We are tinkering with our planet’s basic life support systems

Very well said.

I’ve fought this fight for myself, for my daughters and I redouble my efforts in honor of my nearly here grandson.

Shame on the climate deniers. Shame on you.

• Link
• Report this comment

Third!

• Link
• Report this comment

Ooops! I must have clicked on Cynthia Tucker’s thread by mistake.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sorry Kamchak.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I want some evolution!”

Here you go: the global climate is EVOLVING!

• Link
• Report this comment

1.48 degree swing in 130 years. Wow.

• Link
• Report this comment

Going, going, going –gone?

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s not that some of us deny science, it’s just that we do not believe in science which is bought and paid for to achieve a political objective.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone

Heh, heh!

But you’re right in an aspect that both “sides” of this seem to be missing. Climatology is a “new” science on the scene and is in the earliest stages of its evolution.

• Link
• Report this comment

More good news…

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/5071-sunspots-and-weather-cycles-belie-global-warming-hysteria

• Link
• Report this comment

EMBED
Embed this video:

SUMMARY: Andrew Napolitano cited a DailyTech article headlined, “NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming,” to deny that humans are causing global warming. In fact, the article itself noted that NASA does not dispute that human activities are responsible for global warming.

On the June 5 edition of Fox News’ Glenn Beck, guest host and Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano mischaracterized a year-old NASA report on solar variability to deny that humans are causing global warming. Claiming that NASA “made a remarkable discovery,” Napolitano referred to a June 4 DailyTech article headlined, “NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming,” and said: “So, basically — are you ready for this? — the sun heats the Earth.” However, as the DailyTech article itself acknowledged, in its May 7, 2008, report, NASA does not dispute that human activities are responsible for global warming. In fact, it said the opposite, noting that while “[t]he sun has powered almost everything on Earth since life began, including its climate,” greenhouse gases now have a “significant influence on Earth’s climate.”

The NASA report also stated that “Earth’s climate depends on the delicate balance between incoming solar radiation, outgoing thermal radiation and the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Even small changes in these parameters can affect climate.” It then quoted Thomas Woods, a solar scientist at the University of Colorado-Boulder, saying that “[g]reenhouse gases block about 40 percent of outgoing thermal radiation that emanates from Earth.” The report continued: “The resulting imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing thermal radiation will likely cause Earth to heat up over the next century, accelerating the melting polar ice caps, causing sea levels to rise and increasing the probability of more violent global weather patterns.”

The NASA report also quoted Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, as saying that “[f]or the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change,” and that “[t]he major change in Earth’s climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before.”

From NASA’s May 7, 2008, report:

The sun has powered almost everything on Earth since life began, including its climate. The sun also delivers an annual and seasonal impact, changing the character of each hemisphere as Earth’s orientation shifts through the year. Since the Industrial Revolution, however, new forces have begun to exert significant influence on Earth’s climate.

“For the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change,” said Robert Cahalan, climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

[...]

Over the past century, Earth’s average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004. Earth’s climate depends on the delicate balance between incoming solar radiation, outgoing thermal radiation and the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Even small changes in these parameters can affect climate. Around 30 percent of the solar energy that strikes Earth is reflected back into space. Clouds, atmospheric aerosols, snow, ice, sand, ocean surface and even rooftops play a role in deflecting the incoming rays. The remaining 70 percent of solar energy is absorbed by land, ocean, and atmosphere.

“Greenhouse gases block about 40 percent of outgoing thermal radiation that emanates from Earth,” Woods said. The resulting imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing thermal radiation will likely cause Earth to heat up over the next century, accelerating the melting polar ice caps, causing sea levels to rise and increasing the probability of more violent global weather patterns.

[...]

Before the Industrial Age, the sun and volcanic eruptions were the major influences on Earth’s climate change. Earth warmed and cooled in cycles. Major cool periods were ice ages, with the most recent ending about 11,000 years ago.

“Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene,” said Cahalan. “Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth’s climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before.”

The sun is relatively calm compared to other stars. “We don’t know what the sun is going to do a hundred years from now,” said Doug Rabin, a solar physicist at Goddard. “It could be considerably more active and therefore have more influence on Earth’s climate.”

Or, it could be calmer, creating a cooler climate on Earth similar to what happened in the late 17th century. Almost no sunspots were observed on the sun’s surface during the period from 1650 to 1715. This extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe and may reflect cyclic or irregular changes in the sun’s output over hundreds of years. During this period, winters in Europe were longer and colder by about 1 C than they are today.

Since then, there seems to have been on average a slow increase in solar activity. Unless we find a way to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, the solar influence is not expected to dominate climate change. But the solar variations are expected to continue to modulate both warming and cooling trends at the level of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.18 to 0.26 Fahrenheit) over many years.

The DailyTech article Napolitano cited reported that “[s]ome researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes. They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation. Skeptics, though, argue that there’s little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.” The DailyTech article then asserted that “a new research report” from NASA “may help to lay this skepticism to rest,” reporting: “A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth’s climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.” The article linked to a ScienceDaily.com May 12, 2008, article adapted from the NASA report. The DailyTech article concluded:

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun’s influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

From the June 5 edition of Fox News’ Glenn Beck:

NAPOLITANO: Hello, America. This is tonight’s hot list. These are the stories that the mainstream media is not covering but should be, or they’re following, but they’re not doing a good job. You know how that works.

The Washington Times reports that, so far, there aren’t any states willing to house Gitmo detainees if the prison should close. President Obama intends to close the prison on January 2010. But even those who want to close Gitmo are basically saying not in my backyard.

NASA’s Goddard Space Center made a remarkable discovery. The headline from the DailyTech is — you’re not going to believe this — quote: “NASA acknowledges solar cycle, not man, responsible for global warming.”

So, basically — are you ready for this? — the sun heats the Earth. The real question is whether Al Gore’s NASA guy, Dr. James Hanson, will give up on trying to say “people heat the Earth” and “people cause global warming,” or if the man who produced the report will get fired for going against the green — I mean, against the grain.

From MMA

SHAME SHAME SHAME

• Link
• Report this comment

Off topic #1 (and last time I’ll make a “Daddy” reference):

Daddy, why do Republicans hate small businesses so much?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/29/AR2010072900485.html

• Link
• Report this comment

“Survival of the fittest.”

cacti and c-o-c-kroaches, my friend …

• Link
• Report this comment

OGK – if you’re going to link to a report to support your opinion, you should REALLY make an effort to be SURE it actually does, though technically what you linked to does…however IT links to this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm

Which contains this: “Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth’s climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Some will, some won’t. Survival of the fittest.

Extinct is forever.

• Link
• Report this comment

“sadly, because climate change is happening at such an accelerated pace, species can’t evolve fast enough to cope with it”

Guess what, it has happened before and more than likely will happen again – an awful lot of cycles in life, especially over several billion years…………..

• Link
• Report this comment

I wonder how much the global temperature will increase when Iran develops a nuclear bomb and makes good on its threat to wipe Israel off the face of the earth?

• Link
• Report this comment

Perhaps I’m the last optimist left on the planet, but since I do accept the concept of evolution AND the concept of G-d’s or M*ther N*tures noblest creature, I’m not in the gloom and doom crowd. Gloom? Right now, certainly. Doom? Well, we’ve survived all past attempts to obliterate our species and have gone from the trees to the stars.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno – 1 degree F makes a bigger difference than you realize – it can change blooming patterns, which will have an effect on pollinating insects, which then moves up the chain …

• Link
• Report this comment

“You really believe we, as minuscule as we are in the equation, can alter the universe?????”

In case you haven’t noticed…the earth is NOT “the universe”

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, we’ve survived all past attempts to obliterate our species and have gone from the trees to the stars.

