A ‘myth’ is killing coral reefs across the planet

A “myth,” a mere “theory,” is killing coral reefs across the planet.

From the New York Times:

“This year’s extreme heat is putting the world’s coral reefs under such severe stress that scientists fear widespread die-offs, endangering not only the richest ecosystems in the ocean but also fisheries that feed millions of people.

From Thailand to Texas, corals are reacting to the heat stress by bleaching, or shedding their color and going into survival mode. Many have already died, and more are expected to do so in coming months. Computer forecasts of water temperature suggest that corals in the Caribbean may undergo drastic bleaching in the next few weeks.

What is unfolding this year is only the second known global bleaching of coral reefs. Scientists are holding out hope that this year will not be as bad, over all, as 1998, the hottest year in the historical record, when an estimated 16 percent of the world’s shallow-water reefs died. But in some places, including Thailand, the situation is looking worse than in 1998.

Scientists say the trouble with the reefs is linked to climate change. For years they have warned that corals, highly sensitive to excess heat, would serve as an early indicator of the ecological distress on the planet caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases.

“I am significantly depressed by the whole situation,” said Clive Wilkinson, director of the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, an organization in Australia that is tracking this year’s disaster.

Here’s the picture globally as of September, 2010, according to scientists at NOAA:

* The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for August 2010 was the third warmest on record at 16.2°C (61.2°F), which is 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F). August 1998 is the warmest August on record and 2009 is the second warmest.
* The August worldwide land surface temperature was 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F)—the second warmest August on record, behind 1998.
* The worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.50°C (0.90°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.4°F) and tied with 1997 as the sixth warmest August on record.
* The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for June–August 2010 was the second warmest on record, behind 1998, at 16.2°C (61.3°F), which is 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F).
* The June–August worldwide land surface temperature was 1.00°C (1.80°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F)—the warmest June–August on record, surpassing the previous June–August record anomaly of 0.92°C (1.66°F) set in 1998.
* The worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.51°C (0.92°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F) and was the fifth warmest June–August on record.
* For January–August 2010, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.7°C (58.5°F) tied with 1998 as the warmest January–August period on record. This value is 0.67°C (1.21°F) above the 20th century average.

Meanwhile, out in California, the Sacramento Bee reports:

An oil company headed by conservative billionaires David and Charles Koch has contributed $1 million to the campaign to suspend the state’s landmark climate change law.

Flint Hills Resources does not have any oil interests in California but is a big opponent of climate change legislation around the country.

On Thursday, the Kansas-based refining and chemicals manufacturer threw its weight behind Proposition 23, the ballot initiative that seeks to suspend California’s greenhouse gas reduction law until the economy improves.

“This is a significant game changer,” said Craig Holman, a campaign finance expert at Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocacy group. “They want to stop the state that’s well known for leading the way when it comes to climate change legislation.”

California secretary of state’s office records show that Flint Hills is now the third largest backer of Proposition 23, behind Texas-based oil companies Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp.

On Thursday, Tesoro also donated $1 million to the Yes on 23 Committee, bringing its total contributions to about $1.5 million. Overall, the committee has raised more than $8.2 million, with nearly half, or about $4 million, coming from Valero.

278 comments Add your comment

Granny Godzilla

September 21st, 2010
7:53 am

Isn’t this special!

With the death of the coral reefs and the droughts turning farm land into new dust bowls we inch closer to the time when the main course at our family meals will be soylent green.

Yum-a-roo!

Normal

September 21st, 2010
7:54 am

Where has all the coral gone, long time passing, where has all the coral gone, long, long time ago…

Normal

September 21st, 2010
7:56 am

Good morning Granny G! According to the movie, I probably wouldn’t qualify for Soylent Green…I’d only get the red stuff… :)

Cauldron Bubble

September 21st, 2010
8:02 am

How else we gonna git even with Japan lessin’ we keel all da fishes in da sea? We’ll be okay on account we gotz da McFish Sandwich.

I speet on global warming. I’d rant more, but it’s too hot.

Carlosgvv

September 21st, 2010
8:03 am

Many of the people denying global warming are the same ones who vigorously denied the harmful effects of tobacco. Many politicans and pundits are virtually owned by big business and will dance to whatever tune their corporate masters dictate. Because of this, scientists who say it will be too late in ten years might as well say it is already too late.

