By Jerome Page
AS OBSERVED IN A PRIOR COLUMN, the Republican case against claims of climate change appears to rest securely on the grounds that it is a form of religion proselytized by a clutch of hysterical “believers,” credulous fools immune to reality, common sense and even science itself.
I noted that this theme of “climate change alarmists” as members of a quasi-religious set of deluded believers is now a compelling narrative of the right on this crucial subject. This has been underlined by Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal, who reinforces this picture of a religious movement “presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people” immune to rationality and highly “susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.”
It would appear useful at this point to identify some of the deluded, “spectacularly unattractive people” immune to rationality and highly “susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.” Who are these special targets of Stephens’s scorn?
In short, they include virtually every major scientific organization in the land and the vast majority of their members.
Perhaps the most significant is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body created by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme; its work draws on contributions from hundreds of scientists from a large number of countries.
In its most recent report, the IPCC concluded that “(t)he atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years,” that “(t)here is very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming,” and that CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent from 1995 to 2005, “the largest change for any decade in at least the last 200 years” (IPCC 2007).
The Union of Concerned Scientists summarizes scientific consensus on climate change by listing the 18 most prestigious scientific societies and academies in the land, along with a summary statement from each strongly supporting this consensus — that climate change is clearly occurring, and that most of the observed warming is likely because of increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
Two more studies examining the scientific consensus on climate change came to very similar conclusions. A report by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman, “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” included the following among their nine questions put to a group of scientists:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Overall, 90 percent of participants answered “risen” to question 1, and 82 percent answered “yes” to question 2.
Furthermore: “In general,” Doran and Zimmerman wrote, “as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions. In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50 percent of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2 percent (76 of 79) answered ‘risen’ to question 1 and 97.4 percent (75 of 77) answered ‘yes’ to question 2.”
They conclude that “(i)t seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.”
Another study of scientists’ credibility, conducted by Anderegg, et al. of Stanford University, concluded as follows: “Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic (human-related) cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (a) 97-98 percent of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (b) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
In short, the two studies provide strikingly similar conclusions — not only on the very high level of agreement in the scientific literature about the existence of ACC, but on how the level of agreement correlates with researchers’ expertise and prominence.
A fascinating chapter in the cataloguing of this large array of scientific bodies caught up in the “religion” of climate change is a singular exception: the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which was the only major scientific organization not to support the finding of significant human influence on recent climate. Unfortunately, this organization of experts — many, of course, intimately connected to the “oil business” — has come upon turmoil, angry membership and rocky times as a result, as their President Lee Billingsley noted in 2007.
Three years later, the AAPG Executive Committee decided finally to close this ugly chapter by declaring that “(c)limate change is peripheral at best to our science. … AAPG does not have credibility in that field … and as a group we have no particular knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics.” Consider the price of this retreat in loss of congeniality and good fellowship in the AAPG annual gatherings at those lovely cocktail soirees set up by the generous and openhearted hosts from the oil business.
Finally, I note one truly painful chapter in the experience of those struggling courageously against the cult of global warming. From the Washington Post Wonkblog:
“Back in 2010, Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist and self-proclaimed climate skeptic, decided to launch the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project to review the temperature data that underpinned global warming claims. Muller’s stated aims were simple: He and his team would scour and re-analyze the climate data, putting all their calculations and methods online. Skeptics cheered the effort.”
The Charles G. Koch Foundation, a major player in the denialist ranks, even gave Muller’s project $150,000, quite obviously under the impression that they were buying proof that climate change is a fraud.
Unfortunately (from their perspective), they ended up financing the opposite. Muller and his team conducted a thorough review of all available information and discovered that the scientific consensus is, in fact, accurate. “Global warming,” Muller concluded, “is real.”
“Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the U.S. and the UK,” he said.
How could this have happened? It was the kind of low blow that can bring heartache to any earnest skeptic!
The right, not surprisingly, wasn’t pleased, especially after so many conservatives had agreed beforehand to accept the results of Muller’s research. I quote an entertaining anonymous comment posted following Steve Benen’s piece (in the Political Animal at Washington Monthly) on Muller’s conclusions:
“Koch Brothers: ‘He said WHAT!? If he’s drunk, sober him up, tell him to try again. And if he’s sober, just shoot the S.O.B.! Jesus, what’s this country coming to? You can’t even pay for good lackeys anymore!’”
