Here’s the data on global warming

The chart on the left — from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies — traces the annual mean global temperature from 1880 to 2008. The line marked “0″ represents the mean for the base years of 1951-80.
That’s pretty compelling evidence of what is happening to the Earth. Some individual years might be cooler than the previous year, just as some individual days each spring are cooler than the previous day, but as in spring, the overall trend is crystal clear.
However, I also want to use that data to make an additional point.
Given the extremely complex nature of climate, it is impossible to “prove” that a specific factor caused a specific climatic effect. Even if the climate changes exactly as the computer models now predict, scientists 100 years from now won’t be able to state beyond a shadow of a doubt that greenhouse gases caused that change. All they will be able to say with scientific honesty and certainty is that the change was consistent with greenhouse theory.

In other words, if you’re waiting for absolute proof of global warming, it will never come. And that’s the opening that the deniers and pooh-poohers try to manipulate.

But I want to point you to the late ’70s on the chart. That’s about the time that leading scientists began to warn pretty consistently that climate change was a danger. They didn’t know for absolute certain what was going to happen. But they thought they had a pretty good idea, and they said so in public.

And indeed, look what happened. Over the next 25-30 years, the climate behaved just as they predicted it would. Global temperatures began to rise, and as the Goddard folks point out, “the ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008.”

Personally, I think that buys the experts a lot of credibility. If I’m watching a baseball game and the guy in the next seat says “He’s gonna hit to shortstop,” and then the player hits it to shortstop, I’m intrigued. If he gets it right batter after batter, I’m really impressed. And that’s pretty much what climate scientists have achieved.

The chart on the right, by the way, shows those portions of the Earth that were warmer (red) or cooler (blue) than normal in 2008, which was the ninth warmest of the last 128 years.

245 comments Add your comment

George American

May 22nd, 2009
8:31 am

Put this in the same bucket as the “theory” of evolution.

It’s in the barn with the rest of the academic elite and liberal media made-up crap.

BDAtlanta

May 22nd, 2009
8:31 am

If I’m watching a baseball game and the guy in the next seat says “He’s gonna hit to shortstop,” and then the player hits it to shortstop, I’m intrigued.

I read that Greg Maddux could do that. He was in the dugout with Penny in LA and he told Penny “Watch this, we might have to take the 1st base coach to the hospital.” Sure enough, the batter practically beaned the 1st base coach. He could tell just by how the batter was standing in the box.

I Rule You :-) / You Whine :-(

May 22nd, 2009
8:33 am

We all have our charts-

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

It’s all according to which one you decide to get hysterical about.

See mine, where we are still in the “Cool” cycle of world history?

duh.

BDAtlanta

May 22nd, 2009
8:33 am

On the right, America looks ok, temp wise. What the hell is going on in Russia? or over Russia?

Davo

May 22nd, 2009
8:35 am

In the 70’s it was the ‘Population Bomb’….now it’s global warming.
In the 80’s it was ‘Nuclear Winter’…now it’s global warming.

The only thing that scares me anymore is these idiots like Bookman who believe all this junk. Carbon credits, sequestered carbon dioxide, cow-gas inhibitors…one volcano pretty much balances that equation.

Fools.

RW-(the original)

May 22nd, 2009
8:38 am

I guess if you make the shift points on the graph small enough and the time frame short enough you can make anything look the way you want it to. Send me my trillion dollar grant and I’ll get right on plotting the next hoax of a “man caused disaster.”

mike

May 22nd, 2009
8:41 am

“Given the extremely complex nature of climate, it is impossible to “prove” that a specific factor caused a specific climatic effect. Even if the climate changes exactly as the computer models now predict, scientists 100 years from now won’t be able to state beyond a shadow of a doubt that greenhouse gases caused that change. All they will be able to say with scientific honesty and certainty is that the change was consistent with greenhouse theory.”

Fair enough, but yesterday Jay claimed that Cheney was a liar because there was no evidence to support that waterboarding helped keep America safe. If it is good enough to say that climate change was consistent with greenhouse theory, why is one a liar for stating that the lack of a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 is consistent with Cheney’s policies?

As Jay says: “In other words, if you’re waiting for absolute proof, it will never come. And that’s the opening that the deniers and pooh-poohers try to manipulate.”