PALIN/O'DONNELL 2012

September 21st, 2010
8:04 am

That’s just a bunch a bull made up by them old Obama lovers. Ain’t a thang to it, and don’t y’all pay any attention!

Vote Palin/O’Donnell in 2012 for some real change!

godless heathen

September 21st, 2010
8:05 am

Again. The only constant thing about climate is change. RAPID change in climate is not unprecedented. See PBS Special called, the “Becoming Human” (Transcript available at pbs.org). I don’t think Homo Habilis was driving around in an SUV.

mike

September 21st, 2010
8:06 am

Well, actually high heat is killing coral reefs. Global Warmists are making the leap that this heat is due solely to global warming. The first is empirical fact, the second is an assumption based on one’s particular assessment of the global warming phenomenon.

But hey, kudos to Jay for demonstrating his lame partisan intent by including the left’s favorite new boogey men. Thanks for the empty and generic partisan dreck/copying and pasting Jay. You are a real asset to your community.

Noah's Mark

September 21st, 2010
8:08 am

“People” like the Koch brothers know they’ll be dead and gone before the worst of the climate change hits and even if they are still alive, they can afford to build safe shelter for themselves and even develop a food source sufficient for their needs. The rest of us are on our own. My initial advice. Don’t make any long-term investment in sea-level ocean-front property unless you have a house that floats and build on high ground. There will be those that laugh at you and make fun of you but stand your ground for they will begin whining and begging before too long and you must remind them at that point that you tried to help them but they would not listen to fact or reason or logic.

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
8:11 am

Coral reef? I believe that’s something I used to smoke. Meh, I don’t eat fish anyway.

jumping Turtle

September 21st, 2010
8:11 am

Why can’t democrats find some depression-inducing neurosis that doesn’t always cost the smart people so much?

Fire ants are a bigger threat than “dramatic climate change”?

Jump on that topic.

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
8:13 am

With November looming, you know the libs are losing the political argument (jobs, economy, debt, et al) when they regularly post on climate change, birthers and the like.

mike

September 21st, 2010
8:14 am

Of course it turns out that Jay is just cribbing off today’s Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/opinion/21tue1.html?hp

Not only is Jay a mindless partisan hack. He is also an extremely lazy and uncreative writer. The AJC needs to let this sub-mediocre “talent” go and just syndicate the Times editorials. Until that time, we will get amateur Cliff Notes from one of the least talented editorial staff in the country.

JKL2

September 21st, 2010
8:14 am

Save me Al Gore! Save me Tom Cruise! Save me Oprah Winfrey!

Maybe we could put Michael Moore in a hot air balloon. That would create enough shade to cool the coral reefs(as long as he could keep his windbag mouth shut).

mike

September 21st, 2010
8:15 am

How many boogey men have the left gone through this year? I can’t even keep track of which evil genius is tricking me into disagreeing with Jay’s intrinsically correct views.

Normal

September 21st, 2010
8:16 am

Life is good. Mike is back shooting at Jay. Another normal day passin’ by…Gotta love it.

RW-(the original)

September 21st, 2010
8:21 am

“This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” — Barack Obama, 3 June 2008

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

September 21st, 2010
8:21 am

Well, you’ll see how warm the globe is long about February. All this global warming junk is just a sneaky way to raise our taxes. We’d be paying out the wazoo for power. And the prices of everything would be out of sight, what with big business needing to pay for carbon credits.

Anyhow, even if it’s true, the good news is, people won’t need to be buying winter clothes. Wouldn’t it be nice to wake up one February morning and throw on a pair of shorts and a t-shirt before going outside? You got to look on the bright side of things.

And another piece of good news: I see this Angle woman in NV is in the lead with the independents. We’re one step closer to putting the old geezers drawing guvmint checks and getting medical care on our dime to work as greeters at WalMart.

Have a good day everybody.

FinnMcCool

September 21st, 2010
8:23 am

We need our reefer!!

Oh, reefs?

Normal

September 21st, 2010
8:24 am

Redneck Convert (R–and proud of it)

September 21st, 2010
8:21 am

We’re one step closer to putting the old geezers drawing guvmint checks and getting medical care on our dime to work as greeters at WalMart.

