correct that
when an area of science becomes as complex and convoluted as climate
science has, our politicians (abetted by ourselves) have no business instituting
costly, sweeping programs that will likely downgrade the lives of so many.

I think most on this board agree that the author of this article is not exactly a
force to be reckoned with.  The article is as amateurish and misinformed as the
“dummies” it claims to refute.

The cold wasn’t just in the United States - the author didn’t realize that Europe
has also undergone an unusually harsh winter.  Add to that the fact that this
hemisphere has seen no significant warming in the last fifteen years and you
begin to have questions.  Brazil is hot because it happens to be summer there
right now.  And for the author to cite “preliminary data” is absurd;  the only useful
data is final data and climate-gate showed that even that is questionable (or has
been lost altogether).  There’s more to this story of course, but is it a surprise that
there’s been a backlash to those who claim that every nice warm summer day is
proof of man made global warming?

Climate chage cannot get anymore real.  The evidence of the last few years is snowballing that we have headed into global cooling.

Nick, February 19 at 3:52 pm:
’... To continue to dismiss the empiricists as “authoritarians” just makes you look more like an idiot.’

The trouble is, Nick, I’m not an idiot.  At some point you may grasp why that’s important.  I’ve tried to help, but in your case to no avail.

Mr. Robinson,

Congratulations on putting yourself on the same epiphany schedule as Thomas Friedman, twenty years too late but right on track now that the road has been paved.

What would be truly enlightening is if you were dismissing this argument for the red herring that it is and discussing ecological collapse—that’s the five hundred pound gorilla lurking behind climate change that no one’s been talking about because we’ve been arguing with the flat-earth dunderheads about self-evident facts for the last two decades. 

You and the illustrious Mr. Friedman and in fact the clever E.J. Dionne (who recently wrote a column about the failure of Democrats) just don’t get it.  You can be right as hell about this low-level, self-evident bullshit and it just won’t matter. 

Our economy, our international banking system is destroying us, just destroying us. All these amoral, well-dressed predators know climate change is real, they know ecological collapse is probable and they are happy about it.  Get it? 

It’s called Disaster Capitalism and you definitely need to read the book. 

The economic predators will keep you arguing at the level you’re arguing ad naseum because you are playing right into their hands, not calling them on their diabolical economic plans, cynical outlooks, financial systems that demand perpetual war, abject poverty for the masses, tyrannical governments to keep the impoverished in line, and destruction of the ecosystem in the ravaging of natural resources.   

Please, for the love of God, man, start connecting the dots and going after these rat bastards with the same glee and vindictiveness with which you attack politicians and athletes who are, in your mind, sexual infidels. 

Give Thomas and E.J. a call.  Objectivity doesn’t entail pretending you just stepped off a fucking spaceship from Mars. All three of you will starve and die with the rest of us, so will your children, so will your grandchildren. 

Only the ultra rich will have what they need—and even they—not for long. 

Hugs and kisses, love and long wishes—Zing.

Or share with everyone !!!!!!!!!

The piece of _ _ _ _ journalism seems to be all
he capable of since he is locked into defending
status quo

Regardless of anyones position on climate change
WARMING, COOLING, NO CHANGE

It seems all governments have lost touch with
any form of common sence in their governing not only
to keep status quo, but to keep their benifactors
happy and content..i.e. corportate execs.

In fact, there is NO micro organisms living in any
of the farm soils of rice, cotton, beans corn, milo
ect. fields around here where i reside.
Not even an earthworm or two.
You can’t even rot the stalks by plowing them under
because of the lack of micro organisms in the soil,
they have to burn them off.

The soil is really just a medium to hold up the
plant while they inject it with poisons.

TAO;
Step away from the peyote!

Regarding the ‘title’ of this piece-of-.....journal-ism (?), and in-response:  So’s the crash-test, Dummy.

HokaHey!

Since the last glacial deposit over 10,000 years
ago, eight or ten feet of glacial deposiet has been cycled to the topsoil, demineralized by the sol life, and descended back into the subsoil to form
dense clay.  There are only a few inches of the original eeposit left in the topsoil, and there is no
more on the way up.

And it is just why I advocate for a jobs creation the
rebuilding our farm soils rather than more new
highways programs.