Or you could say we’ve gone from a second rate ripoff like Bernie Madoff to the full blown swindle of Al Gore and we’re still likely to survive.

• Link
• Report this comment

Downside is too high to ignore and not too make changes. For many reasons other than climate warming or change. Warming is not the only harmful effect of what we are doing.

• Link
• Report this comment

jo nix – which is worse: the arrogance of thinking that you can postively change the universe or the sloth of not even trying?

• Link
• Report this comment

Alex Filippenko, the most quoted astronomer of our era, has this to say about the earth’s greenhouse effect: “Earth has an operating greenhouse effect, which in moderation, is a good thing. Earth would be about 60 degrees F cooler with no greenhouse effect. Earth has a very effective way of recycling its greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide and water vapor”…. “Some scientists argue that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would offset global warming by blocking more on the Sun’s radiation from reaching Earth. Other scientists believe that an increase in the water vapor increases greenhouse heating and more than compensates for the extra sunlight reflection off the clouds”

Translation: Nobody knows for sure, we’re relying on incomplete computer models which have been shown to be primitive and faulty. We need to do more studies before jumping to conclusions.

• Link
• Report this comment

If God had wanted the deniers to understand global warming, he would have given them that ability when they were born. Same goes for balancing their checkbooks or understanding fractions. Yet, they understand credit cards perfectly. Charge it. Roll over the balance onto a new card. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Die before payment comes due.

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK
Well, the sloth, in evolutionary terms, has been around a lot longer!

So which is worse? I’m not sure…would you not agree that the homo sapiens’ “divine spark” is what led to the technological advances which have had these unforeseen consequences we are now trying to control?

• Link
• Report this comment

The only constant thing on earth is change. Maybe Jay can point us to a study that shows that the rate of change now is more rapid than it has ever been over the past 10 to 15 million years.

• Link
• Report this comment

good fight – “fossil fuel humans will make?”

well, we all know Rush will be nothing but hot gas

• Link
• Report this comment

Kamchack,Granny, JB and all those gravely concerned with climate change/global warming; I encourage you to refer to the Gospel according to Carlin – Save the Planet (YouTube 7:38). The “extinction” monkey (interesting metaphor, don’t you agree josef – vis a vis your “evolution” comment?) is out of the cage. If one were to objectively and dispassionately (see: religion) study history, he/she would accept that humans are the greatest threat to the ecosystem and the species. It’s called progress and technology, and if we want to eat omelettes, we’re going to break lots of eggs. forget about China or India in terms of culpability, Americans will not reduce consumption of fossil fuels, surrender a/c, minivans, or personal computers. here’s how I “fight” climate change; I approach it as Bruce Lee observed in Enter the Dragon; “fighting without fighting…” be an army of one and live as you see fit. the idea that U.S. policy will “save the planet” is, as Carlin observed, “arrogant meddling in Nature.” there is no “life support system”, JB. there is the ecosystem and when it ceases to “support” (human) life, human life will cease to exist.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Amazing the mental contortions that you folks are willing to perform in order to keep believing.”

Jay–the fact remains that the Earth has been far warmer than it is now several times in the past, yet the temperatures eventually cooled again. To me, this suggests that temperatures run in cycles, cycles that we don’t fully understand at present. Exactly what is the basis for your certainty that mankind is now causing an irreversible rise in global temps? Lame computer models?

• Link
• Report this comment

So what’s the plan to fix it? There is a constant, seems almost daily sometimes, diatribe against the non-believers, but I don’t recall seeing any options on how to fix it. Just more feigned poutrage that the science proves it and how could someone not see it. And before any are given, I’d like to see the options that don’t involve more taxes and more governent control.

Fire away.

• Link
• Report this comment

“however, I am at the center of it, nonetheless”

See, and I don’t even have to dispute that! In an unbounded universe EVERYONE is at the center of it!

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone – “In an unbounded universe EVERYONE is at the center of it!”

… all revolving around ME …

• Link
• Report this comment

One degree F change can keep a tomato plant from blooming.

• Link
• Report this comment

One degree F change can melt ice.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The only constant thing on earth is change. Maybe Jay can point us to a study that shows that the rate of change now is more rapid than it has ever been over the past 10 to 15 million years.”

godless heathen–I’ll give Jay the benefit of the doubt that his Chicken Little arguments absent any solid proof are borne out of a true concern for our planet and future generations. That still doesn’t make them any more valid.

• Link
• Report this comment

An education is a terrible thing to waste. Deniers know this and accept it. If they were meant to be educated, God would have made them educated.

• Link
• Report this comment

awww … poor hootinanny – so desperate to cling on to bad news, you seem to ignore that this is the 4th consecutive quarter of positive growth, that business investment is up, that personal consumption is stable …

• Link
• Report this comment

josef,

I’ll give you credit. You’re determined to get your evolution thread one way or another. We used to have some great ones over at ml’s old place.

• Link
• Report this comment

“So what’s the plan to fix it? There is a constant, seems almost daily sometimes, diatribe against the non-believers, but I don’t recall seeing any options on how to fix it.”

Maybe the Democrats can pass some more legislation that no one will understand until it is enacted.

• Link
• Report this comment

While not many deny global climate change, it still comes down to if puny man can influence global climate or not.

With the worse winter in the last 30 years, and snow on the beaches in Brazil and Argentina, can we really think we are in charge of the climate?

• Link
• Report this comment

awww … poor hootinanny – so desperate to cling on to bad news…

So desperate that he posted it over at CT’s place too.

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK 11:12

Try to keep up. Hootenanny is reporting what was in the news TODAY.

• Link
• Report this comment

Rational Observer (11:09) so can (Kamachak’s) a SQUIRREL! ditto a nasty looking bugger called the hickory horned devil – which usually sets up shop in hardwoods, but I removed one from my cherry tomato plant yesterday. it had consumed ever leaf, bud and blossom on the top third of the plant. you want to point a finger? blame god (creator of fire)

• Link
• Report this comment

Kam – cling! cling! cling!!

actually, the sub-data was pretty positive –

personal savings rate is around 6%
non-residential investment is up 17%
Exports were up 10%
Disposable income rose 4.4%

good news all around

• Link
• Report this comment

RW

“You’re determined to get your evolution thread one way or another.”

The L-rd helps those who help themselves!

USinUK

Of course I would rather do something to clean up the enviroment! But in evolutionary terms, the great ape is a species that fouls his own nest…as “advanced” as we are, we’ve still got a lot of evolutionary traits to overcome…

• Link
• Report this comment

This research has been bought and paid for by Uncle Sam working as an agent for the United Nations. The debate is over, and no further evidence will be admitted.

• Link
• Report this comment

“While not many deny global climate change, it still comes down to if puny man can influence global climate or not.”

“wouldn’t you rather DO something to clean up the environment and be wrong than NOT?”

Studies I’ve seen indicate that man’s contribution to greenhouse gases are small in comparison to Nature’s contribution. Having said that, I still think it’s a good idea if we cut back on the burning of fossil fuels. No one is in favor of pollution, on either side of the global warming debate. The question is are we in crisis mode right now? Alex Filippenko thinks not, and he’s a lot smarter than I am.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Filippenko

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK
“…only outlaws will evolve…”
And I daresay there’s a great deal of truth in that if we look at the evolution of the species….

Have you been following what’s going on with the baboons?

• Link
• Report this comment

The world used to be flat.

• Link
• Report this comment

Rational Observer, actually CO2 is for pansies (plants). I am certainly not a “denier”. I simply don’t care and I take exception to any person (especially power-hungry politico and delusional tree huggers) who offer to ‘care’ on my behalf, or on behalf of mankind as a whole. see my earlier post. I’d much rather address squirrel over-population. as I have argued before, “climate change” is not the message, it’s the messenger.

• Link
• Report this comment

“but, I think that it would be irresponsible of the media to ignore the economic warning signs”

Like they did under Bush.