Joey

May 22nd, 2009
8:45 am

Jay, I am convinced.
Clearly we must immediately follow Dubai and France. We must convert to generating all of our electrical power in Nuclear Facilities.

Think we can depend on the Obama administration to provide us, US, as much support and aide in this pursuit as they provide to Dubai and the UAE.

Dan

May 22nd, 2009
8:47 am

Actually in the 70’s “leading scientists were warning of an impending ice age

Ron

May 22nd, 2009
8:49 am

You mock “the academic elite,” otherwise known as people a lot smarter than you. You also don’t believe in evolution.

Yes, they’re the stupid ones. Right.

RW-(the original)

May 22nd, 2009
8:50 am

In other words, if you’re waiting for absolute proof of global warming, it will never come. And that’s the opening that the deniers and pooh-poohers try to manipulate proponents that hope to make billions playing on your fears of anthropogenic global warming exploit

Now that that’s fixed how about a rudimentary understanding of professional sports? Anybody that studies a game and its matchups can tell you what is likely to happen once they see the setup for the next play and it doesn’t have a thing in the world to do with science or their predictive powers.

Doggone/GA

May 22nd, 2009
8:53 am

“Actually in the 70’s “leading scientists were warning of an impending ice age”

You DO know the 2 theories are not incompatable, don’t you? If average global temperatures rise, more water is held in the atmosphere – because warmer air can hold more water than cold air can. The more water in the air, the more is available to fall as snow when seasonal temperatures get low enough.

An “ice age” is not necessarily a sign of overall cooler temperatures…all it takes is enough snow on the ground to NOT MELT during the warmer seasons. If the snow doesn’t melt for more than 2 years, that area is on it’s way to an “ice age” because the unmelted snow will be compacted by subsequent snow falls, that also don’t melt.

And when enough snow has fallen, and not melted, that it begins to compact into ice…then you have the makings of an ice sheet, and THAT is what makes an “ice age”

George American

May 22nd, 2009
8:53 am

Ron,
Your another cranky too sensitive liberal. Your stupid, you know it?

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
8:55 am

Hey! Good news! We are in the white/light yellow zone – so we’re okay. Who cares about the rest of the world! Let ‘em burn.

Hehehe. That was my wingnut impression for the day – what’d ya’ think?

In my personal opinion, one would have to be rather moronic to think that the way we are living on this planet and polluting it is not effecting it (or is that affecting it – I could never get those straight in my head).

Citizen of the World

May 22nd, 2009
8:55 am

As a layperson with no empirical evidence of my own to the contrary, I feel I’m bound to act on the advice and evidence offered by the vast majority of climatologists: The planet is warming up, human behavior is very likely the cause, and we need to reduce our carbon emissions to stop this trend. I’m taking steps personally to reduce my carbon footprint and buying products and voting for leaders who I trust are committed to working for solutions to this problem.

It’s worth noting, too, from the map, that the greatest increases in temperature are not occurring in the temperate zones where weather fluctuates a lot anyway, but in the planet’s extremities. I saw something on TV a while back where someone poked a hole in a frozen lake in the Arctic, lit a match and poof!, big flames shot up, burning methane gas that was trapped in the air bubbles. If it warms up so much that that trapped methane gas the world over is released, God help us.

Ben

May 22nd, 2009
8:56 am

Jay doesn’t bother to mention that those models his scientists rely on don’t accurately predict the past, so the idea that we should trust them at all for the future is simply assinine.

Dan

May 22nd, 2009
8:57 am

Another fact is water vapor accounts for 95% of the “greenhouse” gasses
Co2 only 3.6% and mans contribution to the 3.6? 3.2% of the 3.6% of GH gasses or in total 0.12% of all “greenhouse” gasses are caused by man, pretty much a rounding error and with just a wee bit of common sense enough to debunk the Henny Pennys out there. Hey I am all for living cleaner but to say we are causing warming is utter nonsense

RW-(the original)

May 22nd, 2009
8:57 am

So the surface temperatures of the earth are going to get so warm that snow never melts? It’s too early for a drink so I think I’ll go to work.

See y’all upstairs for happy hour.

Brad Steel

May 22nd, 2009
8:57 am

Davo,
Thank you Dr. Science.

Doggone/GA

May 22nd, 2009
8:58 am

“it is not effecting it (or is that affecting it – I could never get those straight in my head).”

