ARE WE CONFRONTED WITH THE PROBABILITY OF A WARMING PLANET? Are we further confronted with the probability that increase in CO2 in our atmosphere is one of the reasons — if not the major reason — for our dangerous situation? Given the overwhelming odds that the answer to both questions is yes, what steps are being taken to confront and reduce this dangerous prospect? Relative to the danger, obviously very little. On the contrary, the factors of our dangerous plight — with our eager national assistance — increase daily in intensity and breadth.
We are rapidly reaching that point at which rationality has fled the encounter — or at least has fled one of the central, and most critical, locations, Congress, where crucial steps toward meliorative action could be taken.
We are engaged in a momentous struggle in these United States between rationality and greed. Perhaps, for a significant number of major players in the fossil fuel business, that might be better phrased as a struggle between conscience and greed. One of the truly remarkable aspects of our present plight is that some of the fossil fuel titans who are banking incredible sums — salaries, dividends, stock options — have to be aware of the equally incredible dangers of our present course. Or, at the least, in the interests of those huge financial rewards, are engaged in drowning both consciousness and the voice of conscience in that sea of green.
The task — don’t think about it; it’s only a possibility and the consequences are so far in the distance that it will not impact my world, or the world of my children — I hope. Whatever is out there, should it be of severely negative impact, is nothing I can do anything about. That coal will be mined, that oil will be piped — these and their accompanying impacts will become a factor in our lives whatever I do or don’t do. So I might as well be the one to profit from the process — the better to protect me and mine from the consequent realities should they come earlier and be even more damaging than anticipated.
Time for a small review of some of those realities.
From Joe Romm of Climate Progress, “Vicious Cycle: Extreme Climate Events Release 11 Billion Tons Of CO2 Into The Air Every Year,” Aug. 28, we get a view of the cyclic and reinforcing nature of the CO2 problem.
“A major new study in Nature, ‘Climate extremes and the carbon cycle,’ points to yet another significant carbon cycle feedback ignored by climate models. The news release sums up the key finding of this 18-author paper: Researchers ‘have discovered that terrestrial ecosystems absorb approximately 11 billion tons less carbon dioxide every year as the result of the extreme climate events than they could if the events did not occur. That is equivalent to approximately a third of global CO2 emissions per year.’”
The new Nature study found that one type of extreme weather event is worse than the others:
“Periods of extreme drought in particular reduce the amount of carbon absorbed by forests, meadows and agricultural land significantly. ‘We have found that it is not extremes of heat that cause the most problems for the carbon balance, but drought,’ explains (lead author) Markus Reichstein. … Drought can not only cause immediate damage to trees; it can also make them less resistant to pests and fire. It is also the case that a forest recovers much more slowly from fire or storm damage than other ecosystems do.”
Another interesting piece published at Truthout on Dec. 5, 2012 by Dr. Brian Moench, titled “Schizophrenics, Psychopaths Holding America Hostage,” provides a unique perspective on climate change beliefs.
“Although Hurricane Sandy has likely been the trigger for a sharp rise in the percentage of the population who believes the climate crisis is serious and must be addressed in public policy, still, about 30 percent of American adults don’t believe it, and there is no indication that the leaders of the Republican Party have joined the ‘Reality’ Party. Let’s briefly outline how disconnected this position is.
“Eighty international scientific societies have endorsed the concept of a primarily human-caused climate crisis that is already starting to threaten the health and well-being of millions, and soon to be billions, of people in the next few decades. The total number of scientific organizations that dispute this is zero.
“If you were watching a basketball game where the score was 80 to 0, with one minute left in the fourth quarter, and you decided to bet your entire nest egg on that losing team, no one would argue that you were not severely delusional.
“Almost weekly, more studies are published strongly suggesting that the chaos and destruction built into the greenhouse gas phenomenon has been underestimated and that climate-related extreme outcomes are happening even faster than worst-case predictions of even a few years ago. Our own Pentagon, the insurance industry, the World Bank, the United Nations, the American Meteorological Society and virtually every other country in the world accepts the science. The American Republican Party and the Fox News/right wing entertainment complex are the only organizations in the world that deny the validity and reality of the science. And because the Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives, there is no hope any legislation will be passed to address the climate crisis. Inability to discern reality is the hallmark of schizophrenia.”
In all fairness, I feel it incumbent upon me to quote several of those who have been outspoken against the notion of human-caused warming.
Obviously, first in qualifications, scientific background and objectivity would the U.S. House of Representatives, whose landmark determination and fortitude have established a solid bulwark against precipitate action of any kind to address climate change. On this, more in closing.