• Link
• Report this comment

mm – 11:29 – I lay that at the feet of the Alan Greenspan cultists …

• Link
• Report this comment

Republicans and conservatives avoid climate reality.
Democrats and liberals avoid fiscal reality.

• Link
• Report this comment

“We know it, all right, but we, you and I, are not about to give up our material comforts to get there any time soon…we haven’t evolved that far yet”

At this point, I don’t think that’s the issue. I think we’re still at the point where we can say “how can we maintain, or even improve” our comforts with some OTHER energy source”

• Link
• Report this comment

Two quick observations.Both form AmVet’s same old song and dance file.

Not one single scientific institution of renown anywhere in the world denies AGW. Not one. The list is incredibly long and irrefutably prestigious. And in spite of the lamebrain assertions otherwise by the least cogent, these are not quack johnny-come-lately outfits. They are the very best of the best. The acknowledged experts. The Nobel Prize winners. The brightest minds to be found. And they are overwhelmingly allied in the belief that is is unquestionably man’s combined overuse of fossil fuels, eradication of the rain forests that are the PRIMARY cause of this warming.

And even more ignoratn, is theis constant canard being trotted out that they are all doing it for the money. Yeah, riiight! These most prestigious institutions in the world with longstanding track records of amazing discovery and scientific excellence are all going to throw those impeccable reputations down the drain, by purposely misconstruing the moutains of data and facts and evidence they’ve collected, independently of each other, so as to merely embarrass people with no scientific training.

Are you folks related to the second gunman on the grassy knoll?

Also, remember it has only been in the last couple of years that the majority of the deniers have even acknowledged that the increase in temperatures is even real. And there is still a significant number of them who even agree with this irrefutable and basic premise.

Secondly and even more damning is that in spite of years to prove otherwise, AGW has not been countermanded nor trumped by another superior theory. In fact, the deniers do not have anything remotely close to an explanation. Just straw men, red herrings and assorted wild ass guesses. as promulgated by mental midgets like Rush.

And for those who don’t understand the scientific method, this is how science works. Best the best theory to date, or quit whining…

• Link
• Report this comment

Fine! There’s plenty of environment that needs cleaning right here in Atlanta. A letter writer to the AJC this morning said the Six Flags exit was a disgrace. Trash, potholes, weeds, cans, signs, and ruined roads was the inviting picture at that exit.

So there you go! A goal all laid out for you! Hurry, you sit-home environmentalists. Get out there and lower the temp!! WHAT? You wanted somebody else to do it? Nawwww….We’ll clean up chemical waste later. Let’s start HERE.

USinUK, you are excused from this Atlanta project.. You can take over the Green Parks of London by the river. Go for it!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone
I’m not limiting those creature comforts to just energy sources…that may be our focus these days, but the destruction of the rain forrests, unfettered urban sprawl, etc. have more impact in the long run than the consumption of fossil fuels in our habitat undoing,,,

• Link
• Report this comment

josef…. yes I do… but my car gets well above average gas mileage… but in doing the “best” I can personally… I have solar panels which provide all of my hot water and suppliment my electric, I have a geothermal heat pump (which cools and heats my home)… is use no pesticides or fertilizers on my property…and on top of that I’m vegan (which even uses LESS energy since my food requires much less water, power, chemicals, and produces very little waste…though I’m vegan for animal rights issues)…

Perfect? No… but a much smaller footprint compared to most.

I’m simply not prepared to become the Uni-Bomber and live in a 1 room hut somewhere… with no power or running water…well not at least yet.

• Link
• Report this comment

Deniers do not offer sound skepticism. They only offer confounded criticism. Baseless bloviating. The concepts that one must grasp to even begin to understand global warming are well beyond their reach so they do what they are capable of doing. They deny. So, I say again, Jay, you waste your time. Let’s talk about the existence of God instead. These deniers can surely provide proof positive of their supreme being’s existence for it is written. It has even evolved into a truly perfect form. They call it the King James version.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The concepts that one must grasp to even begin to understand global warming are well beyond their reach so they do what they are capable of doing.”

Are you claiming to know something, Rational Observer?? I’ll eat your lunch any day of the week when it comes to Science.

• Link
• Report this comment

Saul, as I said, “If one were to objectively and dispassionately (see: religion) study history, he/she would accept that humans are the greatest threat to the ecosystem and the species. It’s called progress and technology, and if we want to eat omelettes, we’re going to break lots of eggs.” the rapture is coming (lower case R), but it will have nothing to do with the Book of Revelations, 4 Horsemen, or any “beasts” with 666 on their heads. It will be due to the scarcity of potable water and food, gluttonous consumption of all resources, and the self-fulfilling prophesies of the aforementioned snake jugglers and Bible thumpers who will cite god (not Karl Rove) as the “architect” of mankind’s demise.

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

“trust me, he’s a lot smarter than either you or I.”

Isn’t this exactly the same logical fallacy? And “appeal to authority”?

• Link
• Report this comment

“unfortunately, too many people see those elements as the entire picture rather than pieces of the pie”

My point being that one of the most important functions of any leader is to “inspire the troops”. I don’t know about you, but Obama is likely the least inspiring leader we’ve had in my life time. Simply put, the man doesn’t know what he’s doing, along with Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd. All of the major legislation passed so far–Health Care Reform, Credit Card Reform, Banking Reform–is loaded with unintended consequences which will bite us in the butt for years to come.

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet, as stated, I am not a denier. I do believe there are those who would exploit the reality of climate change (as noted by the endless number of scientists and experts) for non-scientific gain (power and wealth). this is one of Granny’s ‘goose gander’ situations. i,e; there are those who would exploit the reality of “terrorism” and/or “fanatical Islam” for their own non-national security gain. ergo, as with climate change “I don’t care” about terrorists or Islam. or more accurately, I am skeptical of a “government solution”.

• Link
• Report this comment

“AmVet claimed that every legitimate Scientist alive today are all in agreement ”

Actually, no he didn’t. If you’re going to quote someone…try doing it accurately. You shoot your argument in the foot if you don’t.

What he ACTUALLY said is: “Not one single scientific institution of renown anywhere in the world denies AGW”

INSTITUTIONS, not scientists

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay–see above^^^^

In case you didn’t know, meteorology and climatology are inexact sciences. How many times is the weather forecast wrong here in Atlanta, particularly in regards to when it is going to rain or not? If these guys can’t tell me with any accuracy what the weather is going to be like in 10 days, I’m not accepting their predictions for the next hundred years.

• Link
• Report this comment

“INSTITUTIONS, not scientists”

And exactly what are these INSTITUTIONS composed of if not Scientists??? Kind of like the non-acceptance of corporate personhood by Jay and the Lib contingency here. I have yet to find a corporation that wasn’t composed of people, and only people.

• Link
• Report this comment

Very simply put!!

http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0907.htm

• Link
• Report this comment

Now ………. if you want to talk about “Global Warming” !

2 Peter 3:10

“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”

• Link
• Report this comment

“And exactly what are these INSTITUTIONS composed of if not Scientists??? ”

Come on, give me a break. An organization can agree that something is valid without ALL of it’s associates ALSO agreeing. It’s the consensus that matters.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Bruno, the problem with your Appeal to Authority indictment is that these people ARE the legitimate, recognized experts and authorities on the subject. If not, correct me and tell me who, pray tell instead of them, is?”

Legitimate and recognized by whom??

“Money is not always the underlying motivation. That argument is cynical and without merit, unless someone shows me this supporting evidence to support that oft-used claim. Whee are the secret payoffs? Where are the clandestine bribes. Who is extorting who? Most of this is completely fabricated.”

Buddy, it all comes down to grant money from the NSA and universities. If you don’t believe that politics plays a large part in who gets the money or not, I’ve got some lake-front property in Iowa to sell you. (oops, the lake washed away a few days ago).