It’s “affecting” – there is no “effecting” – an “effect” is the result of someting “affecting” (changing) the conditions.

the “affect” is the agent of change, the “effect” is the end result of that change.

Doggone/GA

May 22nd, 2009
8:59 am

“planet is warming up, human behavior is very likely the cause”

This isn’t entirely true. The planet is warming, human behavior is ACCELERATING that warming…not causing it.

Doggone/GA

May 22nd, 2009
9:02 am

“So the surface temperatures of the earth are going to get so warm that snow never melts?”

It’s not the warmth of the surface, it’s the amount of snow that falls. If enough snow falls, it insulates the ground from the effects of warmer air. If the air is not warm ENOUGH, LONG ENOUGH to melt all the snow then the “groundwork” is set for a POSSIBLE ice sheet. Every hear that goes by with the previous winter’s snow not melting completely INCREASES the chances that an ice sheet will develop.

Kamchak

May 22nd, 2009
9:02 am

Climate change = waterboarding?

Citizen of the World

May 22nd, 2009
9:03 am

George American @8:53, when you learn the difference between “your” and “you’re” maybe you’ll have earned the right to call someone else stupid.

Doggone/GA

May 22nd, 2009
9:03 am

“Every hear that goes by ”

Ooops! Should be “Every YEAR”

So very weary.....

May 22nd, 2009
9:05 am

“planet is warming up, human behavior is very likely the cause”

This isn’t entirely true. The planet is warming, human behavior is ACCELERATING that warming…not causing it.

So I guess it is partly our fault but we shouldn’t do anything to change it?

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
9:05 am

Citizen,

I saw that too – I can’t remember what it was, and it might not have been the same show. It’s been a while, but wasn’t the premise that the polar ice caps are full of frozen life forms and since the ice is melting more rapidly than usual, the methane is being released quicker and the end result is, as you wrote, God help us.

As you can tell, I’m no scientist, nor do I play one on TV.

jewcowboy

May 22nd, 2009
9:05 am

George American,

“Your stupid, you know it?”

When you are calling someone stupid please, perhaps, you should make sure you are grammatically correct. The word is “you’re” not “your.” It is the conjunction of “you” and “are.” Otherwise, you may appear stupid ;)

getalife

May 22nd, 2009
9:06 am

cons whine that debt will harm the future generations but want to keep destroying their planet.

It could create jobs.

For China.

Joey

May 22nd, 2009
9:07 am

1. “Here’s the data on global warming.” Using Jay’s Cheney-lied-gauge, we must conclude that the header is a lie. Honest and accurate wording would be:

Here’s some data that I carefully selected from the available pro-warming data so that I could proof of my position that the Global Warming threat is real.

2. “In other words, if you’re waiting for absolute proof of global warming, it will never come. And that’s the opening that the deniers and pooh-poohers try to manipulate.” This one is not so clealy a lie. It is more of a spin. Spin is dishonest but not a clear lie. Correctly stated the second sentence would read:

And that is the opening that the Global Warming Advocates and their Propagandist use to minipulate gullible people. Especially media types who love to cry wolf and prey on those who are easily influenced.

GeorgianByGeographyOnly

May 22nd, 2009
9:07 am

Jay: As you well know after living and writing in Georgia for many years: You can show ‘em a book (or a map), but you can’t make a moron learn! Give it up — and go read yer BIBLE, if you know what’s good fer ye!

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
9:07 am

Doggone/GA@ 8:58

Thanks! I’m gonna write that down and keep it in my desk for future reference

Doggone/GA

May 22nd, 2009
9:09 am

“So I guess it is partly our fault but we shouldn’t do anything to change it?”

If you got that out of anything *I* said, you have a “read between the lines” ability out of ALL proportion to reality.

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
9:09 am

Doggone/GA,

Another thing – can you help me out with inductive and deductive reasoning?

Chris

May 22nd, 2009
9:11 am

Whether or not you believe in global warming or climate change, I think the central issue is at times lost in translation. Numbers are thrown around by believers and deniers alike, and little to no action is taken to reduce pollution. I personally believe the climate is changing, but I also understand taking draconian measures to try and reduce human pollution could be damaging to our society and progress. That be said, we need to do something.

Pollution is a problem because it is cumulative. While we may not see the immediate effects right now, we will eventually. I think one of our first responsibilities is to be good stewards of the environment, not only for our own needs, but to.give future generations the same benefits that we enjoy. More investment is needed in cleaner technologies, not because of temperature change, but because we still rely on technologies that hundreds on years old to produce most of our energy.