But if you are persuaded that climate science is junk science, a fringe “religion” or — as noted in one of the fallback positions now taken by denialists — that, hey, a little warming might be just the ticket for increasing crop yield, fear not. Led by the Kochs — with ample funding from the petroleum and coal folks and aid and comfort from Fox and friends — the battle against the cult of climate change will continue to be fiercely waged.
Next week, a concluding commentary.
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
Note: Because of editor error this column was originally published without attribution to the Washington Post’s Wonkblog.
Sharing is caring!
Mr. Page who are Mr Doran and Mr. Zimmerman? Where would anyone have read their articles. The big question is where is climate change taking us. Benicia underwater in 400 years? Now who in their right mind would even except that. Please give me some facts on where climate change is going to have an effect and when. Guesstimates do not count. Just proven facts for us not so aware folks. By the way the bay is shrinking not expanding. Just go back 100 years.
Not Mr., Ms. Zimmerman. Try reading a little more carefully, and with less of an agenda.
Your “big question” cannot be answered, as well you know. “Guesstimates do not count,” you say — but as you also are likely aware, 100-percent consensus on anything is impossible to achieve. Especially in an age where big money is spent on misinformation campaigns.
Looking for the liar in an argument? It’s usually the one talking in absolutes. My favorites: Climate change is a “total fraud.” It’s “the biggest lie ever told.” And the best one: “We want 100 percent proven facts” — despite the fact that nothing, even the law of gravity, could get over that bar.
I think the work cited above of Dr. Muller is the most definitive evidence yet that 1. Climate change as described by the world’s leading authorities is in fact happening; and 2. Those invested in its denial will NEVER admit they are wrong, to the detriment of us all. Side with them and you side with ignorance.
The only 100% proven fact in all of this Global warming argument is that there is no 100% proof of any of it. There is no stronger proof that it exist than that is doesn’t. Certainly not enough had been shown to justify the amount of public funds that have been spent by the Patterson government in the last four years. This includes the Vallero funds that if she doesn’t stop draining to satisfy her love of solar power, we will see the last of before her new term is over.
You have not answered the question. Just answer it. I do believe the folks that have some doubt would also say the other side might side with ignorance. Just tell me why one side is always right on this issue and the other is ignorant? Now if you can not answer the big question and you say it can not. I quess there is no danger at all. Just a made up issue with no conclusiuon. Now if there is an expected conclusion just tell us what it is. Now that should be very easy.
Very transparent Mr. Livesay. Answer the question that can’t be answered! Oh, I guess there isn’t a problem! Very schoolyard of you.
If you are asking me to lay out a ton of research for you to peruse, I don’t have the time to waste on someone who will refuse to listen anyway. I have one word for you: Google. Learn it, live it, love it — but be sure to read the stuff that ISN’T written on right-wing blogs. You might start with Dr. Muller’s work as cited above. Remember he was a climate SKEPTIC, before he actually began looking into the matter. You might take that as a lesson.
Um he was a science skeptic before he actually began looking. He was never a climate skeptic, he admitted so later. Get your story straight.
Here’s his comment ““It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic,” he said in a recent email exchange with The Huffington Post. “Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller ‘Physics for Future Presidents’ I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.”
cheers
Um, now you’re parsing words to avoid the facts. Call him a skeptic, call him whatever you want, it’s his research that’s important. And it debunks you flat earthers’ BS contentions.
Lol! Um, what part does it debunk there Mr. Mike? (This should be good).
Moron! Your bus is leaving.
Good come back there Mike. Lol!
Nice comeback yourself! Only took you about 4 months to come up with it.
Look Bob, it does not matter what you personally think about the validity of global warming. It is scientific fact, accepted by the vast majority of scientists and educators and even governmental agencies the world over. Global Warming (or climate change, whatever one wants to call it) is no more arguable than is gravity or the half-life of uranium-238.