“an irrational loathing of all things liberal and academic and ideologically driven myopia are just p*ssing in the wind. And getting very soggy pant legs…”

The association of legitimate scientific skepticism with a particular ideology is pure bunk, my friend. I think you’ve been around the blog long enough to know that I don’t believe in mythology in any way, shape or fashion.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty – GDP is measured quarter on quarter, which means that, if you have a strong quarter, you have a high base effect (in other words – if you grow from 10-15 in one quarter, that’s 50% growth – grow from 15-20 the next quarter, that’s only 30% growth because you have a larger base) … we had monster growth in Q4 (around 6%), then 3.7% growth in Q2 – great numbers, but that kind of pace would be difficult to maintain without businesses hiring and consumers spending.

this is moderate growth, but it is still a 4th quarter of growth and that is what is important.

• Link
• Report this comment

We’ve warmed, GASP!, a WHOLE DEGREE!

So tell me Warmers, since congress is essentially going to do nothing about greenhouse gasses, how warm are we going to get? And how “devastating” is this going to be?

In fact, since we have been warming for 50 years, how much more dangerous is it living in today’s world vs. 50 years ago? And since we have seen a 40% decrease in phytoplankton in the last 60 years, surely there would be signs of “devastating” consequences in our ecosystem? But, alas, no. Life today continues on pretty much the same as it did 50 or 60 years ago.

I too have children (4). What scares me more and, I believe, would be more dangerous for my children are the “solutions” that you Warmers propose for this looming disaster that is always conveniently down the road. It’s like curing someone’s cold by giving them cancer. It’s madness. And more and more scientists are saying so.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sorry Jay ………. that was #2. Need a fresh thread when you get time.

• Link
• Report this comment

Your “workhorse” is about to give his daily speech, from Detroit this time.

• Link
• Report this comment

Actually Jay… many of the things they’ve predicted are happening FASTER.

Scout@ 12:06pm
EXACTLY! (why bother trying to protect the earth when there’s already a “plan” to do away with it)? Well that’s at least what “Peter” said anyway…right?

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno is correct. And….AmVet is extravagantly carried away as usual;.

Universities are staffed by scientists and other wise men. But universities are not the only places for observations by wise men.. There are any number of scientists who do not believe in the Current Human Cause Damage to Eenvironment/ Earth Warming Etc. Theories.

One of them is Stephen Wilde who is a Fellow at the Royal Meteorlogical Society since 1968. He and many others dismiss the major parts of such theories. Go to Google and you will find the names of many more scientists who are not wasting their time on improbable theories.

It would seem that those who can receive funds or make money on enviro adjustments are the ones who prefer to believe Human Global warming and such. They merrily attack those who supply us with our energy needs. Al Gore is one of them. There are others..

• Link
• Report this comment

RW – I’m sure you miss….

USinUK,

You really have no future in the mind reading biz. Time to move on dontchathink?

• Link
• Report this comment

jay, if you haven’t yet figured out what a scam artist, Al Gore is, and has always been, there’s nothing I can do to convince you.

Watched an awesome show on The History Channel last night…How The Earth Was Made — The Ring of Fire

Volcanic substructs on the ocean floor spewing forth temperatures above 700 degrees? Talk about oceans heating up? There’s actually sea creatures that thrive near those fissures. I’ve bookmarked a slew of sites so I can find out more. Fascinating stuff…FASCINATING!!!!

The Ring of Fire is bringing about continental drift that’ll push southern California into Alaska. The deadly earthquakes that devastate millions of lives are actually the earth’s natural rebuilding process.

I’ll go with tectonic shifts ’cause Al Gore has always rubbed me the wrong way. The only man creating global warming is he.

A little light reading: The Delicate Balance Fraud in Global Warming Propoganda

USUK:

I’m not looking for a new gig.

• Link
• Report this comment

Couple of thoughts………

For discussion lets say Jay is 100% correct and global warming is about to destroy the human race. Does anyone really, honestly, think they can get the various competing political, social & religious interest groups together & solve the problem?

Extinction events are not an unusual occurrence on planet Earth. They have happened fairly often since the creation/development (you pick the word) of life on the planet. 444 million years ago the Ordovician extinction destroyed most life on the planet. 360 million years ago the late Devonian extinction destroyed about 70% of all life on the planet. 251 million years ago the Permian-Triassic extinction destroyed 96% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial species. 200 million years ago the Triassic-Jurassic extinction destroyed 20 % of all marine life and all large amphibians. 65 million years ago the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction destroyed 50% of all species. And so it goes.

So now science is saying we are on the edge of another “event”. The question is, is it an “extinction” event? Unfortunately, or fortunately if that is your mindset, we will not know until it is too late to make a difference.

The problem is a majority of 6.8 billion people must be convinced. Some do not believe anything said by anyone in authority. Some will say it is the “will of god” and accept their fate. Some will blame the liberals or conservatives, whichever they dislike.

But I assure you nothing will be done.

Hey, I managed to write this without expressing an opinion. Wow!

• Link
• Report this comment

The greatest tragedy of the Obama presidency — pissing away all his political capital and a 2 year time period with Executive and Legislative Branches firmly in Dem control on …. healthcare reform instead of saving the freakin’ planet!!

• Link
• Report this comment

I think USinUK should write the economic news for AJC.com. Seems their thoughts of progress are not the same. Twist and turn and get what you want. Then say that it is GOOD!!

• Link
• Report this comment

OK kidz, time for me to head to the forest. This is perhaps the hundredth or so AGW thread here and you gullible fear mongers don’t appear to have advanced your position one iota.

Later!

• Link
• Report this comment

Byll:

Thanks! YOU’RE in my favorites too.

(IW&SH)

• Link
• Report this comment

During the 9th & 10th centuries the Vikings reached Iceland and Greenland during the milder condition that prevailed during Medieval Warm Period. Norse settlers arrived in Iceland in the 9th and Greenland in the 10th century with an agricultural practice based on milk, meat and fibre from cattle, sheep, and goats. The settlers were attracted by green fields and a relatively good climate and driven there by population pressures in Scandinavia. They were able to sail to Iceland and Greenland as well as Labrador because of a decrease in sea ice in the North Atlantic.

At that time, the inner regions of the long fjords where the settlements where located were very different from today. Excavations show that there were considerable birch woods with trees up to 4 to 6 meters high in the area around the inner parts of the Tunuliarfik- and Aniaaq-fjords, the central area of the Eastern settlement, and the hills were grown with grass and willow brushes.

Today it is covered in ice and snow.

As well as our columnist being covered in slobber.

• Link
• Report this comment

Eyes squeezed shut, forefingers inserted firmly into ears, loudly chanting the slogans they’ve been taught to chant so that no portion of actual scientific knowledge is allowed to penetrate.

Yep, and smart enough not to place our thermometers into the path of heat sources like air conditioner exhausts or kookman’s mouth, a simple step necessary to knowing what the actual temperature is.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty
12:39 pm

If one does not express his caring and willingness to assist, how would the other know to think of him when the moment arrives?

You have got to get up pretty darn early to outwork ol’ Wyld Byll.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh boo hoo, AmVet, and would you ike to compare university credentials and degrees? Or would you just like to mouth off as you usually do ?.

What was it you sell? AmWay or Avon? Besides baloney, that is.. I wish you all good luck. But you need a new hobby.

• Link
• Report this comment

I fully understand that by posting this, I will again provoke all of those who are emotionally and politically invested in PROMOTING global warming to assume the position.

We all know what the position is: Eyes squeezed shut, forefingers inserted firmly into ears, loudly chanting the slogans they’ve been taught to chant so that no portion of actual scientific knowledge is allowed to penetrate.