Next, there can be no individual whose credentials and qualifications in denialism exceed those of Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and its chairman from 2003 to 2007. In a radio interview with Voice of Christian Youth America, Sen. Inhofe argued that his belief that global warming is a hoax is biblically inspired. Promoting his book “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future,” Inhofe told interviewer Vic Eliason that only God can change the climate, and the idea that man-made pollution could affect the seasons is “arrogance.” In the interview, Inhofe did not mention he has received $1,352,523 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, including $90,950 from Koch Industries. (In fairness, I want to note that in the case of Inhofe, I do not personally see this as purchase money; it is, I believe, much more a confluence of interests.)
Donald Trump, who has repeatedly pointed out the scientific fallacies in warming theory — summed up thusly: snow disproves warming — as vehemently as his convictions about the president’s birthplace. Clearly he is a person whose financial stature suggests the probability of intelligence.
Ted Nugent, the compassionate NRA stalwart who believes George Zimmerman should sue Trayvon Martin’s parents, apparently for the damage inflicted upon Zimmerman. Surely a man so finely tuned to reality must not be taken lightly when he tells a room full of school children, “Global warming is a fraud. Watch Glenn Beck.”
This is but a tiny sampling of the scientific depth arrayed against the presumption of man-caused global warming.
In closing let us return to the major battleground where these views will — or will not — be resolved. From “House Repubs Vote That Earth Is Not Warming,” Scientific American, March 16, 2011, I draw the following:
“All Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted against an amendment that states that global warming exists, regardless of cause.
“Congress has finally acted on global warming — by denying it exists. It’s in the grand lawmaking tradition of the Indiana state legislature’s 1897 attempt to redefine the value of pi.”
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Please not again. This subject has been beaten like a dead horse. When all else makes no sense, just follow the money. End of story. Move on.
Please yes again. Denialists’ ignorance must be thrown in their faces again and again and again.
Beyond the drivel and the ignorance.
From the above article:
“We are engaged in a momentous struggle in these United States between rationality and greed. Perhaps, for a significant number of major players in the fossil fuel business, that might be better phrased as a struggle between conscience and greed.”
From the post (below) reflecting on the quote above.
“Washington thus remains little more than a water carrier for the oil corporations and capital in general where climate policy is concerned, reflecting what Curtis White has called capitalism’s “barbaric heart.”
A deeper more scholarly look at our global ecological condition for the community to consider…
“If we go beyond the climate change issue and examine the entire global ecological crisis the logic behind such reasoning is inescapable. In 2009 leading earth-system scientists led by Johan Rockström of the Stockholm Resilience Center introduced what is known as the “planetary boundaries” approach to determining the “safe operating space” for human beings on the planet, using as their baseline the biophysical conditions associated with the Holocene geological epoch in earth history—the last 10,000–12,000 years which nurtured the rise of civilization. The global ecological crisis can thus be defined as a sharp and potentially irreversible departure from Holocene conditions.”
“This analysis of a “safe operating space” for humanity established a system of natural metrics in the form of nine planetary boundaries. In the case of three of these—climate change, biodiversity loss, and the nitrogen cycle (part of a boundary together with the phosphorus cycle)—the planetary boundaries have already been crossed. While in the case of a number of other planetary boundaries—the phosphorus cycle, ocean acidification, global freshwater use, and change in land use—alarming trends suggest that these boundaries will soon be crossed as well. Climate change is therefore only one part of a much larger ecological crisis facing humanity, traceable to the exponential growth of an increasingly destructive economic order within a finite planetary system.”
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-fossil-fuels-war-by-john-bellamy-foster.html
Obama the democrats and greenwashing for the community to consider…
Today’s business-as-usual interests refuse to accept any limits to continued expansion of fossil-fuel production. Establishment energy policymakers—as witnessed by the Obama administration and Council on Foreign Relations’ senior energy analyst Michael Levi—see shale gas from fracking as a “bridge fuel” that will allow a reduction in carbon emissions until carbon capture and sequestration technologies can be developed sufficiently to be feasible, opening the way to supposedly unlimited exploitation of coal and other fossil fuels with zero carbon emissions. The fact that “clean coal” is a fairy tale never seems to enter the analysis. Most establishment energy proponents also favor biofuels as an added option, and support large hydroelectric facilities and nuclear energy, discounting the enormous ecological problems represented by all three—particularly nuclear power. Wind, solar, and biomass, in contrast, are viewed by industry as minor supplements to fossil fuels. Empirical research by environmental sociologist Richard York, published in Nature Climate Change in 2012, has verified that the introduction of low-carbon energy has been used mainly to supplement rather than actually displace fossil fuels within the global economy.