Nothing shows the hypocracy in the present climate
talks and discussions than the Democrats new
job creation bill.. MORE HIGHWAYS????

These are the same people that created a
special sub-committee on climate change!!!
and only proves how silly CAP AND TRADE IS.!!!

I agree much with you SMUDGE

There has been much good come out of the
climate awareness…...regardless if it is too late
or not….

Energy conservation is a must.
You will never get me to argue against that.
That is just why I try to keep petro use to
10 gallons a month and other energy savings little
things that may have no signifigance, but make me
feel better.  That is my “FEEL GOOD”
Not trying to spin words…If it appears that way
and I did so, not intentional.

alex:

“...why be suprised that people question (or do not belive)in science.”

Are we not supposed to question science? Are we to just drink the climate change kool-aid like good little sheep? I thought that’s what made it different from, and superior to, religion.

Carl Sagan said, “the universe is bbbillions of years old… but I may be wrong.”

The WMD Defense of a Global Climate Change Initiative:

The standard justification of the Iraq invasion was:

A preponderance of evidence suggested that an Iraq with WMDs was an imminent threat to world peace; therefore the U.S. was morally compelled to launch a preemptive war. However, Iraq didn’t have WMDs and the resulting carnage and long term commitment has crippled the U.S. economy and further destabilized the middle-east.

Apply that logic to global climate change.

If there is a preponderance of evidence that either via anthropogenic sources or, as C.Curtis.Dillon mentioned a natural accumulation of greenhouse gases, threatens Earth’s habitability, is a preemptive strike to significantly reduce man-made greenhouse gasses and the undeniable possibility of scaled-down lifestyles and global economic collapse justified?

If you supported the Iraq invasion, then how can you justify not supporting a preemptive war on greenhouse gases regardless of the source?

And just for those who play with words, yes, we can’t reduce Earth’s natural greenhouse emissions, but we can reduce man-made greenhouse gases to offset this natural increase.

the planet is reminearlizing itself with its
Carbon recycling

“Vapor from the sea; rain, snow, and ice on the summits;  GLACIERS and rivers—these form a wheel
that grinds the mountains thin and sharp, sculptures
deeply the flanks,  and furrows them into ridge and
canyon, and crushes the rocks into soils on which
the forests and the meadows and gardens and fruitful
vine and tree and grain are growing.”
  J O H N   M U I R

from…John of the Mountains: the Unpublished
    Journels of John Muir

It is true however, presently the earth is in an
ice age and has been so since the polar ice caps
formed about two million years ago.
It can can be demonstrated that during this time
there have been advancements and retractions of the
glaciers.  There is no one accepted theory on just
why or how this occurs.  It seems that from drilling
into the ice cores that the CO2 levels rose just
prior to the advancements.  This would supply the
massive energy it would take to advance the glaciers.
Today, the C02 levels are WAY higher than any other
time recorded.
NO ONE can predict just what this will mean to
man’s survival on this planet.  Man cannont bring
the C02 levels down…it will take milleniums.
Man cannot make a treaty will the planet and the sun
restricting temperature rise to just 2deg C.
Anyway , the planet might decide it won’t even rise
that much.
Not one of the climate scientist address the
massive Evaporation that will occur with climate rise.
Gore’s corpocrat version is a corporate hoax that
was financed by the nuclear industry that proved very
profitable for them….we are using his version as
an excuse to build more nuclear power plants.
All climate models have been controlled since 1980.
This isn’t a new phenom…..

Oh ... and Smudge ... a great post and a strong argument for why this situation will not improve.  People “vote” their situation and pocketbook more than any other reason.  If global warming is true, their lifestyles are going to change drastically and not for the better.  It is, unfortunately, human nature to deny any bad news until it falls on you like a ton of bricks and then you scramble to catch up.  Climate change is a very difficult problem involving the most complex system imaginable.  Any changes in the overall climate are buried in the noise of day-to-day fluctuations as we have seen in the NE this last week.  It is hard for even the experts to get a solid handle on so imagine how difficult it is for a layman.  So those who accept it do so based on those pushing the science ... those who deny it do so based on the science of the deniers and the vocal pundits of the right who have a vested interest ($$$$$) in keeping any action at bay until they extract the maximum amount of cash from their activities.  Unfortunately, if I was the head of a big coal company I might be inclined to deny anything is wrong either.  How valuable would all those coal deposits be if they had to stay in the ground?

