GOP’s Chris Christie: Climate change real; man contributes
I guess it’s true; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie really isn’t running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012:
“In the past I’ve always said that climate change is real and it’s impacting our state,” he said in a press conference yesterday (video below). “There’s undeniable data that CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing. Decade average temperatures have been rising and temperature changes are affecting weather patterns and our climate.”
OK, so climate change is occurring. But is mankind to blame? To get an answer to that crucial question, Christie says, he has been meeting with experts and scientists for the last few months to discuss the issue in depth, and has also done considerable reading and study on his own.
His conclusion:
“When you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts…. we know enough to know that we are at least a part of the problem.”
In his statement Thursday, Christie also announced that New Jersey would not participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a joint effort by 10 Northeastern states to address the issue of greenhouse gases at the regional level through a cap-and-trade program. His decision to withdraw from RGGI makes a lot of sense for purely practical reasons, and was clearly reached through the same analytical process that brought him to the conclusion that climate change is real and mankind is contributing.
As Christie notes, the rights to emit a ton of greenhouse gases through RGGI were projected to cost as much as $20 to $30 a ton, a level that would create a significant economic incentive to reduce those emissions. Under RGGI, however, those rights are selling at less than $2 a ton.
“RGGI has not changed behavior and it does not reduce emissions,” Christie said. “We’re looking for broader results that benefit all ratepayers and all citizens.”
Christie went on to pledge that in light of the seriousness of the problem, “there will no new coal permitted in New Jersey. From this day forward, any plans that anyone has regarding any type of coal-based generation of energy is over…. We need to commit in New Jersey to making coal a part of our past.”
Instead, the state will begin to shutdown older coal plants and move toward offshore wind generation, using old landfill sites as solar energy fields and concentrating on conservation and efficiency because “the cleanest energy is the energy you don’t use.”
As promised, here’s Christie’s statement in full (and I do confess to thinking while watching it that no major political figure in Georgia would be capable of such a performance.):
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
377 comments Add your comment
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
May 27th, 2011
9:23 am
Info. that can save your life:
Just remember ………. WHITE, YELLOW, ORANGE, RED !
http://www.selfdefenseresource.com/general/articles/awareness-color-codes.php
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
May 27th, 2011
9:25 am
hEADLINE: “Christians worry Egypt being hijacked by Islamists”
Ah ………………….. nevermind but thanks Obama.
willydoit?
May 27th, 2011
9:26 am
Cap and Trade works…look at how people are driving less with the expensive gas prices. However, look at how high gas prices are killing the economy. See…Cap and Trade works!!
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
9:27 am
Damn RINOS!!!
Jay, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to go off tangent with the tomato sandwich thing — but I’m still dreaming of them.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
9:28 am
“GOP’s Chris Christie: Climate change real” – Thank you Mr. Obvious!!!
“Cap and Tax works…look at how people are driving less with the expensive gas prices. However, look at how high gas prices are killing the economy. See…Cap and Tax works!!” – Fixed your typo. If only we could have taxed the Dinosaurs somehow, we could had prevented the Ice Age!!!!!
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
9:29 am
A Republican said that. Well damn. He shocked and awed me. Did he not get any Koch money.
jm
May 27th, 2011
9:29 am
Oh jeepers Jay. I’m 2 for 2 today (in agreement). Zoiks.
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
May 27th, 2011
9:31 am
Have a safe and happy Memorial Day weekend but let none of us forget those that Memorial Day is all about.
jm
May 27th, 2011
9:32 am
RE Air France – that primeval part of the brain kicked in. The plane was going down, they didn’t want to go down, so they pulled up. Flight 101….. when in stall, point down to regain air speed….. what a mess
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
9:33 am
What I want to know is how much greenhouse gas Chris Christie emits.
David B.
May 27th, 2011
9:33 am
Finally, an honorable politician.
md
May 27th, 2011
9:33 am
“When you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts…. we know enough to know that we are at least a part of the problem.”
And there in lies the difference in the national argument……..”part of the problem” does not equate to “cause” of the problem…….which is how the argument has been framed to date……..
independent thinker
May 27th, 2011
9:35 am
Someone has strayed off the reservation. I guess its because Christie is too big for those little clown cars the Repub candidates get in.Time for a Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck/Coulter/ingram/Malkin/Boortz decapitation!
professional skeptic
May 27th, 2011
9:35 am
@ TaxPayer 9:29 am
I had the same reaction. Will Rush bash him on the air and demand an apology?
Actually, the guy has said repeatedly that he’s not going to run. Maybe this speech was an attempt to get his fellow party members to stop harassing him about it.
Jay
May 27th, 2011
9:36 am
I should have made it clear from the beginning — and have now done so — that the problem with RGGI was not its reliance on cap and trade, but the fact that cap-and-trade can’t work when implemented on a very limited regional basis. For example, while New Jersey was a member of the RGGI effort, neighboring Pennsylvania is not. That just isn’t going to work.