ExxonMobil’s CEO Rex Tillerson aptly summed up the overall outlook of today’s fossil-fuel industry when he declared on March 7, 2013, that renewables such as “wind, solar, biofuels” would be supplying only 1 percent of total energy in 2040. He described the struggle against the Keystone XL Pipeline by “environmental groups…concerned about the burning of fossil fuels” as simply “obtuse,” since they “misjudged Canada’s resolve” (and no doubt that of the U.S. government) to exploit the tar sands—whatever the social and environmental cost. “My philosophy,” Tillerson said, “is to make money.”
In the United States this addiction to fossil fuels is built into the Obama administration’s “all of the above” energy strategy. The current Democratic administration is not only promoting the maximum extraction/production of unconventional fossil fuels in the United States and Canada, it is also actively encouraging other countries, such as China, Poland, the Ukraine, Jordan, Colombia, Chile, and Mexico to develop unconventionals as rapidly as possible. Meanwhile, Washington has used its influence in Iraq to get it to boost its crude oil production.
The Obama administration has strongly underscored its support for coal, and has given a boost to nuclear power. It is also promoting the production of fracked natural gas globally as a “transition fuel.” In
the face of all of this, the administration’s very limited support for the development of renewable energies—mainly via the Defense Department and federal-land-use policies—constitutes little more than governmental greenwashing, hardly discernible from the approach of the leading multinational oil companies themselves.
Source: Z Magazine
September 2013
Environmental leadership in the US is Zippety-Do-Dah—I’m counting on grassroots revolutionary change…watch for it. pb
Thank you. Will. I always appreciate your input. I read it all—pb
JLB,
This article sheds some light on the global warming alarmists crowd:
“Global Warming has become a religion,” writes Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT.
The source is linked here : http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/#ixzz2dYmx4ITs
Rising CO2 is a reality. Of that, one can be sure.
Congress is an empty barn where working, draft animals used to be kept…now it is filled with stagnant air and uselessness. Problem is, these worthless tools were elected to office. Walt Kelly of Pogo fame was correct: “I have seen the enemy, and he is us.” Edward R. Murrow said it best, “Good Night, America, and Good Luck.” – pb
O.K., We have global warming.
In California and the bay area we are in a bastion of the left, open minded, claiming to be smarter than others so why are are ridge lines not covered with windmills, solar panels, and water turbines sucking up that tidal energy in and out of the bay. We should be off the fossil fuel grid by now. Where is the investment from the many wealthy on the left, investing in these technologies that should be up and running. I don’t see where the right wing doubters are in the way here. The left is in power here so put up or shut up.
We’re working on it
RKJ
One source that needs to be more fully developed is water current turbines, unlike tides, which are subject to changing directions, current turbines rely on a steady unidirectional flow; off shore currents or rivers.
These are being used primarily in remote locations (i.e. Galapagos Islands). These units can be built in 1-10 Mw sizes. They are are clean, fish friendly, the energy constant and the cost (.10-.12 $/kw-hr) though high, will come down with increased production. And unlike wind turbines or solar panels, they do not represent an eyesore or slaughter birds by the 100’s of thousands.
To be honest, I do not know why the clean energy people are not screaming for these, as opposed to their demands for other ‘clean’ sources.
Agree, I saw where Ireland had some of these in service, I am curious if they could be mounted on barges to cut cost, and the barges could be moved to allow for occasional dredging. If our strait is deep enough outside the shipping lane, Benicia could eventually be off the fossil grid.
DDL, I’m going to watch some wind power now, South Beach to Benicia sail boat race
There are different companies that make them, of course; Siemans of Germany and Verdant. One type I am more familiar with are anchored off shore and are about 20 to 30 feet high at the entrance. They need to be mounted in water which is fairly deep, but they are very efficient and can prod a significant amount of energy.
I
Always a great site to see the boats with full spinnaker’s coming in under the bridge. Enjoy!!
WHY were you people not at the alternative power workshops in the last year? You’d have learned something about problems, costs and relative efficiencies. But, it seems you prefer to keep on “thinking” in the dark.
Bob Shelby: The Global Warming Deniers don’t leave their lawn swings for science fairs, when your seat pads are stuffed with petro bucks, the best you can do is deny science…after all, the sun revolves around us and the moon is just an illusion…who needs to worry about tomorrow? Greed satisfies every need…I think the early Reptilians said that first: If it ain’t prey, it’s a predator!–There are no shades of grey, everything is back and white and easy to digest…pb
RKJ, you don’t seem to understand political power or how it works, vis-a-vis financial power.
Yes, perhaps I don’t know how it works, but if you can’t get green to work in the bay area I don’t see much hope for it.