Or…they could drive a beer truck for less money than you do…

Noah's Mark

September 21st, 2010
8:26 am

mike has clearly joined the ranks of the long-term unemployed and his 99 weeks have run out. Desperation has set in. Gloom, despair and agony to follow. The air conditioning will not run without Koch to stoke the power plant yet that very stoking is choking the life that thrives on the coolness of one side of that great heat exchanger in the sky. The dilemma. Choke in cool comfort or bake to save the planet. Quit typing while you still can.

Paul

September 21st, 2010
8:28 am

Coral reefs? Out of sight, out of mind for most. But tune into the National Geographic channel (or read the magazine) once in a while and attitudes change.

Still don’t understand why conservative Christians aren’t among the most ardent conservationists. Mankind was given responsibility for taking care of the home God made for them and of tending its life forms.

“An oil company headed by conservative billionaires David and Charles Koch has contributed $1 million to the campaign to suspend the state’s landmark climate change law.”

This is an interesting one. Two people, head of a company, can do this? What about all the shareholders? Don’t all the owners have a say? Or only owners with enough shares? So much for the idea all the shareholders operate in a free market to drive company policy. Then again, it’s not just the brothers who have rights; the corporation’s a person, too –

BTW – the rest of the story is how many species are dependent upon coral reefs for their survival and what disrupting that means for man’s welfare. If moral responsibility and altruism aren’t enough to drive helpful action, personal self-interest should be.

Noah's Mark

September 21st, 2010
8:30 am

Paul,

You might wish to read up on the Koch bros.

Jay

September 21st, 2010
8:30 am

Paul, Koch Industries is privately held, not publicly traded.

chuck

September 21st, 2010
8:32 am

Oh yeah, I remember when that happened in 1998. All the coral reefs died and all of the little fishes died. Billions of people starved to death because there was not a red snapper to be found anywhere. The ice caps melted, Florida disappeared under the oceans with only the tops of the condos visible. The whole Southeast turned into a desert wasteland and New Hampshire’s tropical climate made it THE PLACE to go for that winter vacation at the beach. That was the same year that I moved to Ohio and began selling citrus and palm trees in my own tropical nursery. As the temperatures topped out as the hottest on record, all of the streets melted and we could no longer use our cars. We had to put a giant dome over the city of Atlanta so that we could survive. Oh yeah, and the sky was falling, too.

FinnMcCool

September 21st, 2010
8:33 am

It’s pretty amazing to think of all the fish just swimming around out there! An uber-healthy food supply that doesn’t take up real estate or leave a big lagoon of poop for us to figure out what to do with it.

I’ve kicked around the idea of dropping my pork, beef, and chicken consumption to less than 4 times a month. Fish is where it’s at.

Here’s a great article on which fish is sustainable and which fish aren’t. Good read and quite informative:
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2008/04/29/bottomfeeder
and another one:
http://www.slate.com/id/2222746/

The Boner's Tan Line

September 21st, 2010
8:34 am

The Boner doesn’t care about the damn coral reefs and polar bears.

He has more to worry about than that crap. Chrissy tried to make him lay down on the blood covered satanic altar last night, because she gets turned on by that sort of thing, you know. The Boner refused, Chrissy got mad and cast a spell on him.

This morning, the Boner woke up white as a sheet! As you can well imagine, the Boner is royally pi$$ed!

Back to the tanning bed, for who knows how long!

mystified

September 21st, 2010
8:34 am

The myth is that man is causing the warming. At least get your propaganda right. Do you ever wonder what caused the last ice age or why it went away. How could climate change possibly have occurred without American companies to cause it?

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
8:34 am

So when can we expect Michael Moore’s epic docudrama on the Koch brothers? What will he call it, “Have a Koch and a smile”? Will the theme song be “I’d like to buy the world a Koch….”?

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
8:36 am

Finn, an “uber healthy” food supply? Care to ask the gulf fishers if they agree?

FinnMcCool

September 21st, 2010
8:37 am

corp vet, i meant in terms of healthy to eat, not healthy industry

stands for decibels

September 21st, 2010
8:41 am

Two people, head of a company, can do this? What about all the shareholders?

Paul, I take it you’ve not read this…

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

You should.

mm

September 21st, 2010
8:41 am

Jay,

Geez, do we have to put up with the wingnut morons denying global warming again?

chuck

September 21st, 2010
8:43 am

mm, or the morons who think that Florida is going to disappear?