I suggest all memebers of the Church of Global Warmists pass the plate at their services, collect all the money they can, so that maybe, possibly, they can reduce the temp of the earth by .04 degrees C in the next 50 yrs. Just do it without ‘OPM’

• Link
• Report this comment

Global warming is real. If that were not the case, Canada would be under hundreds of feet of ice right now.

What’s in debate is the amount, if any, humans are causing a greater variation in temperatures.

I think it’s reasonable to believe humans have some impact.

If you believe that we are the major cause of global warming, you have to then advocate:
- the reduction of about 90% of the vehicles on the planet.
- Eliminate red meat from everyone’s diet, and a drastic reduction on animal farming worldwide
- A reduction in electrical output at least 70-80%
- no paved roads and a drastic cutback of urban areas.
- Oh, and a reduction of the population on a scale that would make Chairman Mao jealous.

Because to go back to the days where humans had “little impact” on the environment will take much more than hybrid cars (wonder where you get that electrical power?), windmills and locally-grown produce.

Kyoto is just a tiny drop in the bucket of what we’ll start to need. Not to mention to politely ask countries like China, India and Russia to scale back their industrial system to turn-of-the-century output levels. Which I’m sure they’ll be happy to comply with.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, you need to forward this blog to president Obama so he understands the severity of the problem. Once that happens he can appoint former congressman Rangel as a special envoy to China. Then Rangel and Hillary can go over there and convince the Chinese to immediately and permanently stop all their greehnouse gas production (they passed the US as the number one polluter). Another problem solved by the mighty, mighty Dems!

• Link
• Report this comment

Do we really really care for our kids ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmcYTAaajDI

• Link
• Report this comment

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr/Bruno/Jay:

Wyld Byll ………. you did a great job ……. I’ll just expound a little:

(1) Why won’t God heal amputees?

He did in the N.T. when he healed a “maimed” man (as opposed to “lame” man) …….. Greek for missing a limb.

(2) Why are there so many starving people in our world?

Because there is a devil.

(3) Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?

“For all have sinned” …….. no one is innocent.

(4) Why does the Bible contain so much anti-Science nonsense?

It doesn’t. It was never written to be a book of science. However, in Job it says “He hangeth the earth upon nothing” at a time when the world’s scientists believed the opposite.

(5) Why is God such a strong proponent of slavery in the Bible?

He allowed it out of the hardness of man’s heart as He did divorce. He “allows” us to do many sinful things.

(6) Why do bad things happen to good people?

Because there is a devil and we live in a fallen world.

(7) Why didn’t any of Jesus’s miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence?

Because we would worship the “object” rather than the “Creator”.

(8) How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?

He is in my heart instead.

(9) Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

He doesn’t. That is only symbolic that we may remember and worship Him.

(10) Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?

Because we are sinners too (just forgiven) and maybe the devil works on us even harder so as to confuse you even more.

• Link
• Report this comment

Whether it’s our fault or a natural cycle matters not. It’s happening and we must be prepared. I’ll make this easy for y’all to understand in two words.

RUSSIAN ROULETTE! Get it?

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno :

1 Corinthians 2:14
“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

1 Corinthians 3:19
“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”

• Link
• Report this comment

Climate change means both more snow in February sometimes and hotter heatwaves sometimes and sea level rises slowly creeping upon you most the times. But why it doesn’t mean people get any smarter, is beyond me, like the ones who still insist there’s a face on Mars.

Port Angeles, WA

• Link
• Report this comment

Disgusted:

Are you talking about Mother Teresa? Billy Graham?

• Link
• Report this comment

I for one don’t deny that the globe may be warming (or at least that the climate may be changing), nor even that man may have exacerbated this trend. And I am willing to do my part to help minimize my impact: I telecommute when I can, I minimize my driving (e.g. walk to lunch when I’m at the office), we have a garden, we compost, I drive a car with decent gas mileage (albeit 11 years old–trading the footprint to produce a new car vs the slightly better mileage I could get with my next car, which will be a Jetta TDI), and we’re planning for our retirement house to be as off-grid capable a possible.

On the other hand, the earth has gone through severe climate shifts even within the last few thousand years–none of which were precipitated by man-made pollutants. 11,500 years ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was covered with 1-mile thick ice sheets. Yet that ice all melted. Why? Was the ice an aberration (no) or was the warming an aberration (no)? What is the earth’s “correct” temperature? If the earth was cooling and glaciers were expanding and the seas retreating (as ice build-up captured more and more water) would these same scientists and politicians be recommending that we burn more stuff to put more CO2 into the atmosphere? Why is water vapor–the #1 greenhouse gas by a 7-1 margin–never mentioned? What caused the medieval warm period when olives last grew in England and Vikings last lived on their shores of Greenland and silver mine sin Sweden were not covered by glaciers? What caused the subsequent Little Ice Age that saw the Thames freezing solid every winter for 200 years, and farms and villages in northern latitudes were destroyed by expanding glaciers?

At Copenhagen, the AGW crowd lamented sea-level rise: “Just two years ago, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted a worst-case scenario rise of 59 centimetres. But the accelerated melting of ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland caused by faster warming means the worst case is now put at 1.2 metres. ” When? By 2200… Current satellite data going back to 1993 has sea-levels rising about 3mm per year. The average, based on a set of tidal measurements over the last 220 years is 2mm/yr. About 8500 years ago the largest lake in the world, Lake Agassiz, which once covered almost half-a-million square kilometers (about 180,000 square miles) of central Canada simply drained, virtually overnight in the geologic timescale, into the Arctic ocean. “The last major shift in drainage occurred about 8,400 calendar years before present (about 7,700 14C years before present). The melting of remaining Hudson Bay ice caused lake Agassiz to drain nearly completely. This final drainage of Lake Agassiz contributed an estimated 1 to 3 meters to total post-glacial global sea level rise. Much of the final drainage may have occurred in a very short time, in two or one events, perhaps taking as short as a year.” In India, we find that “Useful data on sea level fluctuations have been collcted during the present expedition. Three wavecut benches were encountered at depths of 11.22 metres, 4.6 metres and 1.34 metres. The proto-historic city was built on the lowest bench, the early historic and the medieval townships on the higher benches. The island of Bet Dwarka, 30 km north of Dwarka, which is also famous as the pleasure resort of Sri Krishna, was connected with the mainland between Otha and Aramda. The reclamation referred to in ancient texts was made in this zone when the sea level was lower 3,500 years ago.” The sea has risen 120m over the last 20,000 years, with virtually all of that rise taking before about 5000 years ago. All without the help of man.

I’m not against “doing something” and certainly agree that pollution is bad. I’m just not willing to agree that the proposed so-called cap-and-trade legislation is going to do anything about pollution, and if it does have a minor impact on pollution, will it do so without crippling our already wounded economy. And further, I think that the cap-and-trade bill expects some magic technology to spring into being simply because the bill mandates it–how else to get 65% reduction in emissions from coal-fired plants (except to shut them down). Why not mandate 500MPG cars (and $1M/year unemployment benefits to stimulate the economy)? So while I’m willing to “do something”, I’m not willing to put my faith in a demonstrably ineffective Government, nor am I willing to live in a cave, naked and eating dirt (but my carbon footprint would be pretty low if I did), nor am I willing to cripple our economy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, I am really curious about this of you and all the other people who have been spoonfed Global Warming propaganda.

You say that you want to ensure your children have a better place to live……So what are you doing to help out? Are you walking to work? Have you stopped using electricity in your house and at work? Are you sitting around completely naked because everything we wear was produced because of process you say cause global warming? How come you are on the internet? Doesn’t that use a lot of energy to keep going? What are you eating? I sure hope it is only things that are grown in your back yard.

Tell you what…when you start living a life where you are not performing any harm to the environment, then maybe I will consider your point of view. Until then you hypocrital, egocentric, Al Gore wannabe, start looking at the real reason for global warming…..the SUN!!!!!