I disagree. Bob, it matters alot what you personally think about the validity of global warming.
True, it is a scientific fact, the earth has been warming since the last glaciation 20k years ago. But it is not a scientific fact that CO2 is the cause.
These guys like to fool people by conflating the proven fact of climate change with the unproven theory of anthropogenic climate change.
It matters alot what you personally think. Don’t kid yourself.
Goodbye, Fish: Rising CO2 Direct Threat to Sea Life
Study: Rising CO2 affecting brains, central nervous systems of sea fish:
http://www.coralcoe.org.au/news_stories/braindamage.html
MR and Real American do not want to see the other side. To me the other side is actual what is happening. The bay is not rising it is shrinking and has been for over 150 years. At one time scooners went to Pacheco, Martinez yacht harbor had to be relocated further out twice in the last 70 years. The Ferry slip further out by 50 yards. Alhambra creek and downtown Martinez no longer flood. Now you tell me why the bay is rising. It is not. Where their was clear water it is now salt or salty water. No commercial fishing because of polution not all caused by oil companies. How about human waste for many years. What I just said actually happened and is happening. Now please tell how the bay is going to rise and cover Solano Square. Can not wait for that explanation.
You would not accept that explanation if we gave it to you. Regardless, I did not read anything about rising sea levels in this column. This is about scientific consensus. So let’s stick to the topic, as much as that may be uncomfortable for you. Do you deny that such overwhelming consensus is significant? Do you think there is some vast conspiracy that ensnared even Dr. Muller, a self-described skeptic? I can’t wait to hear that explanation.
Authrs often lose track of the subject when they let their emotions get in the way. They have trouble facing the reality that climate change is dead.
cheers
Nice misdirection. What does that say about you? Never mind, I already know the answer.
“You would not accept that explanation if we gave it to you.”
More like you don’t want to admit the explanation. The land is rising at Martinez, this pushes the bay and harbour out to sea. This is common in a techtonically active area.
Where I live there are no techtonic plates colliding, but 200 miles north of me the ocean is rising 12 inches every century, where I live the ocean is hardly rising at all, and 200 miles south of me the ocean is actually falling. That’s right falling. In truth it is not the ocean at all, it is the land which is rising and falling, it only looks like its the ocean. Land is not static. Google post-glacial uplift, or Isostatic Rebound.
Yes, in some places the land rises, in some places it doesn’t. Very good. Which proves that the bay “shrinking” doesn’t mean the sea isn’t rising.
And it does not prove the sea is.
No we have plenty else to do that. But that would require you to pay attention to facts, and cast off ideology. Not likely to happen, I admit.
I did stick to the subject. Climate change is what the article is about. What I have said is about climate change. Yes I do deny it. No proof other than what is not happening or happened. No one can even get the weather right, so I am now going to believe all this so called scientic evidence which has not happened. Just give me a timetable when all of this will take place and where. No one talks about that. Are China and India exempt?
China and India are exempt. I thought everyone knew that.
Great research Mr. Page!! Thank you.
If anyone is still i unconvinced by the collective opinion of every major scientific organization and experts in the field of climate science, I hope you will sit back and view the Climate Reality Project video at
http://climaterealityproject.org/
Scroll down and you will see a collection of videos at the bottom of the page. I recommend watching the one from New York which was facilitated by Al Gore, he explains the slide presentation very well and also makes very interesting commentary about the political aspect of the problem. (The presentation was given in 24 time zones on September 15th, by trained presenters from http://theclimateproject.org , an organization founded by Al Gore.)
That presentation corroborates everything Jerry Page said about the global consensus of scientific research and opinion and goes on to tackle and dispel the climate denial myths one by one and expose who is behind the pervasive denial campaign.
Oh yea I forgot about the Climate Reality thingy. That was the greenie event that happened last fall which the media ignored and the public was unaware of, right? I think I remrember it.
Exempt from what? No one is exempt from climate change, it is a global phenomenon.