Bosch

September 21st, 2010
8:43 am

“Mankind was given responsibility for taking care of the home God made for them and of tending its life forms. ”

Because they are waiting on Jesus to come out of the sky blowing a trumpet and whisking them up to heaven.

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
8:44 am

mm, even most libs don’t believe in global warming. It’s much more chic to now call it climate change. In fact, I do believe the WH is trying to coin the phrase “climate disruption” or some sort of nonsense like that.

Jimmy Joe Bob

September 21st, 2010
8:46 am

Well, onced again, Jay, yore talking about something you know nothing about. Everbody knows global warming is caused by age spots and bicycles!

Jay

September 21st, 2010
8:48 am

I think the lyrics would go:

“I’d like to buy the Kochs a world for their own company….”

RW-(the original)

September 21st, 2010
8:48 am

Paul,

By all means read up on the lefties latest demons

Can’t have things like market based solutions and economic freedom getting in the way of hopeandchange now can we?

Soothsayer

September 21st, 2010
8:49 am

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
8:49 am

Jay, have you copyrighted that song? I’d like a small cut of the proceeds for the idea.

AmVet

September 21st, 2010
8:52 am

The flat-earthers have ZERO to stand on but their hatred for all things liberal – including academia and science.

Who cares?

They had years to come up with something even resembling an intelligent explanation, and guess what boys an dgirls. They have nothing.

One more time for you dense denying dolts:

Not ONE single institution of national or international standing disputes the basic findings of man-induced global warming.

The scientific community and most educated people stopped listening to you and your childish science-free nonsense years ago…

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
8:53 am

AmVet, and how’s that scientific hope and change working out for you?

Bosch

September 21st, 2010
8:53 am

I don’t fault the Koch Bros for what they do — they operate in their own best interest as most of us do. And by all means, if you are all for becoming a serf to the serf lords, then whose to say different?

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
8:55 am

AmVet, and since no one appartently disputes what you support, what percentage of the global warming is caused by man?

jm

September 21st, 2010
8:56 am

That’s why I drive a Prius. It’s possible, if global warming plays out as expected, that those driving the gas guzzling SUV’s and living extravagantly energy intensive lifestyles, will be the “slave owners” of the modern era. Very embarrassing to have in your family history.

Jay, I might also direct you to read this Fortune article about a Republican proposal to tax carbon. Too much rhetoric right now though….

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/31/news/economy/republicans_carbon_tax.fortune/index.htm

stands for decibels

September 21st, 2010
8:56 am

Sun spots, the Petition Project, thirty thousand self-identifying “scientists, and Al Gore is fat. Also.

larry

September 21st, 2010
8:56 am

From Wikipedia …………….

From 2005 to 2008, Koch industries donated $5.7 million on political campaigns and $37 million on direct lobbying to support fossil fuel industries. Between 1997 and 2008, Koch Industries donated a total of nearly $48 million to climate opposition groups.[40] According to Greenpeace, Koch Industries is the major source of funds of what Greenpeace calls “climate denial”.[41][42] Koch Industries and its subsidiaries spent more than $20 million on lobbying in 2008 and $12.3 million in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.[43][44]

Rich Fink, a Koch executive vice president, is a co-founder (with David Koch) and member of the board of directors of Americans for Prosperity.[24] Previously he served as president of Citizens for a Sound Economy. Rich Fink also founded the Mercatus Center.

They have a executive vice president named Fink……….

Jay

September 21st, 2010
8:57 am

They can only respond with anger, insult and denial, Amvet ….

Paul

September 21st, 2010
8:57 am

Jay and all -

Regarding the Koch brothers, thanks.

Still and all, gets back to the idea, that in politics, money is directly related to how equal people are.

RW-(the original)

To me, it’s still part of the same concept of buying political results.

mystified 8:34

Your position seems to be based upon the idea of “it’s either all this or it’s all that.”

Why not a combination of the two – natural cycle AND mankind’s actions?

Bosch

“Because they are waiting on Jesus to come out of the sky blowing a trumpet and whisking them up to heaven.”

Oh geez, now you’ve opened it up to our drive-by judge to reappear and tell us anyone who doesn’t believe in the Rapture isn’t really a Christian….. or anyone who does believe it isn’t really a Christian…. hey, this could be entertaining, in a macabre sort of way!