Also, where exactly did this data come from? Did it include all of the missing data that was mysteriously ignored. Hmmmm……. The conclusions of Global Warming are only as good as the data that was collected and the models applied.

• Link
• Report this comment

Let’s talk about something relevant, like mongrels on the loose.
It’ BS and has been faked, lied about, it’s a crock. No reliable scientific proof or honest scientific board has come forward with irrefutable data stating definite global warning. Numbers can be manipulated to show what ever you desire. No benchmark has been established that proves global warming is nothing more than the cyclic changes on earth. And if it is true charging money for it or what ever the hell you libs want to do is not going to correct it. Remember the R12 refrigerant joke? It eating away the ozone layer. It was replaced with the much “safer” R134. Found out later R12’s take over of the ozone was not true. OOP’s. Let’s move on to something that matters, like why is Granny Godz hair blue?

• Link
• Report this comment

Mongrel Chaser, there are mongrels among us. With the exception of Elisabeth yesterday, obama wasn’t the only dog on that show.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yeah Scout, but if there is no oil, what is a Country Boy gonna run his pick em up truck on? Cow flatulance?

• Link
• Report this comment

You commies made me care about nuclear winter back in the day. Really you did. And I was scared, then. But no more.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s a big conspiracy. I read the emails. Boy did we ever nail you commies on that one!

• Link
• Report this comment

You want us all to live like Manhattanites. I don’t want to go to work on some icky subway.

• Link
• Report this comment

What he ACTUALLY said is: “Not one single scientific institution of renown anywhere in the world denies AGW”

Of course, any institution which might provide a counter-example will be decried as not being an “institution of renown”–i.e. legitimacy will necessarily include supporting your theory. Evidenced by the response to the one scientist counter-example due to the misreading of the challenge.

• Link
• Report this comment

Good article. The fact is that CO2 and CH4( methane gas) are being added by us in very very large amounts and that that addition is having a severe impact on both cliamte and the oceans worldwide. In the Gulf of Mexico the methane caused the exposion and it ahs been pouring out in massive numbers since April 20th. The time to think through and come up with better idea what we are doing in this country regarding energy is now.
The race for the new clean energy is now and we are stuck in the 1950-60s mode.

• Link
• Report this comment

How about the George C Marshall Institute (Science for Better Public Policy)?

Or this? 43 Fellows of the premier British scientific Institution, the Royal Society? [www dot timesonline dot co dot uk/tol/news/environment/article7139407.ece]

Britain’s premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures.

The Royal Society has appointed a panel to rewrite the 350-year-old institution’s official position on global warming. It will publish a new “guide to the science of climate change” this summer. The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause.

The society appears to have conceded that it needs to correct previous statements. It said: “Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect — there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements.” This contradicts a comment by the society’s previous president, Lord May, who was once quoted as saying: “The debate on climate change is over.”

• Link
• Report this comment

http://www.ajc.com/news/athens-creek-turns-blue-581836.html

Oh… but when that SAME blue die goes into a septic tank near one’s creek…or say someone living on lake lanier… all the fish, turtle, wildlife, etc. are safe… sure they are. That’s why when they test water from the lake then can basically find every known pharmaceutical substance made in the past 20 years in their samples… sure those septic systems and do water filtering plants do a GREAT job keep our water supply clean.

remember…what goes IN also comes out… and I guess if you’re drinking filtered lake water…back in again. Cheap way for some to get viagra I guess.

• Link
• Report this comment

M Percy,
He’s right…most cannot survive in a situation where “if you can’t eat it or shoot it” ..it’s worthless.

• Link
• Report this comment

Brother B, you know I’m pulling for you 100% this afternoon.

But this misstatement is palin (HA! A typo I’ll leave in since it works!) ridiculous. Reedickyouless!

“AmVet claimed that every legitimate Scientist alive today are all in agreement re: anthropogenic global warming.”

Dusty, your edumacation is non pareil, I’m sure. And boy, does it show!

neo-C, “have seen no proof that ANY government “solution” will reduce greenhouse gas, or reverse global warming”

Nor have I, but that is not my point. My point is the automatic gainsaying of the validity of the theory by those who are unread and intentionally ignorant.

To your point, of course, nobody in Washington has the sack to take this problem on it a significant way. Like HCR, Cap & Trade will end up being another vast giveaway to the imperious, unindictable polluters without changing their behavior much at all.

BTW, are you all thrilled that BP is gonna stiff Uncle Sam $10,000,000,000.00 by “writing off” the cleanup. Those poor struggling fat cats may see their bonuses drop down into the single digit millions this year.

But I digress. In this scenario, it takes Canadians to come up with REAL solutions. See British Columbia…

• Link
• Report this comment

M Percy:

What % of San Francisco’s residents would be prepared to survive say 5 days without food/water/shelter in the event of a large earthquake?

• Link
• Report this comment

Of course, any institution which might provide a counter-example will be decried as not being an “institution of renown”–i.e. legitimacy will necessarily include supporting your theory.

So do you have a list of these quasi-renown institutions, M. Percy?

Lets take a gander. I’d love to see it. And we’ll determine if they are at the level of those that are universally recognized as being so. (You know the names and acronyms – the real ones.)

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet, How about you? How are you making a difference? You post here quite frequently. Don’t you realize that you are destroying the environment with your posts? Thanks for ruining the globe. Jay’s kids really appreciates your contribution.

• Link
• Report this comment

OF… about 45%-60% of my electricity is generated by solar… so I think a few google searches are included. This fall were adding more capacity to it…

The “difference” between you and I OF? I do in fact CARE and actually DO something to try and limit my use of fossil fuels…on the other hand…you couldn’t care less (and most likely go out of your way to overindulge and over-consume)…

When it comes to lifestyle choices…you have no right to sit and judge. Go vegan and we’ll talk.

• Link
• Report this comment

We know that at one time there were trees at the north pole. Then there was an ice age. Now the temperature has risen about 1c. Seems to me (as Most scientists believe) that it is cyclical. Fat al has corrupted jays mind and he probably wears a helmet in the house. The facts he gives are insipid and prove Nothing. They do not even “indicate” a trend. 30 years is certainly no indication of anything. Take off your helmet jay, enjoy life.

• Link
• Report this comment

What am i doing about climate change…………Lets see, my computer and printer are energy star rated as well as all of my appliances and hot water heater. Drive a Prius and i combine trips to save even more fuel and thinking about going solar this fall. Also , we use energy saving light bulbs in all of our lamps and ceiling fans. Not only is it doing something about climate change , we are sure saving a lot of money and keeping the money out of the hands of people that want to kill us.

• Link
• Report this comment

We also keep our thermostat at 76 degrees and run our ceiling fans. Even if you dont believe in climate change, think of all the money you save!

• Link
• Report this comment

Ohhhhhh i forgot , ya’ll dont like talking about how if you go ” green” how much “green” you actually save.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gee Larry, I do all that too and even more. I keep my house at about 78 during the summer and around 68 during the winter. All of my stuff in energy star. And if I do go somewhere and I am not carpooling, I combine all of my trips too. I guess I am better than you. Looks like you need to start making some more lifestyles changes to catch up to me. Hey, maybe we can all do this to make up for Al Gore’s reckless destruction of the environment. Besides the hot air coming from his mouth, he does more damage in one trip on his private jet and driving his large SUV around than I would do in 100 years. Ah…but nobody ever says anything to him, do they?

• Link
• Report this comment

Saul, I forgot…just because you have allegedly done all of these things to save the environment, why do you think it is okay to offset all of them by sitting on the internet posting stuff all day long? You should be leading by example. In actuality, you are nothing more than a hypocrite.

• Link
• Report this comment

Am Vet, You just created more carbon than it takes to make 2 cups of tea. Great job. Way to ruin the environment pal. Jay’s kids appreciate it.