RKJ,
One subject not taught in colleges, or in any number of books, is good old fashion common sense. Something that you demonstrate on a regular basis, as well as something totally lacking on the part of those who have self anointed themselves as the source of all that is well and good in the world.
Thanks DDL, it’s a shame we can’t discuss these important issues without negative comments from some posters.
it’s a shame we can’t discuss these important issues without negative comments from some posters
Agreed.
Why are not the global warming/climate change folks working with scientist and high tech to solve this so called problem. You know make coal, fossil fuel all burn and be extracted clean. We do have the so called science experts who can put put their knowledge into solving this problem. If they can detect it why not solve it. Is that not what many scientist do. Please no more windmills and solar panels. Lets just extract crude cleaner and make it burn cleaner. After all our least expensive energy sourse is natural gas.
Bobbie, you’re a dreamer. Learn something about carbon chemistry and processing. BTW, in the long run, natural gas fracking is not so fracking cheap! It is enormously wasteful and dangerously destructive. Wake up.
The problem is, besides the incredible enrivonmental damage burning fossil fuels creates, is that oil/gas/coal are fungible. Which means, simply, that they will run out and will have to be replaced by something else. It will not happen in our lifetimes, nor perhaps in our grandchildren’s lifetimes, but it will happen. Our inability, greed or laziness in facing this reality and acting as good stewards for the generations to come is what distrubs me. I use fossil fuels every day and refuse to be a hypocrite about it; however, I also get frustrated by the continuing influence of big oil on all policy making, the fact that the House Science Committee is packed full of anti-science pols who are pandering to an anti-science and anti- intellectual base and the, well, laziness of a population that has grown fat on cheap and easily purchased oil. The calls for change fall on deaf ears and all the individual commitment to conservation and new technology is fit to fail if the population and policy of the world’s most gluttonous consumers of oil don’t plan for change.
Hear, hear, j. furlong, you’ve got that totally correct.
I wonder what effect that all of this ‘Hot Air’ is having on the problem. No matter…so long as we don’t concern ourselves with ‘Nature’ and any variations in climate due to same.
Well let them make coal, fossil fuel, extraction and use of these valuable energy resources be made to be extracted and burn clean. I am very sincere in using our resources to make this country energy independent. Why is India putting a cotton mill in the USA? Because of energy costs and our high tech and modern advaqnced factories. Pretty simple it is less expensive to make a product in the USA than in India. Surprising? No it is starting to happen all over the USA. We all must get on board to advanced science and high tech. That is the answer, very simple.
As reiterated many times above, the problem is the political influence of big oil, which has been corrupting our policy decisions for over 100 years in this country. The influence of big oil has been the catalyst for major wars, a cause for destroying public transportation, and having a greater consciousness about the destructiveness of fossil fuels the environment..If big oil could reaplace all there present infrastructure with alternative enrgy sources that would create a greater profit, you would be seeing commercials in the media everyday touting how we need to be aware of the dangers of man made global warming and lobby our government to subsidize alternative enrgy instead of oil. Always follow the money. As Bray and Shelby said the climate deniers are being intoxicated by the profits from their oil soaked rags. Its ironic how the anticipation of money in someones pocket can knock the wax out of their denying ears.
Pardon a few of my typos above, I do know how to spell, punctuate, and use the proper form of “there” or “Their”
Rifkin, Lund and I were having a discussion on water turbines, no more, no less.
Rifkin how is big oil subsidized and how much. What is the cost difference between big oil subsidies and renewable energy subsides. Also tell us how much tax dollars that renewable energy contributes to our economy in comparison to big oil. It appears you seem to know. Please help us all out and explain. I think you will find that renewable energy is being subsidised by a much larger percentage to what they produce and contributes very little to our economy. Without tax dollars nothing happens. Solar, wind and electric cars are just a few that are a drain on our economy.
Rifkin stated:I notice that all of sudden, “Lund” is for alternative energy water current turbines, a great new income stream for his pump company.
I am going try to be polite, unlike others that post here:
1) My first involvement with alternative energy sources was in 1985, geothermal. A system that is extremely difficult for pumps, depending on the methodology used. I do not favor those systems, but do favor the Ormat system (an Israeli company). I am now not involved in these applications.
2) I wrote of hydroturbines a year ago and sent info to Constance.
3) There are no applications for pumps on the hydroturbines of the type I am referring to.
4) Rifkin has no idea what he is talking about, again.