This is 2009…we should be making every effort to replace old technologies with new, but not at the expense of our population or economy. Our political environment has not been friendly in the past to finding new technologies, and part of that is cost related; but our government seems to find money for everything else including programs that liberals and conservatives view with a “WTF?” attitude. Why can’t we spend spend money on something that will not only benefit humans, but the environment as well?

America still has a chance to be the world leader in clean energy technologies and to set an example for the rest of the world in the area of environmental stewardship. Until we correct our own problems, we really can’t expect other nations to do the same. On a final note, I would much prefer the US develop the clean energy technology and sell it to the rest of the world, rather than waiting for Japan or some other nation to develop it and sell it to us.

ty webb

May 22nd, 2009
9:14 am

Come on guys. We all make grammatical mistakes. In my haste to always post an informative, well thought out comment, I too sometimes mix up “your” and “you’re”.

jimbob

May 22nd, 2009
9:15 am

the fools and chumps calling for carbon taxes are the same chumps that have always shilled for every ‘international community’ scam, including eugenics.

Bookman is nothing if not a shill for whatever scam the UN is trying to pull.

George American

May 22nd, 2009
9:17 am

Citizen and jewcowboy,
Thank you grammar queens. Please check my speling and puctuation use too.

Your much better at grammar than knowledge about phony “therories”.

And jewcowboy, have you been served by Kinky Friedman’s attorney? Like Woody Allen and American apparel, I hear you guys like to sue whenever possible.

Doggone/GA

May 22nd, 2009
9:20 am

“Another thing – can you help me out with inductive and deductive reasoning?”

Well, to be honest…I had to look up “effect” and “affect” at http://www.dictionary.com !

Doggone/GA

May 22nd, 2009
9:23 am

“Your much better at grammar than knowledge about phony “therories”.”

There’s no such thing as a “phony” scientific theory. Don’t confuse the generic term “theory” with “scientific theory” Scientific theories can only be good theories (for which supporting data exists AND which can be used to make predictions based on that data) and bad theories (which don’t hold up when tested against the data available and/or which do not make predictions that hold up against the data either)

Chris

May 22nd, 2009
9:23 am

So we have 120 or so years of data on a planet that is billions of years old. Sound pretty insignificant to me. What about those years in the 900-1000 BCE timeframe where the temps were hotter than they are now. It just goes to prove that maybe the Sun, and its variations, might be more to blame than anything man or nature has caused in our short window of data.

Taxpayer

May 22nd, 2009
9:25 am

Then, there are the temperature cycles that are more relevant to we the people as opposed to the ‘week’ that God created the heavens and the earth.

You got any charts with a little better resolution, Andy. After all, I do recall that you were proclaiming that the temperature had cooled significantly this year versus a time scale of only hundreds of years — not billions. Try to stay on topic.

Jay Rules — Andy Loses, again.

Citizen of the World

May 22nd, 2009
9:25 am

ty webb, it wasn’t really the grammatical error with which I was taking issue. I, too, make grammatical errors — for instance, I used “who” in my post when I should have used “whom.” But, then, I wasn’t using incorrect grammar in the course of calling someone else stupid. That was my main point.

Price

May 22nd, 2009
9:25 am

Since all this is happening on Jupiter and Mars as well, we better try and tax those little green men…It’s the sun…check your history…it’s been happening off and on since the world began, before cars and industry…Should be try and be wise and stop pollution, sure. Should we tax companies for output who then just turn around and pass the cost on to the consumers? Please, that’s not a solution to anything. Oh, and I guess China will go along with it, huh?

@@

May 22nd, 2009
9:26 am

…but Ida (Darwinius masillae) told you the earth’s temperatures were warmer 47 million years ago than they are today. I don’t know how many people, if any, were around back then but it’s safe to say the dinosaur farts were probably HUGE blowouts.

Old Physics Teacher

May 22nd, 2009
9:29 am

Just an off-hand comment ’speling’ is actually spelled “spelling.”

williebkind

May 22nd, 2009
9:30 am

GeorgianByGeographyOnl: Yeah you got it! We have a saying too,”Education dont cure stupid.”

md

May 22nd, 2009
9:30 am

Jay,

Thats decent data for 128 years, would you mind providing the chart for the other 4+ billion years, assuming the 4+ billion is anywhere near correct.