DW
May 27th, 2011
9:36 am
BORING
BADA BING
May 27th, 2011
9:37 am
I quit driving for no reason, and reduced my fuel costs. I have my own ‘Cap and Trade’ program. Don’t take off my gas Cap and Trade my driving for walking.
jm
May 27th, 2011
9:38 am
Obama’s like the junior pilot at the stick in the Air France cockpit.
Things going down! Keep burning the paper!
md
May 27th, 2011
9:38 am
I see the IT guys took a look at the problem here…………look being the operative word.
Finn McCool
May 27th, 2011
9:39 am
Nah, he will come out in a few days and apologize and say that what he was saying should not be quoted as that would be a lie. Or, it’s the media’s fault for twisting his words.
jm
May 27th, 2011
9:39 am
Jay 9:36 -
alert alert, hmmmm…… subtle indicators that Jay might slightly understand markets (the need to trade permits) and competition (if costs go way up in NJ, co’s move to PA)……
where’s my fainting couch?
jm
May 27th, 2011
9:44 am
RPS (renewable portfolio standards) is where all this is going. Very inefficient. But in the absence of a carbon tax or cap-trade, it is the likely outcome. Shutting down coal in favor of natural gas is the best route, especially since NG got a lot cheaper (assuming it stays that way).
Paulo977
May 27th, 2011
9:44 am
Tax Payer
“Did he not get any Koch money.” Gosh I am sure he didn’t!!!
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
9:44 am
“he will come out in a few days and apologize and say that what he was saying should not be quoted as that would be a lie.”
Yeah, Finn, that’s true — right after Rush gives him a call to set him straight.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
9:47 am
Scout at 9:23,
Basic info but good stuff nonetheless, Thanks.
Recon @9:31,
SALUTE!
jm @9:39, must you be such a disgusting lout, trying desperately to score your silly little political points from other people’s suffering, that you continually write garbage like that?
Hopefully Finn @9:39 is wrong. But gawd knows, it’s happened before.
Christie has just failed the Republican Purity Test.
He dares say, “When you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts…. we know enough to know that we are at least a part of the problem.”???
What a reasoned and reasonable position to take.
The ideologically driven, science averse far, far right wing needs to hear this message loud and clear…
Jay
May 27th, 2011
9:50 am
md, if conservatives — I mean, any conservatives at all — could bring themselves to acknowledge that mankind is AT LEAST a part of it, to use Christie’s term, and that we need to take action, that would be HUGE.
But in the absolutist GOP, that can’t be allowed to happen.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
May 27th, 2011
9:51 am
Christie acknowledged that man contributes to climate change….. that’s a great step.
……..”part of the problem” does not equate to “cause” of the problem…….which is how the argument has been framed to date……..
Oh please do provide evidence that anyone has claimed that man alone causes climate change….the man made component has the cummulative effect of significantly and rapidly changing a process that takes 1000s of years to one that may take only 50-100 years or less.
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
9:53 am
the man made component has the cumulative effect of significantly and rapidly changing a process that takes 1000s of years to one that may take only 50-100 years or less.
sshhhh! That’s supposed to stay a seeecret!
jm
May 27th, 2011
9:54 am
AmVet 9:47 “such a disgusting lout” well aren’t you a gentleman.
I was jerking JB’s chain. What can I say? It was fun and I was kidding around…. now who’s taking things too seriously?
retired early
May 27th, 2011
9:54 am
Unique….A Republican who believes in climate change and is willing to replace coal with wind and solar… Wow. He also thinks for himself, like dismissing cap and trade as not effective because it does not COST enough to be a deterrent.
He might just be the smartest Repub out there.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
9:55 am
A great, even-handed article on oil prices and the role therein of some profiteers and white collar criminals…
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/24/markets/oil_price_speculation/index.htm
@@
May 27th, 2011
9:55 am
They’ve got a shoreline and loads of landfills in Jersey. One is a natural resource, the other a man-made resource. I’ve always favored landfills as an energy source.
Kewl!
Who Owns Big Oil?
Who owns BIG AL GORE?
jm
May 27th, 2011
9:55 am
“political points from other people’s suffering” ????
That’s a weird one. I have no idea what you’re referring to. Who’s suffering? I mean, I know Christie is suffering from a weight problem, but jeebus.
John K
May 27th, 2011
9:56 am
Finally! A pro-science Republican. At least until the party overlords work him over in some dank, dark room.
Paulo977
May 27th, 2011
9:57 am
How serious are we about making sure the health of the planet is mainained?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3qGEWezzl0
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
9:57 am
Unique….A Republican who believes in climate change and is willing to replace coal with wind and solar… Wow. He also thinks for himself, like dismissing cap and trade as not effective because it does not COST enough to be a deterrent.