Let’s try to keep politics out of it. This is a threat to everyone, liberal and conservative. I get the sense from you and others that you are taking a position simply to oppose what you perceive as a liberal agenda. Try thinking in terms of the actual threat and proposing (so-called) conservative solutions to the threat, rather than sticking your head in the sand and denying the threat exists. That is simply folly, as this column demonstrates. It was the view of Dr. Muller, too — and he has far more understanding and authority on this issue than you or anyone in the “denialist” camp.
Do you also deny the conclusions reached by Dr. Muller, a well-known climate change skeptic whose own research led him to declare that anthropogenic climate change is in fact occurring?
“Let’s try to keep politics out of it.”
Are you kidding? That’s all it is.
Only because people like you make it so. If you don’t believe in climate change, so be it — but don’t be an obstacle to those who are trying to do something about it, when those measures in any case would have a salutary effect on mankind and our relationship to the earth. And before you accuse me of peddling “emotional drivel,” in addition to politics I would urge you to keep the ad hominem attacks out of the conversation, too.
Ok so let me get this straight. Obama cancels the XL Pipeline because it will save the planet, and it is not political in any way. Am I getting this correctly from you Mr. Emotional Drivel?
Hooray for Obama! The politics of the pipeline were entirely Republicans’ fault. They forced an early decision and this is the result. And as for the jobs it would have created, Cornell U did a study on claims of “20,000 jobs created” — a claim by, who else, the corporation behind the pipeline — and found them wildly exaggerated.
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/11/04/362056/fact-check-keystone-xl-tar-sands-pipeline-isnt-a-job-creator/?mobile=nc
Like I said. Politics is what climate change is all about.
cheers
Like I said, as long as people like you continue to make it so.
From a Defense Department study:
The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.
Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.
Article in the Army Times.
Report: Climate change a major military issue:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/04/military_global_warming_070416/
“Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions”
As it has in the past, so it shall be in the future. There’s nothing new here.
Is it mandatory that I believe all this Climate Change stuff.
Yes, it is.
Do you “believe” that the earth goes around the sun, that one lunar cycle is 29.53059 days long? Because these too are scientific facts based on objective and independently verifiable observations made by thousands of scientists and others over a period of many years.
You sound like a flat-earther, dude. Wake up.
Nope. You don’t need to believe one word of it. You don’t sound like a flat earther to me, you sound rational and informed.
cheers
And out of the woodwork they come!
And back into the woodwork you must go.
Sorry, we’ve got the high ground and we’re keeping it. Those of you who want to believe in industry-funded junk science can drown in the rising sea.
Michael Gerson, a conservative and GW Bush’s speechwriter, said this in his Washington Post column this morning:
Even if all environmentalists were socialists and secularists and insufferable and partisan to the core, it would not alter the reality of the Earth’s temperature.
Since the 1950s, global temperatures have increased about nine-tenths of a degree Celsius — the recent conclusion of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project — which coincides with a large increase in greenhouse gasses produced by humans. This explanation is most consistent with the location of warming in the atmosphere. It best accounts for changing crop zones, declining species, thinning sea ice and rising sea levels. Scientists are not certain about the pace of future warming — estimates range from 2 degrees C to 5 degrees C over the next century. But warming is already proceeding faster than many plants and animals can adapt to.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-and-the-culture-war/2012/01/16/gIQA6qH63P_story.html
“Since the 1950s, global temperatures have increased about nine-tenths of a degree Celsius ”
That’s correct, and this is evidence that the earths climate changes, it is not evidence that CO2 is the cause. This statement is in agreement with almost all climate deniers.
“But warming is already proceeding faster than many plants and animals can adapt to.”
Says who, and which plants and animals? Gad, what emotional drivel.
What happens if we switch to Natural Gas. I do believe a lot of good. Much better for the atmosphere than coal or oil. Considerable less CO2. Built in structure already in place. And plenty to bring to the surface. At the same time subsidize fracking to make it cleaner to bring out of the ground. Subsize the auto industry to build more natural gas autosand make them burn even cleaner. Would any of you support subsidizing natural gas? By the way this issue is a political issue. You may not say so but it is. Just an example :#1 did any of you vote for Obama #2 will you vote for him again against any Republican? #3 do you support the pipeline across middle America? #4 Would you support more clean drilling for natural gas? #5 would you support more export ports for natural gas? These are just a few questions that will say if it is in fact political. Looking forward to your answers.