Fractional science based on assumptions. We all know about assumptions don’t we?

Can you explain to all of us where the scientists came up with their original numbers to put into their models. I really want to understand how those numbers are not ASSumed.

Mort Merkel

May 22nd, 2009
9:33 am

When I was a kid, even Republican national leaders supported reducing pollution. Why do the wingnutters want more pollution? Does it get them high or something?

Citizen of the World

May 22nd, 2009
9:33 am

Bosch @ 9:09, deductive reasoning is when you go from the general to the specific; inductive reasoning is when you go from the specific to the general.

The trick I use for keeping it straight is that one is “inducted” into the army, where generals are.

Georgian by birth

May 22nd, 2009
9:35 am

That should be: if’n ye know whuts good fer ye.

Boy, Yankees is dum.

BDAtlanta

May 22nd, 2009
9:36 am

Hey, as long as Memorial Day weekend is sunny…

I Rule You :-) / You Whine :-(

May 22nd, 2009
9:36 am

Another fact is water vapor accounts for 95% of the “greenhouse” gasses Co2 only 3.6% and mans contribution to the 3.6?

Dan- Sorry, but CO2 only contributes .08% to the makeup of “heat trapping” atmospheric “gases,” you are thinking of methane, which is 3.4% or so.

We are on the same page, however, believe me.

williebkind

May 22nd, 2009
9:37 am

I am happy Jay does state “Data on Global Warming”! That does not suggest it is true but simply data.

I read that 32,000 scientist disagreed with the al gore’s global warming data and only 3000 scientist agreed. So the progessives went with the minority to get more votes I guess.

Things seem to run in cycles do they not? One blogger mentioned the 70’s, then the 80’s, and so forth. IT IS TRUE PROGESSIVE LIBERALS ARE DRIVE BY MEDIA AND PLAY OFF THE FEARS OF THE UNINFORMED. That is a fact and should “warm” you up quickly.

md

May 22nd, 2009
9:41 am

Agenda, agenda, agenda. What a difference one word can make.

Got to love the headline – “Here’s the data on global warming”

To be correct Jay, it should read “Here’s SOME data on global warming”.

But you knew that didn’t you?

I Rule You :-) / You Whine :-(

May 22nd, 2009
9:42 am

AmVet May 22nd, 2009 8:37 am UpChuck, I saw that! Tenth time the franchise has given up 20 or more runs in a game. As long as that little dipstick Guillen’s at the helm, it ’s gonna be hard to like them. So is it too early for all the dorky Pale Hose fans to start pulling for the Cubs?

Careful, AnWet, this is Obozo’s team that you are ragging on, how would you like a lovely IRS audit as a parting gift?

As a matter of fact, I blame the White Suxs woes on Obozo, it seems like everything he touches just goes to hell, don’t it?

Although he could purchase Peavey for them, that would be cool.

TW

May 22nd, 2009
9:42 am

Aw, c’mon Jay, you and your facts…and your research…and your thinking, education, etc.

Stupidity ain’t gonna like this at all.

ty webb

May 22nd, 2009
9:42 am

What if everyone just stopped exhaling? That would definitely reduce our carbon footprint.

Mort Merkel

May 22nd, 2009
9:42 am

Chris wrote: “I would much prefer the US develop the clean energy technology and sell it to the rest of the world, rather than waiting for Japan or some other nation to develop it and sell it to us.”

Chris, I would go a step further and say it is the key to securing our economic future. It’s imperative we lead the world in this. It can give us a new industrial revolution and increase our security by eliminating our dependence on Middle East oil.

Doggone/GA

May 22nd, 2009
9:42 am

” read that 32,000 scientist disagreed ”

source please?

Gandalf, the White! (!)

May 22nd, 2009
9:44 am

Now now people! AlgOrE has already spoken on this matter! The evidence is in and he won’t argue. Of course he’s an asshat like jay, so… Don’t worry! Barry is going to run us so far in the ground that we won’t be able to do anything for ourselves! He will provide and make decisions that are best for you. Jay I hope you are required to find a new place of employment soon.

BDAtlanta

May 22nd, 2009
9:45 am

I can’t write something liberal about global warming while there is a small bottle of water in a plastic container sitting on my desk.