He might just be the smartest Repub out there.
So what’s the bad news on this guy. Don’t tell me he believes in that Fairly Odd tax or in a Laffer Curve or worse. He hasn’t frequented any kinky nightclubs, has he? Hiked the Appalachian and ended up in Alaska? What?
jm
May 27th, 2011
9:57 am
retired early 9:54 – um, unique? No. You can add the now shamed “Arnold”, Jon Huntsman, there’s a reasonably long list, though they’re in the minority in the Republican Party (at least in public).
md
May 27th, 2011
9:59 am
“Oh please do provide evidence that anyone has claimed that man alone causes climate change….the man made component has the cummulative effect of significantly and rapidly changing a process that takes 1000s of years to one that may take only 50-100 years or less.”
Have you been living in a cave?
Google is your friend……….it takes about two seconds to pull up “man-made climate change” to satisfy your request…………give it a try………….
and:
“.the man made component has the cummulative effect of significantly and rapidly changing a process that takes 1000s of years to one that may take only 50-100 years or less”
Bogus claim……….no way in the world of substantiating such numbers………….this is a “belief”, and nothing more.
JWH
May 27th, 2011
9:59 am
Kudos NJ! Everyone needs to be on board with its understanding of human caused climate change. Prices need to be increased via a tax, not a market friendly trading program. Its too late for that.
And, its time for everyone to have a plan and a kit – you never know when some big weather is going to hit.
Lastly, I live in PA – our governor’s stand on climate change, fracking and coal use is shameful.
We need to get lean, mean and clean.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
10:01 am
jm, whatevah.
When confronted with writing repulsive posts, it’s easy to say, “I was kidding”. George W, wow, Harry, etc were the masters of it.
Don’t go there. You’re a good guy.
IMO (not that my opinion matters much at all!) it just reflects exceedingly poorly on you.
Let the victims rest in peace instead of using them so callously…
Left wing management
May 27th, 2011
10:02 am
Jay: md, if conservatives — I mean, any conservatives at all — could bring themselves to acknowledge that mankind is AT LEAST a part of it, to use Christie’s term, and that we need to take action, that would be HUGE.
But in the absolutist GOP, that can’t be allowed to happen
I agree, Jay. That’s what I was most struck by in the Christie statement, namely, just the simple fact that it contains a careful, and perfectly indisputable, qualification, something you almost never hear from the GOP these days with their quasi-Stalinist lockstep orthodoxy.
Simple propositional logic:
1) mankind plays absolutely NO role in climate change
2) mankind plays at least PART of a role in climate change
3) mankind is COMPLETELY responsible for climate change
Right-wing orthodoxy mandates that only 1) or 3) are admissible options.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
10:03 am
“But in the absolutist GOP, that can’t be allowed to happen.” – B/c cap-and-tax (trade) is just another excuse by the liberals and environmental wackos to impose yet another tax. If Washington wasn’t so busy fighting 3 wars and trying to hand out food to every country in the world, we would probably have enough money to do serious research on clean energy. Seems to me that the politicians in Washington have their priorities messed up.
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
May 27th, 2011
10:04 am
AmVet @ 9:47 am
You’re welcome.
That’s a color code I have used professionally and for my family for 40 years.
Simple as it is ………. most people go through life on “white” and suffer the consequences (”ah, the doorbell just rung, it must be Mom, she said she was coming over this morning, hi Mom, Ooops !)
The other important is than many folks (including police officers) fail to make the mental switch from orange to red (”if he so much as flinches I am pulling the trigger).
Unfortunately, the last words some officers hear in this life is their own, “drop that weapon, I mean it !”
They never went to red ……….. but the perp. did !
Stay safe ……………………
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
10:04 am
I’ve always favored landfills as an energy source.
And they’re so readily accessible when you build the subdivisions right on top of them. You just drive a pipe a few feet down in the ground in your back yard and hook it up to your gas tank and you’re set to go.
saywhat?
May 27th, 2011
10:06 am
To paraphrase Jon Huntsman-”If 90% of the Oncological community said something caused cancer, we would believe them”.
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:06 am
AmVet 10:01 – ah! You’re referring to the Air France thing. Got it.
Well, as a pseudo pilot (and someone who has talked to more than a few pilots about the Air France disaster), there were some serious mistakes made though its impossible to completely judge without being able to see all the information that was in front of those guys. That said, yes, sad a tragedy, but opining on how it happened isn’t a sin.
Comparing Obama to the junior pilot? Maybe, though I think it is a very apt analogy if you understand economics and flying (they’re not too dissimilar).
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
10:06 am
Google is your friend……….it takes about two seconds to pull up “man-made climate change” to satisfy your request…………give it a try………….