“What happens if we switch to Natural Gas.”
We save some money. A million BTUs of coal is about $6 and a million BTUs of Natural gas is about $3.
Switching to natural gas will reduce carbon emissions significantly over coal, but insignificantly over oil. But the greenies don’t want us switching to nat gas, because it will kill their wind and solar ambitions and damage their carbon trading business. So they protest the fracking thing. This demosntrates that the greenies aren’t really interested in saving the planet, its all about money and ideology with them.
cheers
I’ll take money and ideology over purely money. Any. Day. Of. The. Week.
The thermal conductivity of methane is three times that of carbon dioxide. So, the reduced carbon emissions seems to be somewhat cancelled out by the potential for release of a more baneful greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.
By the way Real American are you a relative of Mike? Sounds very familiar thinking.
If I have learned anything it’s that you should never say never. I’m not saying I agree with either side but I am saying that pretty much anything is possible and we would be stupid not to entertain these peoples thoughts/beliefs. For the sake of our planet I hope they are not entirely correct but again….can we say for certain either way???? Not a chance. Bob, are you related to glen beck???? I think your turtleneck is on too tight.
This is the second time someone has confused me with another poster. No, I am me, and he is him.
That’s right, no Real American could ever be named Mike.
The perfect comment from someone named Klem
Ooooh that Mike, I shake my fist at theeeee……
“Finally, I note one truly painful chapter in the experience of those struggling courageously against the cult of global warming…”
Muller’s position is that man made CO2 is affecting the climate and that this could be damaging. He is not a sceptic. In his lectures he shows fairly clearly why efforts to reduce CO2 will be ineffective. This does not make him a skeptic.
The idea that the statement ‘global warming is real’ contradicts the idea that current warming trends are simply part of natural cyclical variation (the sceptic position) is a rookie error. A range of temperature records show warming trends going back centuries. Take HadCRUT3 for example and compare the three decades prior to the peak temperatures in 2000 to the three decades prior to the peak temperatures in 1940. Ask yourself this, if temperatures were rising from 1910 to 1940 to a peak in 1940 in the same way that temperatures rose from 1970 to 2000 then why not attribute the current warming trend to the same cause that was responsible for the previous one, whatever that was?
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
In a similar vein, look at the longest continuous thermometer record available and compare the period from 1690 to 1720 to current warming and ask yourself the same question. You don’t need to be a statistician to detect a general warming trend from the mid seventeenth century punctuated by cyclical rises and falls every 30 years or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CET_Full_Temperature_Yearly.png
Muller expressed surprise about the close agreement of the BEST series to the others because the initial BEST series has not yet been statistically adjusted, whereas the other series are all adjusted for a range of errors. Muller and Co. are still working on the statistical adjustments that will be applied to the BEST series in due course. After adjustment the BEST series may show more or less warming but Muller was surprised that the unadjusted figures would match so closely (implying perhaps that statistical adjustments have little effect). Note that Muller’s BEST temperature series say’s nothing, NOTHING, about anthropogenic causation. BEST is an attempt to create an open source temperature series that addresses statitical issues raised in various quarters, not to prove or disprove AGW.
I won’t be surprised if the next IPCC report makes the point that an anthropogenic temperature signature is not currently detectible over the noise of natural cylical variability. It may exist, but it is probably too small to detect. Arguments from the point of consensus are very weak. If your opinions are based on whatever happens to be the consensus view, rather than any basic understanding of the underlying issues, it’s probably safer not to have an opinion.
Alan’s last paragraph says it all: “Arguments from the point of consensus are very weak. If your opinions are based on whatever happens to be the consensus view, rather than any basic understanding of the underlying issues, it’s probably safer not to have an opinion.”
Alan stated: “The idea that the statement ‘global warming is real’ contradicts the idea that current warming trends are simply part of natural cyclical variation (the sceptic position) is a rookie error.”
Good point Alan. Often times we see that those who are locked solid on the ‘Man has caused’ global warming crowd (MCGWC) lump together those more cautious who subscribe to the fact that cyclical changes have occurred for ions with the ‘deniers’, they do so out of convenience.