Citizen of the World

May 22nd, 2009
9:45 am

A lot of the climate change that has taken place over the eons occurred slowly, giving plants, animals and people a chance to adapt, evolve and survive. Some of it occurred very quickly, due to cataclysmic events such as asteroids or super volcanos. It was those events that created climate change so fast that whole species were wiped out.

What we are looking at right now is climate change that’s fairly rapid in the grand scheme of things, and that’s what makes it so problematic. Many species may not survive it — like the polar bears, for instance. We have a responsibility to ourselves and to other species to try to stop this, or at the very least, slow it down.

Michael H. Smith

May 22nd, 2009
9:45 am

Fascinating, this debate on global warming. It reminds me of the debate on the round world theory. It is not enough to say the world is round, we must now needs argue how round is the world!

Get over it, the globe warms and cools, has throughout world climate history. Cap and Trades – another Al Gore tax – will do little to stop a natural global climate cycle from occurring, much of which could be blamed on that little mysterious yellowish glowing ball appearing at the center of our solar system – Notwithstanding human aggravating contributions.

Meanwhile here’s a thought for big Al Gore to think about; could mean another documentary, possibly another Nobel Prize, certainly more feasible than carbon sequestration and carbon taxation: Extract fresh water from the oceans and return the captured salt, thereby increasing the saltiness of the seas and eliminating the threat posed by too much fresh water in the oceans due to the much acclaimed polar ice melt. As an added bonus – call it a collateral damage benefit – this extracted abundance of fresh water could be the answer for drought conditions experienced in the southern half of the country from east to west.

N-GA

May 22nd, 2009
9:46 am

The planet is in a warming phase. Few dispute that. Where the disagreement arises is the cause. Without a doubt, humans spew millions of tons of pollutants into the environment. The first question should be: “How long can the Earth sustain being Mankind’s garbage dump before it becomes uninhabitable? The second question should be: “What if those who oppose more rigid pollution standards are flat wrong about the consequences?”

DB, Gwinnettian

May 22nd, 2009
9:47 am

When I was a kid, even Republican national leaders supported reducing pollution.

Officially, they still do. And they acknowledge this:

The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.

A lot of fringe stuff you hear on comments threads (and from some of the screechier Representatives and Senators) doesn’t reflect mainstream thought.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 22nd, 2009
9:48 am

I don’t really give a rat’s patootie about any thing the climate deniers have to say anymore. They have lost the argument.

From Think Progress:

Last night, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved “the most ambitious energy and global warming legislation ever debated in Congress,” with Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) joining 35 Democrats to vote for the bill. CAPAF CEO John Podesta praised President Obama and Chairmen Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), who “demonstrated tremendous leadership by bringing together states, business, labor, and environmentalists to reach these essential agreements.”

While they fade into the sunset, we’ll make clean up the mess.

Taxpayer

May 22nd, 2009
9:49 am

What if the GOPers just quit exhaling — global warming solved.

BDAtlanta

May 22nd, 2009
9:51 am

No matter what side of the fence you stand on global warming, I think we can all agree that solar, wind, and nuclear power needs to be advanced. If for nothing else just so we can get away from sending gazillions of dollars to the middle east, Russia, and Venezuela.

ty webb

May 22nd, 2009
9:52 am

I’ll make a deal with you Taxpayer, While I’m not a GOPer, I’ll stop exhaling if you stop inhaling. Deal?

jewcowboy

May 22nd, 2009
9:53 am

George American,

“I hear you guys like to sue whenever possible.”

Nice anti-Semitic remark.

Joey

May 22nd, 2009
9:53 am

Chris (9:11): I submit to you that in the US the air and water is cleaner, less polluted, than when you were born.

What has changed and continues to change are the thresholds at which a specific “pollutant” is considered to be harmful.

Also a very useful, very common and previously safe gas, Carbon dioxide, has been assigned the label of pollutant.

Our EPA at work.

Taxpayer

May 22nd, 2009
9:53 am

If the right wing fringe want to build a dome over themselves and fill it full of pollution and their hot air, then I have no problem with that. They can burn all the fossil fuels they want within their enclosed spaces. Further, if they want to experience first-hand the end result, they can scale it down to the size of their garage with the door closed and the car running. Good luck with that. Maybe you’ll evolve quick enough to start extracting that O2 from CO2, etc. Then again, maybe you’ll evolve into non-carbon-based life forms.