Thank you, Harvey…well stated. pb
This is somewhat off topic, but is pertanent to latest news:
Some blinded eye patriots accuse me of “Hating” America. I do stand guilty as accused for hating the behavior of our government throughout the world and at home. We have stood idoly by while millions of Native Americans were slaughtered, millions of black people were lynched and treated as 2nd class citizens, other minorities were mistreated, bankers steal billions and serve no jail time, while patriots such as Manning and Snowden are persecuted to the full extent of the law just being good citizens and disclosing gross constitutional violations and waste. I do not hate the American people who are basically good people, whose only crime may be ignorance, denial, or unconditional patriotism. It is important to distinguish the behavior of criminal elelments in high levels of government from the people in general. The biggest crime of the American people is guillibility and passivity.
Answer to Bob Livesay about oil subsidies+ $52 billion per year for an industry that is very profitable. If you can hire the best lobbyists you get the highest kickbacks, its rarely about real economic need. http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/ Bob, that could buy a lot of windmills and solar panels, but alternative enery does not have the political horsepower of “Big Oil”. Exxon has sales of 453 billion/in 2012, or v 5.89 million per employee. That is not ceating employment to the degree that alternative energy creates employmnent. From Fortune Mgazine Sales per employee: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/performers/industries/revenues_per_employee/. Petroleum is one of the poorest industries for creating employment. On the other hand the average annual sales per employee in alternative energy is $400,000, which is aproximately 14 times more employees than Exxon. I say if you want to create employment shut down Exxon, put all those employees in alternative energy and employ 13 times as many more. Exxon is one of the last major corporations to recognize Same sex partner benefits. Exxon is a bad corporate citizen.
No Harvey Just well run.
Harvey two things: Your estimate of 52 bil is at the top when many give an estimate as low as 10 bil. Number two big oil does not need employees every five feet on a pipeline or when drilling. If your beloved unions had their way that is just what would happen. Simple Harvey big oil runs a better business model than most companies. No comparison to what energy is produced by big oil to that of subsidised renewable energy. Renewable energy is subsidized to the tune in somme cases as much as 400 times as much per production. Sorry Harvey that is the answer.
Rifkin stated: “oil subsidies+ $52 billion per year”
That numbers is a very high estimate. A more credible number is 14 Billion. The real number is in between. Rifkin always tends to exaggerate the numbers and rarely offers a source to back his mostly false claims.
We would, of course, be referring to the Lindzen who was a favorite expert for the Heartland Institute that organization famous for its tight connections with industrial corporations; the Lindzen who felt that the link between smoking and cancer was very weak; (The latter a significant contribution to the Heartlands all out campaign on behalf of big tobacco and its valiant effort to preserve smoking as a hallmark of a civilized society.) There is a raft of information out there on Lindzen and his fascinating science.
As someone who is involved in scientific research, I can assure all that “climate change” is an extremely debatable proposition. Consider the following:
Most in the scientific community debate importance of CO2 related to global temperatures. Most will agree that water vapor and solar activity have a much greater impact on global temperatures than CO2. In fact, there is a body of science that holds that CO2 may in fact lower global temperatures due to the fact that it promotes vegetation growth. The geological record shows that we are currently in a period of relatively low CO2 density and that the atmospheric absorption rate of this gas is unknown.
The planet is coming out of a mini ice age. Global temperatures normally rise at a higher acceleration rate during these periods throughout the geological record. Further, we have been in a 20 year cycle of increased solar activity. Conversely, even during this period, global temperatures have been statistically flat.
The measurement of global temperatures is imperfect. It has been noted that many of the data collection points are near urban areas and the affect of “urban heat centers” have not been properly interpreted in the data.
Finally, nearly all of the global warming reports showing dire consequences have been based on models. These models are notoriously flawed as recent data has proven. It is simply too complex a system to successfully model.
Politicians distort the seriousness of global warming for their own agenda. Both sides of the isle play this game. But for those that claim that global warming is caused by human activity and that claim is “settled science” are wrong. There is great debate within the community and is far from settled. We should NOT ignore the possible consequences of climate change, but the debate needs to be in the arena of science.
I appreciate Mr. Paige’s passion and sincere concerns, but this matter no where near concluded.
It is my opinion, and only an opinion, but I believe the Earth is not near crisis stage, that mankind is less than 100 years from true clean energy solutions, and the use of hydro carbons as a main energy source during this period will do little harm to the planet. Again, just my opinion but based on my knowledge of science.
Sorry, Matter, I’m believing Dr. Hansen, formerly of NASA…I suspect his environmental experience far exceeds yours. PB
As I stated, the subject is open to debate. You have sources that refute my standing and there are a myriad of sources that support my standing. However, the one sure result remains the same: the affects of human activity regarding climate change is NOT settled science. The debate continues.
From my standpoint, as I stated, my opinion is that the data does not support a grave situation. Dr. Hansen is free to disagree as you may also.