England in the 13 to 1500’s produced a significant amount of wine and only recently (past 25 years) has wine grape production returned. Why is obvious, weather conditions have changed enough to make it viable, combined of course with other factors.
The real question though is not way it has returned, but what prompted the departure?
But the MCGWC does not seem to have an answer as to if the apparently current upward rise is cyclical and will soon level off, or perhaps reverse the slope, or if the rise points to a continuously increasing slope.
The MCGWC has a tremendous investment made in their cause and will remain adamant in their position, while simultaneously not answering that basic question.
“I won’t be surprised if the next IPCC report makes the point that an anthropogenic temperature signature is not currently detectible over the noise of natural cylical variability.”
It will be a cold day in hell when the IPCC ever admits that. But just you watch, the AR5 report will be postponed. They’ll find some excuse. It will be postponed to just around the most advantageous time when they are negotiating a new Kyoto replacement. Just watch. Lol!
BTW, why don’t you comment on the UNs secretive REDD carbon trading program. Where rich UN supporting corporations from the north are taking away control of the worlds rainforests from the indigenous folks who actually live in them. They are selling the carbon stored in the trees, all to save the planet…sniff…what fine folks those UN people are.
Heres a quote from one of the REDD protesters at Durban.. “spoke to Natives around the world, cautioning that “Indigenous peoples should not commit themselves to a process that does not respect them,” and dubbing REDD “a false solution that breeds a new form of climate racism.”
Must be wonderful to be a climate activist in 2012.
The more people hear about this atrocity the better. The media has been silent.
Read about it here:
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/12/08/indigenous-peoples-denounce-redd-at-cop-17-talks-66200
I am excited about this. My very expensive turleneck is keeping me under control. How I love Glenn Beck.
What does this comment mean?
I see now that President Obama is even getting on the Natural Gas bandwagon. Very interesting. I guess he needs the votes. You see Real American it is about politics. Even Mike would understand that. You sure you are not Mike?
Pretty sure — are you sure you’re not Margaret Thatcher?
I’ve gone back and looked at some of Mike’s posts and if you’re out there, Mike, I agree with 99 percent of what you say!
As for the politics, I’ll reiterate, it’s only political if you make it political. I choose not to. I respect all good ideas when it comes to combating climate change — what I don’t respect is denying it’s happening, or trying to stop good-faith efforts to mitigate or stop it. I like natural gas — but I like solar, wind, biomass and other forms of energy too. We’re going to need them all!
What change in particular do you find alarming?
Well it seemed windier last summer than normal and his Lilacs just did not bloom. Change!!! Be afraid!
I don’t know. He sounds like Mike to me too.
More people who sound like me, and not the flat earthers running around like cockroaches in here, would be most welcome. More Real Americans!
C’mon Mike admit it. You’re Real American aren’t you? C’mon.
C’mon Klem admit it, you’re a 13-year-old boy in Guangdong Province, aren’t you?
Yup, and I make way more money than you.
Maybe that makes up for your lack of creativity and friends. Maybe not.
Still make more than you.
Doubt it.
Conquitadori stated: “This includes the Vallero funds that if she doesn’t stop draining…”
One of the major refineries in California could very well shut down and simply declare it is no longer viable for them to produced much needed products in this state due, in part, to the difficulties of trying to work in a state dominated by both radicalized anti business and pro Green factions.
Chevron Richmond would be one logical place to start, followed by Valero Benicia. The impact on the two cities of their location would be devastating to local economies.
Dennis I think this would be an excellent subject for your next column!
Something to consider, thanks for the suggestion, Real American.
DDL Have you seen the last year’s financials from Chevron? They are hanging in against the “radiclized antibusiness” factions just fine, thank you very much. The biggest thing to get in the way of Chevron isnt the green agenda it is the arrogance of Chevron management in their steadfast refusal to negotiate in good faith with richmond’s concerned citizens and the City, One need only look at path of Valero’s expansion project versus Chevron’s (which crashed and burned on the steps of the appellate court.) Valero recognized early on that the were better off making a few concessions and moving on. Either way no refinery in the bay area is moving out for a long time. There is just too much money in it.