Taxpayer

May 22nd, 2009
9:55 am

You first, ty. It’s your offer. Further, I’ll need to check you out in a few days to see if you upheld your offer. Bet you won’t.

md

May 22nd, 2009
9:55 am

When/if cap and trade sends the economy into depression, some here may care. Its all about the wallet when push comes to shove.

Does it make sense to reduce pollution – yes. But don’t cut off your nose to do it.

jewcowboy

May 22nd, 2009
9:58 am

ty webb,

I mistype all of the time, and I am far from being the grammar police. I just like pointing out the irony of having a “stupid” grammatical mistake while calling someone stupid.

GeorgianByGeographyOnly

May 22nd, 2009
10:00 am

Willieb: You’re right. Education can’t cure stupid; It can, however cure ignorance. Why not at least give it a try?

Robards

May 22nd, 2009
10:01 am

I wonder if humans are responsible for the changes in temps on Jupiter and Mars.

Pokeyr

May 22nd, 2009
10:02 am

We’re calling it global warming this week? Noted.

Citizen of the World

May 22nd, 2009
10:04 am

Joey @ 9:53, there’s enough arsenic in the amount of potatoes consumed by the average American in one year to kill a horse. But it doesn’t kill us. Why? Because we consume it over time in quantities that can be metabolized by our bodies. As you noted, carbon dioxide is a common, necessary gas — but safe? That depends.

md

May 22nd, 2009
10:04 am

“I wonder if humans are responsible for the changes in temps on Jupiter and Mars.”

Of course they are, it was in the ajc years ago.

Billy Bob

May 22nd, 2009
10:06 am

Jay, your first chart reflects a variance from the annual and five year mean global temperatures. Prior to 1940, that variance showed cooler global temperatures than the annual or five year mean global temperature (though that vertical axis is laid out poorly). I suspect an astute scientist during that time (1880-1920) might have indicated that we should burn more fossil fuels and breed more gaseous livestock to reverse the global cooling caused by the Industrial Revolution (huh?). Likewise, with the “cooler” period after WWII (1940-1980).

Global climate extremes, including ice ages, preceded and will suceed mankind’s limited presence on this planet. That mankind impacts the environment seems clear but the extent of that impact is far less clear.

My EXTREME reluctance on allowing global political agreements on this issue isn’t with those who wish to limit mankind’s adverse impact on our environment, VOLUNTARILY. Rather, my reluctance stems from my innate caution concerning overreaching, overbearing, uber-intrusive socialist global politicians who generally eff-up the sweetest wet dream.

Once these socialist politicos USE environmental concerns to obtain power over you, they will:

a.never relinquish that centralized power over this aspect of your life,
b.expand their scope of power in this area until they control it completely,
c.use similar issues to expand that control over your life into other areas,
d.effectively attempt to globalize your country, and
c.Does this sound like socialism to you, yet?

It’s not the environment, stupid, it’s the global socialist politicians.

RealityKing

May 22nd, 2009
10:07 am

More importantly.., a 20% increase in our electric bills due to Obama’s cap and trade ponzi scheme is also consistent with greenhouse theory, not to mention GE’s return to profitablity.

Taxpayer

May 22nd, 2009
10:07 am

Cap and trade won’t have a chance to do what the GOP’s “we don’t need no steenking rules or regulations” has already done — created the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Besides, the CO2 issue is just one piece of the bigger picture. The bottom line is that we need to find a better way to live our lives. Burning fossil fuels is not it. Polluting the environment with all sorts of chemicals and compounds that are known to kill us is not it. Relying on other countries for the bulk of our energy needs is not it. So what if change costs money. That is hardly a valid reason not to change for better. Is it. Staying the same will also cost more money or have most of you already forgotten about gas prices. We cannot drill our way out of this mess because there is not enough there to drill for to offset what we import. We need change and we need it for more reasons than simply CO2. Further, we need to evaluate our options and do a better job of picking our future path. Believe it or not, we the people actually know more now than we did back when we first started burning fossil fuels or building nuclear bombs, etc. To hear some of you talk, one would be left with the impression that learning from the past while looking toward the future is some sort of bad thing.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 22nd, 2009
10:09 am

“Its all about the wallet when push comes to shove.”

Is that from the book of Pharisees……?