• Link
• Report this comment

OF… that’s where your faulty is logic and I feel sorry for YOU and yours. Feel free to pollute all you want to… yes there will be those of us who offset your recklessness.

Know what I miss? Watching idiots have to spend $100 or more to fill up their crappy over-sized tonka trucks when gas was $5 a gallon back in 2008. You spent WAY more of your money…and companies run by the friends of Cheney and Bush made record profits (as did their Saudi Friends)… it’s was the last administration’s “Last Hurrah” and payback to their buddies. Don’t worry… when the gas will go back to being over $5 a gallon when oil goes back over $100 a barrel again. I believe it SHOULD be $7 or $8 a gallon… let all of those oil companies making record profits “hire” more people… because like those tax cuts…those profits didn’t create jobs… they only created additional wealth for the already rich.

OF… enjoy spending more for things and polluting the environment as much as you can. I hope you have kids… because it’s not the “deficit” which is going to harm them as much as the crappy air they breath and poisoned water they drink…all of which you’ll have one day “left” to them.

• Link
• Report this comment

OF, don’t forget, Al Gore is a hypocrite because he didn’t personally row a sea kayak to Norway to pick up his Nobel Prize.

(And he’s fat.)

• Link
• Report this comment

I can understand some mild skepticism on the subject given the fluctuations in the past and the uncertainty of climate science. The question is just how much are you willing to risk to avoid the change to alternative fuels. Do we really want to play Russian roulette with the planet????
“Ashes, ashes all fall down”

• Link
• Report this comment

Saul, Hypocritical Saul. I guarantee that I do a better job of helping the environment than you do pal. I don’t have any of those gas guzzlers that you are talking about and I do my part. I just happen to be smart enough to realize that this global warming is a sham. It is funny that you talk about paying more in gas in the future. You do realize that we will pay more if any of this global warming legislation garbage gets through Congress. It’s kind of sad that the government(AKA taxpayers) invested so much in GM and they came up with a $42,000 electric car that gets you 40 miles on a charge. How much does it really save the environment? How much electricity is burned when you plug that thing in? How much extra gas will now be burned when you have to get a tow truck out there because it ran out of electricity? I am thinking that maybe I should open up my own tow-truck company because it could be a great investment when enviro-whackos such as yourself are on the side of the road. 2nd thought, we all know this car will be a colossal failure. Nobody’s going to buy this POS….certainly not a million people like Obama said.

• Link
• Report this comment

I guarantee that I do a better job of helping the environment than you do pal.

Says the person that just said that others on here should lead by example and not use the internet in order to save the energy needed to boil a cup of water. What about my solar water heater. And I don’t even have to fault Obama for it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Saul, great a good bit of power for your computer comes from the sun. Okay….but the internet isn’t powered by YOUR solar panels, is it? Nope. You contribute to global warming. Great job. You have used more carbon in 1 hour than it takes to make 3 pots of water. Way to ruin the environment. Jay’s kids appreciate it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Burning Bush, I am not one of the people out there saying that man is causing global warming. The sad part is that I probably still do more than these other clowns.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tell it to the residents of San Diego.

“The average monthly temperature, so far, is 65.9 degrees at San Diego’s Lindbergh Field, almost five degrees below normal. This could turn out to be the coolest July since 1933. At 2 p.m., today’s temperature at Lindbergh was 68, or nine degrees below average for this time of year.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Actually, much of the power used on the Internet is just plain old light, LASER light. Photons beaming through a thin piece of glass smaller in diameter than a hair. The same photons that come from sol.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, I just received my 73% increase in my health insurance premium. It looks like I am, for the first time in my life, going to join the ranks of the uninsured. Enjoy being young–I guarantee you won’t enjoy growing old.

• Link
• Report this comment

If Al Gore stopped getting massages, how much massage oil could be saved?

• Link
• Report this comment

BADA BING

July 30th, 2010
3:38 pm

Not only that, but think of how many women’s reputations would be saved.

• Link
• Report this comment

What if I eat all the cows creating methane? Would that help at all?

• Link
• Report this comment

Burning Bush, Way to use more carbon than it takes to heat a pot of water.
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ece

You can find this information pretty much anywhere on the web. All you have to do is use up more carbon than it takes to heat a pot of water. Thanks for ruining the environment. Jay’s kids appreciate it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, I just received my 73% increase in my health insurance premium. It looks like I am, for the first time in my life, going to join the ranks of the uninsured.

I’m certain that all the people opposing any federal healthcare reform will be happy to chip in to help you pay your premium.

Or maybe not.

• Link
• Report this comment

OF
Glad you weren’t around when Orville and Wilbur made their first flight.

• Link
• Report this comment

Wealth redistribution has not fixed poverty

Western Europe does not exist. Well it does but all of its citizens are miserable and wish they could be Americans, where at leas they know they’re free.

Personally, I’m tired of carrying other people on my back to the tune of the proposed 39% tax rate

This is the rate most conservative bloggers will pay. From the first dollar earned going forward, because Bacrock Osama hates you all very much and is a mean man.

• Link
• Report this comment

Don’t Foreget – cap and tax is a wealth redistribution sceme under the guise of a climate change program.

• Link
• Report this comment

mwaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

“Economy Slows, Momentum Grows to Extend Bush Tax Cuts”

Don’t you know Barry and Joe are ecstatic to hear this.

• Link
• Report this comment

Southern Comfort – I’ll take those evil corporatoins any day over Obama. Every thing he does has wealth redistribution hid in it somewhere. The latest is 98 billion from the stimulus program shifted to the Department of Education. Use your imagination on where they will spend it. It won’t be to support the voucher program.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lastly, wealth redistribution is not evil when it heads upward. Only the other way around.

• Link
• Report this comment

JR

I never said they were evil. They are simply doing what people accuse Obama of trying to do. Outsourced jobs are not coming back. They also take icome that could be earned by someone here and given to another country. That’s why GM, for instance, is selling more cars in China than the US. They have jobs and income. We don’t.

As far as government spending, I do not have to use my imagination. I work for the government, so I have an idea of how things will go.

• Link
• Report this comment

“wealth redistribution is not evil when it heads upward. Only the other way around.”

Stands, I agree. All of it should be stopped, period. No more food stamps/welfare on the low end and no more farm/manufacturing subsidies on the other end. The government has made a mess of it.

• Link
• Report this comment

JohnnyReb

July 30th, 2010
3:52 pm
Don’t Foreget – cap and tax is a wealth redistribution sceme under the guise of a climate change program.

Johnny, ya gotta quit using automobile radiators for your still. A lot of those fittings are soldered with lead solder. It leaches into the hootch!

• Link
• Report this comment

Don’t forget. Let’s see Wright brother made their flight in 1903. By 1919, somebody flew across the Atlantic Ocean. We have had electric cars since 1891. The one I referred to in 1911 traveled 244 miles on one charge. Now, we are supposed to be excited about going 40 miles on one charge??? If we are able to make so many advances since the Wright Brothers, how come the electric car has pretty gone backwards in its development. Face it, nobody is going to buy this thing, especially when it costs 42K, goes 40 miles on one 4 hour charge, likely will cost more to maintain than a regular car(if it is anything like the hybrids), and will not really have a great impact on the environment when you factor in that electricity has to be made somehow. The stupidity demonstrated by you guys is absolutely amazing. You sure you guys weren’t on the development team of this electric car that does worse than one created 100 years ago?

• Link
• Report this comment

Yacht A leaves RI on Wednesday at an average speed of 22 knots, heading SSE for the Bahamas. Private Jet B leaves NC Saturday heading SE at an average speed of 350 MPH on a line intersecting Yacht A in a marina located in Freeport, the Bahamas. At what time Sunday will martinis be served, and how many happy endings will Al have had?