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
8:58 am

larry, how much did Soros donate to his special interests during this same timeframe?

AmVet

September 21st, 2010
8:58 am

Corp, is must be might dark up there. Pull it out and take a look around. And for gawdsakes man, read a book now and then. I know, I know. You might learn something that you don’t want to know.

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
9:00 am

Jay, since no one apparently disputes global warming then surely there is a chart and/or graph that clearly and undisputedly provides a breakout of the various contributors and the percentage of their carnage, right? I mean, since NO ONE will dispute it then there must be factual breakouts.

FinnMcCool

September 21st, 2010
9:01 am

Whale Wars meets Coral Reefer Band meets Nemo

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
9:02 am

AmVet, I’ll repeat my question. Since no one appartently disputes what you support, what percentage of the global warming is caused by man?

I mean, you read all those books and stuff so surely you have an answer for those of us who are in the “dark”.

Jay

September 21st, 2010
9:03 am

AmVet

September 21st, 2010
9:04 am

What this planet desperately needs is another Pro-pollution prez like George of the Bungle.

He orchestrated legislation that:

Allowed 42 million more tons of pollution emitted than the EPA proposed.
Weakened the current cap on nitrogen oxide pollution levels from 1.25 million tons to 2.1 million tons, allowing 68 % more NOx pollution.
Delayed the improvement of sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution levels compared to the Clean Air Act requirements.
Delayed enforcement of smog-and-soot pollution standards until 2015.

And then called it, drum roll please,………………………the Clean Skies Act.

There is only one green thing the neo-cons have ever cared about. Pieces of paper with dead presidents on them…

jm

September 21st, 2010
9:05 am

FYI, I assume everyone knows Koch owns GA Pacific here….

Interesting article about them in the New Yorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

Mary Elizabeth

September 21st, 2010
9:05 am

Hey Mike,
Maybe, if you could write like Jay’s article in the AJC today – “Build for the future, not the past” – you would not need to spew such venom toward Jay’s gifts. Why not take a cue from that title and focus on your own future and you own self-image?

Paul

September 21st, 2010
9:06 am

jm 8:56

That was a good article. Rep Flake’s been one of the most ardent opponents of earmarks. Now this. I rather admire the guy for bucking the power brokers on matters of principle.

larry

September 21st, 2010
9:06 am

Corp Vet , Soros did not give any money to support fossil fuel industries.

How’s that shock and awe scientific change workin’ for ya?

Oh yeah, thats right, they EVEN supported the fact that the earth is warming.

Noah's Mark

September 21st, 2010
9:06 am

Republicans, conservatives, tea party constituency… the poster children for our need for better education. Stand your ground though. Do not waiver even in the light of all evidence contradicting the paid advertisements from Koch and Massey and Exxon, etc., for they will comfort you in your time of need. Trickle-down is coming. For thee days and nights will be blessed with the yellow warmness and all that the earth has left to offer will be yours.

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
9:07 am

Come on, Jay, you can do better than than. A list of greenhouse gases? Puh leeze. Let me try again. If global warming is indisputable, what percent is caused by man? 36%? 54.36%? Of that percent, what’s the breakout. Are cars responsible for 17.2% of the damage caused by man, industry responsible for 29.045%, stuff like that. I mean, NO ONE disputes this so the facts must be easily attained.

stands for decibels

September 21st, 2010
9:07 am

larry, how much did Soros donate to his special interests during this same timeframe?

The person who wrote that New Yorker article gets asked that question a lot, since she’d done a similar investigative piece on Soros some years back.

To hear her tell it (and no, I haven’t verified this independently), it seems the major difference between Soros and Bros. Koch is that Soros a) makes absolutely no bones about his intent to influence policy in the US, and b) funds a lot of groups that have the potential to decrease his own earnings in the short term.

The Bros. Koch are extremely secretive, they work like mad to cover their tracks, they don’t want you to know which astroturfing efforts they’re funding, and they are wholly consumed with enriching themselves.

That’s the impression I’m left with anyway. Anyone who knows otherwise/better, feel free to chime in.

@@

September 21st, 2010
9:07 am

Depends on what kind of reef it is. Cold water reef…warm water reef. Some corals thrive in temperatures 18 to 30 degrees centigrade. Then there are new reefs that have formed atop dead reefs.