Yes, and it’s a scare tactic to suggest any of these refineries are going elsewhere. It’s irresponsible to suggest that since Chevron and Richmond are in tough negotiations, Valero is somehow going to abandon Benicia. Sorry, not going to happen. Was NEVER going to happen.
But the impact on their local economies would be nothing compared to the changes in climate caused by the refineries..sniff… So close them all I say.
The unemployed could earn money by mending peasent shirts or perhaps tending to a small plot of soil somewhere.
I do believe firmly that the fallout of Republican Party strategists’ efforts to belittle anything that some in the party identify as “liberal” includes most of the anti-global warming set. Few of these, including the Wall Street Journal writer, have serious credentials to suggest any understanding of the serious nature of the present trend in global warming. There are a few who have relied on the geological/paleological record that shows that the earth with its life forms of past era (not we, but the earth with the life forms of those past era) has experienced global warming and very high atmospheric CO2 levels in times long past, that various areas have experienced long hot droughts of 7 5 years or more in areas where we think of 2 or three hears of minimal rainfall as severe drought, and so on…
However, I believe that mankind would be very hard-pressed to survive extremely elevated atmospheric CO2 levels, and that none of the changes that we are seeing are good for business or for mankind in general. I mention business, because to some of these critters, what they imagine is good for business, laissez-faire, essentially, seems to justify anything.
So, why pay any attention to these lunatics?
Paul stated: “I mention business, because to some of these critters, what they imagine is good for business, laissez-faire, essentially, seems to justify anything. So, why pay any attention to these lunatics?”
Too often it seems that people view things from an all or nothing point of view. The left argues that conservatives want only a true laissez-faire policy, while the right declares that the socialists are going to create new ‘USSA’, as always the truth lies somewhere between the two.
I truly believe that many on the left would be astounded at what so many on the right really want, which IMHO, is:
1) Fair and consistent environmental policies.
2) A Taxation system that seeks a balance between paying for what is necessary, vs. capitulation towards that which is desired.
3) Recognition by the government on their limitations of power (the 10th amendment)
4) A media which seeks to inform, not manipulate opinion.
5) Equal protection.
6) Regulatory laws that recognize the reality of the world we live in and not the desired fantasy or over reactions to what could or should be (Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes Oxley).
The pendulum is a good analogy as uncomfortable realities set in when it swings too far, left or right. We need to find some common ground in the middle and that is not happening today.
And yes, each side blames the other.
“I believe that mankind would be very hard-pressed to survive extremely elevated atmospheric CO2 levels”
You realize that right now, CO2 comprises under one percent of the atmosphere. Less than four one hundredths of one percent.
That’s after 200 years of carbon emissions.
You’e not suggesting that four one hundredths of one percent is extremely elevated are you?
Could Klem be Bruce or Mike or Real American? I like all this stuff. My very expensive Turtleneck is getting a little tight. The turtleneck comment is a comment to someone who referred to my Glen Beck turtleneck.
Can’t be Mike no way, he has a real hate on for that Klem…oh wait that’s me!
“he has a real hate on for that Klem…
Welcome to the club!
150 years ago Darwin, in ‘The Origin of Species’, observed that when man sees unexplained changes in the natural environment he imagines an approaching Armaggedon. Al Gore is just the latest snakeoil-peddling mountebank to exploit this quirk in our nature. To everyone here I advise, don’t worry – be happy.
Real American Mike said: Hooray for Obama! The politics of the pipeline were entirely Republicans’ fault. They forced an early decision and this is the result. And as for …“20,000 jobs created” … wildly exaggerated.
It was crawlin and it stunk
But of all the drinks I’ve drunk
I’m greatfullest for the one from Gunga Din
He’s a beggar shot, a bullet through his pike
He’s kickin all around’
As he’s chewin up the ground
For God’s Sake get the water, Real American Mike
Attempt at levity aside let’s look at some facts:
Latest excuse for the delay was “further study” required to determine corrosiveness of oil from Tar sands.
BS – Tar sands oil has been pumped for almost 40 years and thousands of miles of pipelines do so in Canada every day.