In reply to another post, I am involved in geological research but believe it is in my personal interests not to disclose more details. I am not employed by Valero or any other oil or carbon fuel based company. I simply have an open and analytical mind and want data before a decision is made. If the empirical data shows definitive conclusions that man-made activities are linked to a true trend in global warming (if it really exists)’ then I could be persuaded. I just have not seen that data. There are reams of speculation based on questionable data points, lets wait and see
Matter stated: I am not employed by Valero or any other oil or carbon fuel based company.
It is a shame that such a statement has become almost mandatory to prevent the immediate; “guilt by association” and the resultant immediate rejection of any comment made, response that too often emanates throughout these discussions.
“It is a shame”
No it isn’t.
I believe at looking at both sides is important. I do believe Matter said he could change if enough evidence was to prove otherwise. Please explain why Matter is not a reliable source and others are.
What does geology have to do with climate science? Without knowing more about him and his employer, and his research, all we have are his comments on this blog and those could have come from 3 minutes on Google. I’m surprised at you Bob, you have demonstrated in past a desire that everyone use their real names and that no fake or single names be allowed. Yet with “Matter,” because he says something with which you agree, you give a pass. Please explain this apparent hypocrisy.
Good one. It’s the old double standard.
No explanation needed. I make a request, it is not up to me to decide the name issue. That is the editor. That is why in the past I have always stated I like LTTE. Your name must appear. No double standard at all. Very simple. Does that answer your question Hank?
I’m afraid I’m still confused. You are willing to accept the expertise of an anonymous poster with whom you agree, and in fact you question why others would not accept his (her? we just don’t know) expertise, yet you have long assailed other anonymous posters with whom you disagree for maintaining their anonymity. Sorry but without a call by you for Matter to step out of the shadows, an explanation is needed, or else the only logical conclusion is that you are applying a double standard. The word for that is hypocrisy. It is very simple.
It appears you will remain confused. I still stand by what I believe. The person that comments should identify themselves. I will repeat my statement so as not to confuse you. It is the editors choice not mine. We all make a request and sometimes it works other times is does not. Does not mean the request is a double standard. Confirms the fact where I stand.
It appears you have no answer. Thank you.
Well stated Matter.
What scientific research do you do, and for whom?
Very well stated. Thank you.
Re: Conclusions of Matter
Matter: “It is my opinion, and only an opinion, but I believe the Earth is not near crisis stage, that mankind is less than 100 years from true clean energy solutions, and the use of hydro carbons as a main energy source during this period will do little harm to the planet. Again, just my opinion but based on my knowledge of science.”
And, of course, it is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the scientists most qualified to speak to the issues involved, the most published and respected of climate scientists, that the above statement not only has no scientific validity but, if accepted, can have very dangerous consequences. But, hey, this is all a matter of opinion so why worry?
Matter: “As someone who is involved in scientific research, I can assure all that “climate change” is an extremely debatable proposition. Consider the following: Most in the scientific community debate importance of CO2 related to global temperatures. Most will agree that water vapor and solar activity have a much greater impact on global temperatures than CO2. In fact, there is a body of science that holds that CO2 may in fact lower global temperatures due to the fact that it promotes vegetation growth. The geological record shows that we are currently in a period of relatively low CO2 density and that the atmospheric absorption rate of this gas is unknown. “
Fascinating summary. With “assurances” like this, why worry?! The citations and data appear to have been skipped and the basis, reference and meaning of “most in the scientific community” are missing, but given that the author is “someone who is involved in scientific research” that should be sufficient to calm the waters and close debate. With credentials like that who could argue. I give.
Very disappointed in your response Mr. Page. I held you in higher regard.
Agree to disagree?
The only point I must make: perhaps the blogs and reading material you choose to read lead you to the conclusion that the entire science community is united in its belief that global warming is a unique man-made phenomenum. Untrue.
But I respect your opinion and I had hoped you respected mine. But the issue is very much in doubt and will take further research and data to reach a majority conclusion. The science is not conclusive. Period.
Matter, Mr. Page,
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
I think you would both be interested in this paper. Might be worth the price to take a look at it, considering what is at stake.
Who is David Legates?
A passage from the article below for the community to consider….
“Legates was recently asked to step down as State Climatologist by the Dean of the University.
Although no one at the university was willing to explain the reason for replacing Legates as the State Climatologist, Greenpeace speculates that the reason may have been Legates’s close ties with Willie Soon.”
“Legates and Soon have authored numerous papers together, including a controversial 2007 “polar bear study” that was partially funded by Koch Industries.”
http://www.desmogblog.com/david-legates
Just so you know…
Who is Willie Wei -Hock Soon?