If heat’s the culprit, it’s rather ironic that reefs originally formed around volcanoes that went under…expanding outward.

AmVet

September 21st, 2010
9:09 am

Corp, I love how you in the pro-pollution gang think of this challenge as some sort of popularity test.

If enough unread, uneducated and stuck int he blissful past people think the theory is invalid, then voila! It’s invalid.

Jeez, you probably think that your auto mechanic could do your heart by-pass surgery as well.

Stick to the sophomoric topics that you know something about.

Or take it up with the experts who overwhelmingly agree the problem is at least exacerbated by the burning of fossil fuels and the widespread decimation of the earths rain forests and other habitats…

Bosch

September 21st, 2010
9:09 am

“Why not a combination of the two – natural cycle AND mankind’s actions?”

Paul,

That’s one of the things that has always puzzled me about the deniers….of course it is a natural occurrence, it’s occurring in nature, so yeah, duh, it is natural, and to my knowledge no one has ever said different. It’s just the rate it’s happening and the damage it’s doing that’s the troubling part…..

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
9:09 am

larry, you miss my point. Most agree that the earth is warming. Give me the irrefutable facts as to what causes it. You know, the facts that NO ONE disputes. We need percentages so mankind will know exactly what to address to cool things off.

stands for decibels

September 21st, 2010
9:10 am

Ok, having his “submit” without thinking it through–“wholly consumed” was a poor choice of words in my post @ 9.07, since they also contribute to some very worthy charitable/artistic efforts. But I think it’s safe to say their political advocacy efforts are wholly consumed with enriching their own company.

Paul

September 21st, 2010
9:10 am

Corp Vet

“since no one apparently disputes global warming then surely there is a chart and/or graph that clearly and undisputedly provides a breakout of the various contributors and the percentage of their carnage, right? I mean, since NO ONE will dispute it then there must be factual breakouts.”

Since no one apparently disputes the role genetics and and nongenetic factors play in human development, reaction to disease, mortality, obesity, learning style and ability in various academic disciplines, or personality traits, then surely there is a chart and/or graph that clearly and undisputedly provides a breakout of the various contributors and the percentage of their carnage, right? I mean, since NO ONE will dispute it then there must be factual breakouts.”

Right?

Noah's Mark

September 21st, 2010
9:10 am

Corp Vet,

There is actually quite a bit of documentation available that identifies man’s contribution to the current level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Do you need some links.

jm

September 21st, 2010
9:12 am

Paul – yeah. It seems like a rational proposal. Use the carbon tax to offset some other tax, as long as the government doesn’t take a bite out as the middle man.

The Republican majority obviously has two semi-legitimate concerns. First, that the government won’t keep its hands off the new tax revenue source, and second, that with a giant budget gap, the new tax just plugs the financial hole rather than forcing some budget cutting to occur.

It’s a messy problem. One prays for some serious technological innovations to help solve the problem. First Solar and some of the best scientists in the world are hard at work to come up with cost effective solutions, but they’re still several years away. And then you still have the problem of all the legacy coal plants, the issue of trade with a country like China that is building gobs of coal plants and that some kind of carbon tax here would need to be met with an import tax on products made in countries without a carbon tax… arghh. It’s a rotten, maddening problem.

Midori

September 21st, 2010
9:12 am

A Jay Bookman thread just isn’t complete until Mike stops by to piss in it.

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
9:12 am

AmVet, still ducking the question I see. You said NO ONE disputes it so I asked a simple question. Instead of answering with facts you obviously must have possession of, you choose to go on a rant. That’s a pattern with you.

AmVet

September 21st, 2010
9:12 am

It is also hysterical how the more “enlightened” cons now acknowledge that the earth’s temperatures are in fact dramatically and suddenly rising.

For years and years and years, most of them even denied this. And plenty still do.

Now their silly game has switched into blubbering that the causes are not what prestigious scientific organization after prestigious scientific organization attribute them to…

Bosch

September 21st, 2010
9:13 am

I’d like to share, I’m in that kind of mood today:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/coral_reefs/

Paul

September 21st, 2010
9:14 am

Corp Vet

“If being overweight is indisputable, what percent is caused by man? 36%? 54.36%? Of that percent, what’s the breakout. Is diet responsible for 17.2% of the excess weight, metabolism for 29.045%, stuff like that. I mean, NO ONE disputes this so the facts must be easily attained.