I have argued that climate change is real ... whether based on man’s contribution or a natural trend.  The outcome will be the same in either case.  We as a society and a race need to react in either case by devising strategies to mitigate the problems.  If we do nothing (the preferred course of those who believe nothing is happening) it will be far more expensive and damaging to wait until the changes are so obvious that even the most adamant denier can’t refute them.

First, the problem initially lies in the fact that the issue was first framed as “global warming” - a misnomer.  “Climate change” is the more proper phrase, and would include both warming and cooling, as well as any radical alteration of weather patterns.  Unfortunately, “average Joe” got locked into “global warming,” so anything having to do with “cooling” (snow, rare temperature changes, etc.) simply doesn’t factor in, and becomes fodder for their anti-“warming” viewpoint.

Second, suggesting that all, or even most, climate change deniers are such because they are “religious” (or faith-based”) is not simply wrong, it is the worst kind of character assassination.  Climate change deniers include both believers and non-believers - likely in equal number.  And climate change believers include atheists, agnostics and faith-based people.  I can only wonder when some of the TDers will stop resorting to a knee-jerk anti-faith attitude in ascribing blame to almost any issue.

Third, re temperature records, it depends on whose data you are citing.  The World Meteorological Organization does note 1998 as the warmest single year.  However, the next group of warmest years are all in the past decade: 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001.  This is followed by 1997 and 1995.

However, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has 2005 as the single warmest year, followed by 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2004 et al.  This data is confirmed by NASA and the Union of Concerned Scientists, among others.

In any case, ALL sources confirm that the decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest on record BY FAR of any previous decade, since records were kept in the mid-1800s.

Finally, for those “deniers,” I offer three indisputable facts:

-ALL sources agree that the earth has warmed OVERALL in the past century at a faster rate than in any other century.  That this coincides with the Industrial Revolution and “manmade” pollutants of air, water and land is not an accident.

-The rapid disappearance of glaciers and other high-altitude snows and ice formations has occurred only in the past few decades, and does not need scientific evidence to support it: it can be seen in any “before” and “after” photos.

-The so-called “northwest passage” has become passable year-round without need of an icebreaker FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RECORDED HISTORY as the result of the radical melting of the ice that made it impassable for most of the year FOR HUNDREDS, PERHAPS THOUSANDS OF YEARS.  And there is little evidence that it will ever freeze solid again.  Not only is this virtually ironclad proof of climate change, but it is quickly becoming an international issue as the countries that border it (U.S., Canada, Russia, Greenland (Denmark) and Norway) are vying for control of both the shipping lanes and the potential BILLIONS of barrels of oil and TRILLIONS of cubic feet of natural gas deposits that have been made accessible for the first time.

I’m not going to get into this argument because there is no argument that can sway those who believe this whole thing is just a big scam.  However, I do have to say something to “good gracious” ... a decade is 10 years and the warmest decade is composed of 10 years temperature measurements ... not one.  So, 1998 may have been the warmest year on record but that does not make the 90s the warmest decade.  You have to combine all 10 year’s records and average them to get a decade’s average temperature.  So, we can have the warmest year in 1998 and not have the warmest decade in the 90s.  Christ ... at least try to be a bit smarter than a dumb post.

Go_Right..  I sure agree with you on this..

and you sure are a hard critter to figure out…

Mr. Robinson:

The relevant and troubling issue is that global climate change is far too complex for the lay person to form an independent opinion.  Speaking as an engineer and non-climate specialist, given that I’ve attended two university-level global climate change classes and read six books exposing opinions from both camps, I’ve arrived at the sad conclusion that even with my background I am incapable of forming an objective conclusion.

The great majority of people that support or deny anthropogenic climate change are uninformed and merely echoing opinions of their chosen authority figures who, in turn, form opinions based on their best interests and the views of scientists who share similar social and political values.

Even worse, many of those that previously accepted anthropogenic climate change have reversed their opinions. The Pew Poll of October, 2009 (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1386/cap-and-trade-global-warming-opinion) gives the greatest insight into the phenomenon that belief based on social constraints is reversed if it negatively impacts the believer’s lifestyle.