An excerpt from the article below for the community to consider…
“Soon is a prominent climate change skeptic who has received much of his research funding from the oil and gas industry.”
According to David Suzuki:
“U.S. oil and coal companies, including Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and the world’s largest coal-burning utility, Southern Company, have contributed more than $1 million over the past decade to his research. According to Greenpeace, every grant Dr. Soon has received since 2002 has been from oil or coal interests.” [3]
http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon
Silence and demonize is an old tactic Will, one advocated by David Suzuki.
Isn’t it time that the attacks against individuals end and someone try and discern the truth?
Individuals engaging in misinformation at the behest of moneyed interests deserve to be attacked. And heartily so! You’ve given Al Gore a going over a few times, and not entirely unfairly so — why not turn that penetrating glare in the direction of Heartland’s hacks and shills (for starters)?
From the link: The David Suzuki Foundation certainly receives major donations from the California-based Moore, Hewlett and Packard foundations, whose funding is highlighted by Vivian Krause, but Mr. Suzuki is also heftily supported by Canadian Establishmentarians such as the </BBronfman family, Power Corp., Jim Pattison, and Gerry Schwartz.
What assurances can you provide that Mr. Suzuki is not pandering to his own money interests?
Why are only the financial contributions of those who disagree with the MCGWA crowd are subject to falling under suspicion?
Glad you agree regarding the once idolized Al Gore.
“Not entirely unfairly” is not “agreeing” … You remind me of Lloyd in Dumb and Dumber: “So you’re saying there’s a chance …”
And before you go there the old suggestion that academics chasing grant money to survive year to yeat are somehow akin to big oil shills being funneled millions to make shit up is, on its face, ludicrous.
again with the attacks Hank?
Pathetic.
Hank stated:academics chasing grant money to survive year to yeat are somehow akin to big oil shills being funneled millions
I am reminded of the Shaw (or Churchill) story:
“Churchill: “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?”
Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… ”
Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”
Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!”
Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price
The only thing pathetic is the idea that that Churchill anecdote has anything to do with anything. But hey it was amusing. But if I’m so “pathetic” what does that make the person who argues with me? And what do you mean by “again” — when did I “attack” you before?
In my experience the only ones who complain about bring attacked are the ones who have no good argument. It betrays weakness.
Also that was almost certainly not Churchill or Shaw:
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling/
that Churchill anecdote has anything to do with anything.
You made the claim that those opposed to MCGWA are in essence whores who grovel and pander for dollars thrown at them by the Koch Brothers et al. I made the claim that Suzuki’s loyalty can be questioned as he receives money from corporate sponsors and others as well.
Your counter was that the amounts thrown at the anti MCGWA far exceeds that of Suzuki and the rest (as if you know how much that amount is).
The point is they may well both be whores; one side being expensive call girl, while the other just common street walkers.
As long as we’re using fake quotes that don’t mean anything …
Dinner guest: “Mr. Coolidge, I wagered I could get you to say more than two words.”
President Coolidge: “Fuck you.”
Hank, I don’t think you’re so pathetic. Here’s a comment from DDL back in January:
“Robert
Your ocular clarity seems to be obscured, quite likely due to proximity to your upper GI tract”
DDL January 26, 2013
Mike statedHere’s a comment from DDL back in January…
LOL.
Now that was a good one. A little politeness thrown into what could have been a very crude comment, such as Hank’s comments on this thread (likely to be deleted). I do note that you are either saving my little comments, or are going back to find such gems, I am flattered that you hang onto my every word.
Now if we are being fair here, why not show some of Shelby’s comments? I guarantee; mine pale in comparison, and you need not go back more than a day are two, as Shelby is relentless in his pathetic attacks on anyone with whom he disagrees.
I see once again the exciting, esoteric politital
debate has decayed to sophmoric name-calling…haven’t you adults got anything better to do with your time? PB
Where was I being “crude”? What have I said that could be compared to the image of someone’s head up their own ass?
“Now if we are being fair here, why not show some of Shelby’s comments?”
Because Shelby’s not on here complaining about personal attacks. You are.
Mike said:Because Shelby’s not on here complaining about personal attacks. You are
So just to make sure I understand what you are saying; complaining about being personally attacked is wrong, but continuous personal attacks from those who disagree are OK?
What you are really saying is: STFU and let us slam you as much as we want, because that is all we got.
And I’ll repeat: Why not turn that penetrating glare in the direction of Heartland’s hacks and shills (for starters)?
Thank you for your comments, which are proving with each one the accuracy of this column.
BTW, Hank, The line Coolidge used was: “You Lose”
Which is applicable in this case.
I know, genius. Hence the word “fake.” Which is applicable in your case.