AmVet

September 21st, 2010
9:15 am

Noah’s Mark, trust me. They wouldn’t help as he wouldn’t read them.

Though I used to, I no longer even provide any of the mountains of data, evidence, facts, charts, numbers, quotes, links and analysis to corroborate the theory of AGW.

Midori, true dat!

That one has special issues…

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
9:15 am

Paul, where do we begin to address the “global warming” problem? What legislation? How many billions and trillions? Invested where? What’s the guaranteed payback? How much will things improve?

If you have a pain in your side do you want a surgeon removing your appendix if it’s not the cause of the pain? Oops, it’s probably one of your kidneys. Let’s take it out. Still hurting? Probably a pinched nerve so let’s fuse you spine. Still having pain? Let’s remove your colon. That will surely cure you pain, right?

Paul

September 21st, 2010
9:16 am

“Corp Vet, you miss my point. Most agree that the people are heavier now than in the past. Give me the irrefutable facts as to what causes it. You know, the facts that NO ONE disputes. We need percentages so mankind will know exactly what to address to slim things down.”

That last should suffice -

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
9:17 am

Paul, perhaps your last few post have given Jay an idea. Instead of global warming he may wish to include a weekly spot on obeisity.

Bosch

September 21st, 2010
9:18 am

I mean, really — how can deniers look at the fact that there are 7 billions people on a planet, polluting it and using all it’s resources and NOT think this has its disadvantages.

And considering my mom died of a heat stroke this summer, I’m particularly pissed……

larry

September 21st, 2010
9:19 am

Paul

September 21st, 2010
9:19 am

jm

One reason I’ve not been in favor of cap-n-trade is it seems to put the buying and selling of credits into the hands of those who brought us the financial meltdown. Which necessarily implies there’s big money to be made that won’t go towards solving the problem.

Again, this idea seems worth examining. Thanks.

jm

September 21st, 2010
9:20 am

Corp Vet – maybe this helps. Low end 40%. I’ve generally seen estimates of around 90% of the increase is due to man-made activities.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Quantifying-the-human-contribution-to-global-warming.html

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
9:20 am

larry, a 2007 article? Wasn’t a lot of the global warming “evidence” debunked in the past year?

AmVet

September 21st, 2010
9:21 am

You said NO ONE disputes it…

One last thing Corp, quit LYING like a 10 year old with your hand in the cookie jar.

It takes your already anemic position and weakens it further…

Doggone/GA

September 21st, 2010
9:22 am

“One reason I’ve not been in favor of cap-n-trade is it seems to put the buying and selling of credits into the hands of those who brought us the financial meltdown”

It’s a market solution, isn’t that what “everyone” says they want. Cap and Trade has had good success in reducing acid rain. “The Acid Rain Program has been an incredible success even to this day, and has been a major influence in lowering the annual SO2 emissions all the way from 17.3 million tons in 1980 to an estimated 8.95 million tons in 2010″

http://www.ecomii.com/ecopedia/cap-and-trade

Don't Forget

September 21st, 2010
9:22 am

Professional scientific societies that agree with the IPCC on global warming.
*
*
National Academy of Sciences (U.S.)

NASA

Woods Hole Resesarch Center

US Geological Survey (USGS)

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

American Association of State Climatologists

Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 (the study authorized and then censored

by Bush)

American Chemical Society – (world’s largest scientific organization with over 155,000

members)

Geological Society of America

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

American Association of State Climatologists

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

American Astronomical Society

American Institute of Physics

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Stratigraphy Commission – Geological Society of London – (The world’s oldest and the

United Kingdom’s largest geoscience organization)

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Royal Society, United Kingdom

Russian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society of Canada

Science Council of Japan

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

Brazilian Academy of Sciences

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

French Academy of Sciences

German Academy of Natural Scientists

Indian National Science Academy

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Union of Concerned Scientists

The Institution of Engineers Australia

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

National Research Council

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences

World Meteorological Organization

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

International Council on Science
*

Professional scientific societies that Do Not agree with the IPCC on global warming.
*
American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)

Canadian Association of Petroleum Geologists (CAPG)

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
9:22 am

jm , and just what can be done to eliminate the problem? Will the entire world participate? How much will it cost? How many industries (and jobs) will be eliminated from aggressive legislation? When will be see the return on our investment? How much will thinks improve?