• Link
• Report this comment

“I’m certain that all the people opposing any federal healthcare reform will be happy to chip in to help you pay your premium.”

I thought health care reform passed (the greatest achievement of the Obama presidency) and our premiums weren’t going to go up!

• Link
• Report this comment

As a Canadian living on the eastern side of the country, I truly appreciate global warming. Our winters are much milder, but with more snow, and our summers are getting better all the time. Canada is one of the rare countries that won’t have too many negative impacts due to global warming. Most of our climate warming deniers are from Alberta (the oil patch) and are busy warming the earth with the process of oil extraction in the tar sands of that province. Our Conservative federal government is mostly from that province too. This will explain my country’s stance on green issues and efforts (non existent) to reduce our carbon footprint, for that I apologize.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh Saul….I sure hope you aren’t using cell phones too. Throw that into the carbon that you use while blogging and you are really destroying the environment. Thanks. Jay’s kids appreciate it.

• Link
• Report this comment

So, it’s been proven that the Earth is warming. Now prove that the doings of man has caused it. I get the impression that some people think that without man the Earth’s climate would remain just as it is forever and ever, and that to prove we are causing the Earth to warm all that’s necessary is to prove that the Earth is warming.

• Link
• Report this comment

I don;t care if you all die, I’m not paying for a carbon tax.

• Link
• Report this comment

Climate change advocate or climate change skeptic; if you’re trying to shout down the other side or out-witty them, please take a break and read on. One irrefutable fact remains; we have one planet to sustain us and if we screw it up, there is no restart button. C’mon, anything so magnificent that has provided humanity with everything it needs to grow and prosper deserves an incredible amount of care and attention. If you need reminding why, consider what’s at stake.
So first, those of you who simply think scrutinizing the health indicators of Earth is a waste of time, please remain in the shallow end of the gene pool. Natural selection will be along shortly to see you. The rest of us, please maintain a very healthy distance because it won’t be pretty.
Money-worshipers, yes, we know who you are and nobody is fooled why you back the do-nothing agenda. Look, misdirects like ‘we don’t have records going back far enough’ or just sticking your head in the sand, are not sound scientific fact or method. And we’ve got some bad news. Gordon Gecko was wrong. Greed is not good and you have to give back. Symbiotic is the name of the game, not parasitic. Your life philosophy of “me first, screw everybody else and the horse they rode in on” is incompatible with long-term existence on this spaceship Mother Earth. If this is “intolerable”, please step towards the exit over there next to Attila the Hun and Bernie Madoff, as Mr. B.L. Zebub will be along shortly to take you to your final destination.
Social engineers, your attention please. Don’t forget there has to be room at the table for everyone, even the devout capitalist. Yes, thanks for reminding us we have a soul and we are our brother’s keeper but it is wrong to make them or anyone else give up their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Wealth redistribution has it tolerance limits and you know the story about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Don’t get carried away, calm down, then try running your own business; that will sober you up.
Environmental extremists…okay, we understand you’ve got good motives but somewhere the Constitution and international laws got pushed aside and, well, if you don’t watch it you’ll find yourself in the slammer making new friends. Then it will set in that you aren’t saving the rest of us working slobs with families, mortgages and modest dreams, from anything. And there is no reality show contract enroute either. So please practice some self-restraint and stay seated.
Everyone, we have to create a working forum and it’s not just about climate change; it’s about human extinction minimization. Truthfully, unless you think the Dinosaur and Caveman Museum in Kentucky is a really great piece of scientific display, you know man almost didn’t make it several times during his history and we don’t have a contract that says we are exempt in the future. And I think I speak for most of us when I say I’d like to chip into any effort that improves our odds and that it is indisputable that sitting on one’s hands doesn’t factor well into survival or contingency planning no matter how good your argument.
So some ground rules to play by; Leave at home the egos, religion, unbridaled passions, financial agendas, egalitarianism, sarcasm, and political agendas; bring open minds, real modesty, cross referenced scientific fact, patience, great listening skills and brotherly love with a desire that man earn a sustainable place in the future.
Take the plunge, get off the sidelines and pitch in. It’s your friggin’ planet. Give it at least the attention you do your car maintenance schedule and I think we’ll have a better than average chance our grandchildren will be around to enjoy this planet, not curse us, when we’re old.*****

• Link
• Report this comment

http://science.howstuffworks.com/climate-skeptic.htm

• Link
• Report this comment

A 40 percent drop in phytoplankton (since the mid-20th century) is truly an ENORMOUS decline in the ocean’s most fundamental element of the food-chain. If this trend continues we will surely start seeing huge disruptions to our food-supply along with staggering losses of biomass throughout our oceanic ecosystems. I honestly think that THIS IS THE WAKE-UP CALL we have all been dreading and trying our best to avoid. I implore policy-makers world-wide to read this report (which I’m sure they will – since it’s published in nothing less than Nature) and take swift action. The world cannot afford to wait!

• Link
• Report this comment

One unusual side effect is that here in northern California we are bucking the trend. Every month so far this year has averaged below normal temperatures with may records broken for both overnight lows and low daily high temperatures. Also the latest day in the year to reach 80 degrees, etc., etc.

How anyone can look at the pictures of shrinking glaciers and the arctic sea ice data and still deny global warming is beyond me.

The data and graphs in this article can’t be any clearer.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m sorry but your graphs show me that you have no credibility. Look at the scales used for your graphs. The ocean has risen two whole inches and the temperature has gone up about a degree in the last century. They are misleading and uninformed people who don’t look beyond the lines going up will believe there has been a drastic temperature change.

And even if we are causing global warming, from everything I have read, there is not much we can do about it. Do you think China and India are going to suddenly adopt more expensive green technologies now that their economies are starting to grow? From everything I have read, most of the “damage” has already be done.

I really don’t get what people who keep screaming “We’re causing global warming! We’re causing global warming!” are trying to accomplish.

• Link
• Report this comment

Global warming isn’t the only thing that is causing this rapid decline in sea life. The sky high levels of plastic and garbage in the ocean, in particular, the North Pacific Gyre, are greatly endangering our marine wildlife. Ocean Voyage Institute (a nonprofit) will going to be going out to clean up all of this trash, however, they need your help! Please check out http://www.dreamsailraffle.com or post their website on your faccebook page.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, the major problem with the climate change argument is the insistence of those involved that CO2 is the enemy. It is not. The absorption spectrum for CO2 suggests that CO2 is incapable of doing what everyone says it’s doing – namely, changing the climate (basic logarithms show that this is the case). The CO2 discussion has everyone focused on industrialized nations who emit high levels of CO2 (which is actually a necessary gas for plant life).

The real culprit is methane and other organic gasses, most of which are produced in the third world and non-industrialized nations. These gasses are 20x worse than anything CO2 could do. Nitrogen is another issue that, for whatever reason, the mainstream media on climate change is not discussing. CO2 is a red herring.

• Link
• Report this comment

I find it ironic that we are supposed to believe “The past is the key to the present”. Millions of years of gradualism in earth history. But then drop everything because the temperature of the earth raised less than 1 degree last century. Which is it? Millions of years of eveolution or rapid cataclysmic changes? The gov’t lies and the science behind global warming or climate change or whatever new label you want to give it is gov’t paid. I wouldn’t even care so much, except that the legislative solution to all of this involves world regulation and a 500 year regression in the progress of man. Silly me, I like to drive and read by light bulb. I like a warm house in the winter and a cool house in the summer. I like all these things as inexpensively as I can get them. I appologize to no one. I have a 12oo sq ft home and Mr Gore has several beach from mansions. If he’s so worried why does he live on the beaches he says are going to get wiped out?

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] US Government Report SaysNational GeographicThe Associated Press -The Guardian -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)all 566 news [...]

• Link
• Report this comment