Jobs exaggerated? By how much? 50%? Are not 10,000 jobs worth considering? Are not “jobs” priority number one?
This same oil will now head west (Vancouver) via pipelines to get east (China).
Replacement oil will now likely come from South America (Venezuela?)
Obama approved a pipeline extension in North Dakota, to take the oil where? Saskatoon refineries. More oil leaving the US.
The politics of this were all Obama’s because he knows that the Gunga Dins who carry his water will not accept, nor believe the facts regarding this issue.
1,400 is not 10,000
Based on that comment it appears you did not read the report.
Dennis Lund Lazarro, I’m flattered you think I’m Real American, because he seems like a swell guy. I hope he feels the same about me. So by all means, keep confusing us — just another example of your constant confusion.
According to the Cornell study linked to by RA above, the number of jobs was more like 1,400 temporary jobs at most. Not quite the “10,000” you cite. But keep trying!
And spin all you like but the early decision was forced by the GOP and they have no one but themselves to blame for politicizing this. If they hadn’t tried to make it an election issue, and had actually cared about getting the pipeline done, work on it might have started as early as this summer.
We must be Siamese twins. Better that than a bunch of dittohead clones!
Ha!
Real American Mike stated: I’m flattered you think I’m Real American…just another example of your constant confusion.
It is getting old, Real American Mike (Rami). RA appeared shortly after you were banned for your ‘crimes’ (your words), you both have the same style, and have quickly developed an on line relationship that ‘the Wolf’ summed up quite succinctly.
And now it appears you are posting multiple times within a minute of each other.
Grow up and be yourself.
Hahahahaha! Keep guessing fool!
No one is guessing RAMI, and frankly, no one really cares.
I find it more pathetic, then interesting.
Go ahead, throw a barb, it appears to be a major source of amusement to you.
Very amusing! Please keep it coming!
Now Real American you said you were going to be nice.
“A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
– Max Planck
“Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.” — Henri Poincare (1854 – 1912)
“Learning and innovation go hand in hand. The arrogance of success is to think that what you did yesterday will be sufficient for tomorrow.”
-William Pollard
“The earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese.” — All the morons who deny climate change is occurring
Very good DDL. I also see Mike is back.
Thanks Bob.
You know what is always interesting to see how central issues can be purposefully distorted or misrepresented so as to obfuscate the primary while simultaneously making leaps based on erroneous assumptions.
The above sentence, while grammatically challenged, nonetheless perfectly captures the methods of denialists and other flat-earthers like yourself.
“The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.” – Peter Gwynne, Newsweek April 28, 1975
Maybe that should be “Newsweak”?
“Someone 37 years ago wrote something that turned out to be incorrect. This debunks the conclusions of all peer-reviewed science on climate change!” — morons
“Someone 37 years ago wrote something that turned out to be incorrect.”
Once again in your eagerness to disparage those whom you disdain, you have leaped to an erroneous conclusion, landing 180 degrees off the mark.
The issue is not that Gwynne was wrong, as you claim, but that he was right, based on the agreed to science of the day.
Mike just what is your position on climate change? I am not a moron, flat-earther or any other name that you might use to describe some folks that maybe do not agree with you. After whatching all these articles on both sides I do believe it is not necessary to go to name calling. All it does it give others a chance to name call back. I might be critical of someones performance and also use my term to describe their stance. It is not name calling it is a way to identify their position. Liberals now want to be called progessives, so I will call them that as I see needed. A Conservative is just what it says. I have seen much to many attacks that describe people as a Glen Beck follower, Fox News Follower and also Rush Limbaugh fan. Let along identified as Tea Party drinker and worse. When I am attacked that way I will come back strong. But when it is said in a strong position statement I except there stance. I do not have to go along with it. So what is your stance on climate change Mike?
Bob,
All of us, who are not towing the line, as dictated by the self anointed intelligentsia, are naturally lumped into a common category, so as to fit the agenda. It is easy to attack, usually done without specificity. I myself have never denied either global warming/global change, or whichever term has become trendy among the proclaimed saviors of mankind. In fact I have written just the opposite in the “Wrath of Grapes” column, but that went over the head of many, as you may recall.