The real story is how do typical low-information citizens form opinions. The answer is pathetically obvious – whatever supports their short-term best interest.

I DIDN’T REALIZE THAT WE HAD A WRITER LIKE ROBINSON WHO COULD
SEE AND PREDICT THE FUTURE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. I THINK PERHAPS
HE COME DOWN WITH THE AL GORE FEVER WHICH COULD BE BAD FOR HIS
HEALTH. LETS BE HONEST; NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS

“But here’s what those bad few months can’t change: Decades of study by scientists around the world has reached the conclusion that the Earth is warming and that humankind is probably responsible.”

Well, Gene, that’s precisely what is now being questioned. Up til the dreaded email-gate from East Anglia U. the naysayers were indeed swimming against the tide, but now it’s obvious that such a “conclusion” CANNOT be drawn.

And your cutesy story about being snowed in, and how the naysayers are using the DC winter as “proof” that warming is a hoax is a complete straw man.

Global warming/climate change is a sham. Read Gov. Sarah Palin’s Facebook page, 2/19/10.

Calling people stupid because they don’t agree with you is authoritarian, and it’s a big mistake.  The answer to doubt about a scientific theory is to present the physical evidence which supports the theory.  Not testimonials, not simulations, physical evidence.  And I guess I have to add, real evidence, not evidence adjusted by partisans of one theory or another.

Incidentally, now that nuclear is coming back, you’re going to see a big switch in the corporate wind.  AGW is going to become very popular with big money.  So you all climate-change-catastrophe folks should cheer up.

The issue for most people isn’t whether or not the climate may be changing but, rather, the causation for said changing. - Human vs Earth/sun.

Helloooo Mr. Robinson.  The sun warms the planet.  Just as it has for billions of years.  Just as it has risen and receded for billions of years.

The millions of tons of pollutants released onto the globe must be addressed.  Clean fresh water must be assured.  Clean soil must be the highest priority.  Natural resources must be kept in tacked.  Almost no one disagrees with any of the above.  But that the climate’s changing has been proven to have more to do with man than natural causes is, well, in the words of Mr. Robinson, idiotic.  I would add that it’s also the epitome of human arrogance. 

-

The same models which claimed the earth was heading toward an catastrophic ice age are now claiming the earth is heading toward catastrophic warming.  Not understanding this dichotomy is, well, both idiotic and gullible, Mr. Robinson.

Your claims that you understand why the climate is changing is as dumb as those claiming today’s snow storms are evidence of no changes at all.

-

Why is every issue you write about couched in silly partisan politics?  It’s as idiotic as the pundits and politicians you put all your focus on.

@Smudge: I’ll be the first to agree with you on your point, a point that is, of course, a great deal of the root system of this problem. Religion has undermined our basic ability to approach problems with reason, facts, rationality, what have you. At the same time, you can’t argue with “faith”—that’s why we call it faith. Rather, you can, but it’s exceedingly difficult and often not worth your time.
    In any case, what I wanted to bring up is what I believe to be the other half of the root system, and perhaps more dangerous to our planet: those in power, whether business or political, who are skeptical for reasons of “economic feasibility.”
    At this point, we have to wonder whether it’s harder to convince someone that God most likely does not exist or that Earth’s comprehensive ecosystem does not give half a fuck about any country’s economy.
  Of course, these problems are by no means mutually exclusive. Question is, which one do we go after? I think, in terms of climate change, we really need to target the power structure, rather than the root cause. We just don’t have time to address the root cause.

I noticed on the other climate dig from
THE GUARDIAN,  that the Guardian had censored over
half of the comments on the article which was no
more than news about the head of the international
climate commission stepping down.

Does anyone know why the Guardian did this???

Over 45% of Americans don’t believe that humans evolved from lower species. That same 45% also believe that their sky savior is flying in for an encore appearance within the next generation - putting an end to all earthly concerns. Why bother modifying our lifestyles when the end times are so near?

Denying anthropogenic climate change is merely a symptom of believing that the earth is the center of the universe and their God is more powerful than greenhouse emissions. 

Mr. Robinson:

You simply don’t have the temerity to attack the root of the problem - you appear more than pleased with yourself by hacking away at a few minor branches.