We don’t have the money to throw around and hope it works.

Stanwyck

September 21st, 2010
9:22 am

Anyone who scuba dives can personally attest to the disappearance of the coral reefs. As someone who has been diving for over 20 years, I’ve seen the evidence myself. But if you don’t want to believe the scuba divers, or the thousands of accredited scientists (who are not on the payroll of the oil companies, you can look to the real experts on global waminrg: the insects. When insects thrive in areas which were previously to cold for their existence, the climate has changed. Sarah Palin, of all people, should know this as Alaskan farmers have been impacted with the destruciton of their crops by new insect populations. You have to wonder, just how much evidence do the deniers need? I guess the flat earth society can tell us. For some people, over-whelming evidence is not enough.

Paul

September 21st, 2010
9:23 am

Corp Vet

“Paul, perhaps your last few post have given Jay an idea. Instead of global warming he may wish to include a weekly spot on obeisity.”

I’d call that a diversion linked with a swipe. The point was, calling for irrefutable breakouts to the nth degree regarding a phenomena that has myriad inputs doesn’t refute the phenomena. It just makes the proponents of that attempt to ‘disprove’ the phenomena look rather silly. That was the idea for using the same argument structure in regards to obesity, personality, abilities in various disciplines, etc.

jm

September 21st, 2010
9:23 am

Paul 9:19 – true. A carbon tax, instead of a cap and trade system which is different, would eliminate the wall street intermediary issue.

But I don’t look at everything that Wall St. does as unproductive. Obviously some of it is bunk. But some of it creates real solutions and innovation that help make the world better. I’d guess 1/2 their work is productive, the other 1/2 just a waste of resources and talent.

Doggone/GA

September 21st, 2010
9:24 am

“We don’t have the money to throw around and hope it works.”

But it’s OK to throw the money around KNOWING that what we are doing now WON’T work, right?

larry

September 21st, 2010
9:26 am

While the summary did not produce any groundbreaking observations — it reflects a massive distillation of the peer-reviewed literature through the middle of 2006 — it represents the definitive international scientific and political consensus on climate science. It provides much more definitive conclusions than the panel’s previous report in 2001, which said only that it was “likely” — meaning between 66 and 90 percent probability on a scale the panel adopted — that human activity accounted for the warming recorded over the past 50 years.

Paul

September 21st, 2010
9:27 am

Corp Vet

“where do we begin to address the “global warming” problem? What legislation? How many billions and trillions? Invested where? What’s the guaranteed payback? How much will things improve?”

That’s one of the issues I’ve struggled with. As Bosch said, how can anyone say pollution is a good thing? But at what level does it have an impact? As I said in my response to jm, I’m suspicious of the ‘doing somethings’ that seemed designed to enrich a few. Which is why I think that article he linked about Rep Flake’s proposal is worth pursuing.

jm

September 21st, 2010
9:27 am

Corp Vet 9:22 – fixing global warming is like buying insurance. Maybe you don’t buy insurance, but I do. It protects against a real risk and global catastrophe. It costs money, it doesn’t come free, but there are real benefits on the back end.

People debate the costs. If technological innovation is successful, then the cost is almost non-existent. If innovation stinks, the cost could be as much as 1% of GDP per year, which is huge. I side on the ingenuity of our innovators. But I share some of your concerns.

TaxPayer

September 21st, 2010
9:28 am

For those that want a primer on global warming, here is an old favorite of mine. Be careful giving this information to anyone other than Republicans though because, as we all know, only the Republicans are educated enough to handle it. It has all kinds of stuff about science and it has charts constructed from real world data and stuff like that.

Corp Vet

September 21st, 2010
9:28 am

Doggone/GA, you mean throwing money at things like Obamacare?

Paul

September 21st, 2010
9:30 am

g’morning, Doggone/GA

I seem to recall we’ve discussed this before. I wonder if the difference with applying this in the larger cap n trade arena is, there’s literally trillions to be made? One of those issues of scale – a program can have one result in one area, but apply it to another and bam, things change? I think jm’s lead at 9:23 makes a good point.

Hi Midori!