Dennis, I notice you tend to “get into it” a lot on this forum. Did you ever think that maybe it’s you? Think about it.
9:09 AM
You must not spend much time on the Internet. Or in the outside world.
Hank and Mike : Robert Shelby has been attacking Conservatives, Tea Party and Fox news on a regular bases. He then folds in personal attack comments on Dennis, Bob Livesay, Jim Pugh and Bruce Robinson. Anyone that he does not agree with he makes personal attacks. Mike you have been following this stuff for quite a whuile and should know that. Hank notice I did not ask Mike to identify himself. Again I leave that to the editor.
Jerome: This exchange has no qualifiers, anybody with an opinion can speak up as if they are interested inquirers or dogmatic, self-defined “authorities.” The more pompous, arrogant, and self-defined “authorities” used to bug me to no end. And then the exchanges would decay to name-calling absurdities. I try not to let these twits bug me anymore…I have followed Dr. Jim Hansen formerly of NASA for some time. No one else measures up to his education and experience, so I disregard the less informative. We are a pleasant, waterfront community. So far as I know, there are no “rocket scientists” among us. I trust my 70 years of life experience and 6 years of college education far more than some un-named, unqualified who-done-its who would forecast their dogma farther than their own back fence. I no longer roll in the mud with swine either, I’m told they love the “partying” and the negative attention. Edward R. Murrow said it best, “Good Night, America, and Good Luck.” pb
It would be difficult to find a less dependable source on climate science than that star of the Heartland firmament, Christopher Monckton, who has no science background while being quoted extensively by denialists. For a great piece on Monckton, see Skeptical Science site, “Climate Misinformer: Christopher Monckton. It list dozens of Monckton myths about climate together with the realities.
For Soon, see Wikipedia: “Soon and Baliunas controversy” for the full accounting of one of Soon’s expeditions into questionable science. While Soon is one of that rare species, a denialist with a solid science background, his expeditions into discrediting climate scientists have had a shaky tour.
From the article DDL recommends:
“When it comes to Heartland, Mr. Suzuki cites something called “denialgate,” but fails to register that the only real scandal revolves around how a fellow eco-activist, Peter Gleick, obtained documents from Heartland under false pretenses then leaked them, plus a flagrant forgery, to the media. It is Heartland’s desire to teach some objective climate science in schools that has led to paroxysms of rage from other radical organizations such as Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project.”
Anyone who is sufficiently brainwashed as to believe that “it is Heartlands desire to teach some objective climate science in schools” needs major medical attention. Just as Heartland scarfed up tobacco money to peddle the simple “truth” about the fallacies of blaming smoking for lung disease and cancer, so it has been a bulwark of the fossil fuel campaign to discredit real science.
Hear hear
Mr. Page stated: Anyone who is sufficiently brainwashed as to believe that “it is Heartlands desire to teach some objective climate science in schools” needs major medical attention
As previously stated: Isn’t it time that the attacks against individuals end and someone try and discern the truth?
We have had about 15 consecutive years without a discernible increase in temperatures.
We are also experiencing the mildest summer in over 100 years.
Global warming alarmism has indeed become a religion.
DDL you are incorrect again about temperatures decreasing(do you get your biased info from those rapacious fossil fuel worshipping Koch Bros?):http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-average-temperatures-are-close-to-11000-year-peak
“Global average temperatures are now higher than they have been for about 75% of the past 11,300 years, a study suggests. And if climate models are any indication, by the end of this century they will be the highest ever since the end of the most recent ice age.
Instrumental records of climate extend back to only the late nineteenth century. Beyond that, scientists depend on analyses of natural chronicles such as tree rings and isotope ratios in cave formations.”
DDL you are incorrect again about temperatures decreasing
Harvey, if you are going to try and engage in a conversation, the least you could do is read (and understand)what I have said, as I never said that temperatures are “decreasing”.
without a discernible increase –‘Flat’ is neither increasing nor decreasing.
mildest summer in over 100 years. If you look at the data linked to below, you will see that for the last 100 years temperatures have fluctuated often a lot from one summer to the next. This summer happens to be the lowest of them all. If the MCGWA and the “models” were correct, we would not be seeing these trends over long periods of time (100 years).
No Harvey, as much as you love to Hate the Koch Bros, the Koch-card is not at play here. (Source: U.S. HCN — U.S. Historical Climatology Network). Here is a link to the data. It is also available in an excel spread so that a graph can be made.
Index of /pub/data/ghcn/daily/hcn/
“mildest summer in over 100 years.” Is that summer in northern or southern hemisphere?
Get rid of that excess CO2, plant trees, a whole lot of trees, so say’s Freeman Dyson