AmVet

May 22nd, 2009
10:10 am

Most of the deniers are the mental-midget progeny of those who wanted the head of the heretic Galileo and who tried to shut up Magellan.

They lost then and guess what?

They haven’t learned a thing and are gonna lose again…

demwit

May 22nd, 2009
10:10 am

My theroy is that the use of nuclear weapons in the 40’s created a global cooling trend that lasted 40 yrs. Therefore we should use nuclear weapons more often.

I mean, scientists 100 years from now won’t be able to state beyond a shadow of a doubt that greenhouse gases caused that change. All they will be able to say with scientific honesty and certainty is that the change was consistent with my nuclear weapon use theory.

Gandalf, the White! (!)

May 22nd, 2009
10:12 am

Polar bear suck, so we lose them, i don’t care. We gain millions of acres of fertile farm land!

ty webb

May 22nd, 2009
10:13 am

Why can’t we get “An Incovenient Truth” playing is some of those theaters on Jupiter and Mars. Is it a Distribution issue?

Tea

May 22nd, 2009
10:13 am

George American. I guess you’re trying to bait us so I’ll bite. You do, in fact display an inferior intellect with your ludicrous comments about evolution and climate change. I do not think you’re stupid though. More likely you were just intellectually lazy in school and never grew out of that habit. You are unqualified to render an opinion on climate change and evolution because you do not understand the fundamentals of those issues. If you did, it is impossible to hold the opinion you currently have.

jewcowboy

May 22nd, 2009
10:14 am

Every time I ask this posit this, the global warming deniers fail to give me answer and just divert the question, but I will try again?

Particulate matter and ground level ozone have been proven beyond doubt to have very harmful health effect on all segments of the population, with children being the most vulnerable. Pm and O3 come from the same emission sources as GHG’s, such as automobiles/transportation, electricity production for residential, commercial and industrial uses, agricultural production, etc.

Putting aside global warming, why would you not want to reduce the production of pm and O3? If you reduce pm and O3, you will also reduce GHG emissions.

Gandalf, the White! (!)

May 22nd, 2009
10:15 am

I say get them poor people in line first. Stop them from buring hte rain forest and all the stuff the do. Make them stop breeding and eating so damn much! THEN We may stop our global warmin’

williebkind

May 22nd, 2009
10:15 am

Mrs G: How did those opposing the global warming lose the argument or were you just talking to yourself in the plural sense.

md

May 22nd, 2009
10:15 am

“Cap and trade won’t have a chance to do what the GOP’s “we don’t need no steenking rules or regulations” has already done — created the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression”

Your party allegiance is showing again. If I am not mistaken, there were folks from all parties and all walks of like that contributed to the mess we are now in, and it is highly debateable that the Carter years were worse than now. So 0 for 2 on that one.

Out a here…..

ty webb

May 22nd, 2009
10:16 am

Sorry, meant to say “in” some of those theaters.

Gandalf, the White! (!)

May 22nd, 2009
10:17 am

AMVET! u are the mental midget, you fought for the WESTERN MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! Think before you write dumbass!

Taxpayer

May 22nd, 2009
10:20 am

md,

you are mistaken, as usual. O for 2 is for U.

Randy

May 22nd, 2009
10:20 am

The data for the last 100 years is not really in question. What is in question is whether 100 years is sufficient historical data to determine a definite global trend. What if you had 300 years of data and the pattern showed the Earth going through periods of warming and cooling? Making global decisions with a relatively small amount of history is like making stock decisions with only last week’s history.

williebkind

May 22nd, 2009
10:21 am

GeorgianByGeographyOnly:
Ignorance is not having the information and stupid is not the ability to process the information. Since liberals shove their education at everyone everyday they must fall into the latter category.

You were given the information which refutes the global warming data but refused to process it. I can not remember a person who uses drive by media ever correctly explain their outburst. Help me out here?

Bosch

May 22nd, 2009
10:22 am

Citizen,

Thanks again! I’ve got that written down too.

~~~~~~~~~~~

The planet really doesn’t give a rat’s patootie about us – soon, the Earth will be uninhabitable, we’ll die and the Earth will correct itself in about a million years or so. It’s US we need to be protecting ourselves from so we’ll have some place to live.

Either that or we need to get on the ball developing and manufacturing habitable spaceships for the nearly 7 billion or so of us.