You should take your own advice, md.
md
May 27th, 2011
10:06 am
Jay…..I see business as usual………..two extremes for political purposes………one side wants to call it “man made” climate change, while the other questions any validity…………..
Nothing new there from the big 2…………..
md
May 27th, 2011
10:06 am
“You should take your own advice, md.”
I did.
Have you?
Mark T
May 27th, 2011
10:07 am
Nothing about the Patriot Act being extended 4 years….typical
saywhat?
May 27th, 2011
10:07 am
“………. just like Obama tries to be the macho military president.”
Right. Just the other day he was parading around on an aircraft carrier dressed in a flight suit. What a loser.
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
May 27th, 2011
10:08 am
Christie is doing nothing but trying to stay in a posture to get some liberal votes.
Politics pure and simple ………. just like Obama tries to be the macho military president.
getalife
May 27th, 2011
10:09 am
Psst, it is about green jobs.
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:10 am
getalife 10:09 – um, no its not
the watch dog
May 27th, 2011
10:10 am
Wind power will save the universe. It is a clean endlessly renewable source of inexpensive power. I know what I am talking about. Everybody should get onboard. All these tornadoes, hurricanes and torrential rain storms is nature’s effort to clear the atmosphere of pollutants. It is a law of physics that before a reaction goes completely out of control there is a wide chaotic fluctuation which we have been having with the weather.
One wind turbine[the Nacelle] can produce enough energy to provide all of the needs for 750,000 homes.
Clemson, sometime ago received a 88 million dollar grant to experiment with wind turbines.
It is the future, no question about it. when you can’t breathe nothing else matters.
retired early
May 27th, 2011
10:10 am
With his apparent ability to use facts to make his decisions, does Christie believe the baseless theory of “trickle down” economics. If his economic plan is something more than cut taxes, cut budgets, regulations etc, and all is well…I would like to hear more from him. He could definitely be a factor in 2016.
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
10:10 am
md,
I’m always open to discussing facts but to do so honestly one needs a starting point consisting of, well, facts. Whenever you are ready, md.
Good starting points for newbies
If you’re new to the climate debate (or are of the mind that there’s no evidence for man-made global warming), a good starting point is 10 Indicators of Global Warming which lays out the evidence that warming is happening and the follow-up article, 10 Human Fingerprints on Climate Change which lays out the evidence that humans are the cause. More detail is available in empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming. Contrary to what you may have heard, the case for man-made global warming doesn’t hang on models or theory – it’s built on direct measurements of many different parts of the climate, all pointing to a single, coherent answer.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
May 27th, 2011
10:11 am
Ahh there is the typical plan:
1. Deny that man contributes to global warming.
2. If #1 fails, then deny that the man made component has any impact.
md– do try again if you want to have serious discussion. The scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring and is mostly the result of human activity. This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not rejected by any scientific body of national or international standing
saywhat?
May 27th, 2011
10:12 am
See 10:07 and 10:08- Scout is so predictable I knew what he was going to say before he did.
getalife
May 27th, 2011
10:14 am
jm,
If you listened to President Clinton, he tried to get investment bankers to invest in green energy jobs instead of housing.
I listen to people who who know but using basic common sense to see it is a win win for our planet and jobs must be above your intellectual capacity.
In other words, it is a no brainer silly.
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
10:16 am
Green jobs are indeed the next growth cycle for the US, getalife.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
10:16 am
Scout, yessir.
I may have shared this story before.
One time many years ago, while in business in Rochester, me and three other guys were in a rental car looking for a nightclub.
We got semi-lost and were in a very unsavory part of town.
The guy who was driving, spots two cars with their lights on parked at a closed down gas station and proposes we ask them for directions.
I damn near backhanded him!
I said, “Are you crazy?!!” To me it looked *exceedingly* suspicious and I could just see the headlines the next morning, “Four out of town businessmen killed by driving up to drug deal.”
Talk about oblivious…
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
10:17 am
TaxPayer, which is it? Man-Made Global Warming or Man-Made Climate Change? I thought it was change to climate change back in the winter when snow storms were so often across the US and global warming sounded waaay to stoopid.
Balance Our Budget
May 27th, 2011
10:18 am
2 wars, economy struggling, deficit at record levels and Jay is scared of a wittle bit of global warming.
Park your car and ride a bike Jay.Maybe the polar bears won’t get so warm.
Left wing management
May 27th, 2011
10:18 am
Welcome to the Anthropocene”, the current age of the geological time scale, the age in which man himself becomes a geological force in his own right.
The term Anthropocene, proposed and increasingly employed to denote the current interval of anthropogenic global environmental change, may be discussed on stratigraphic grounds. A case can be made for its consideration as a formal epoch in that, since the start of the Industrial Revolution, Earth has endured changes sufficient to leave a global stratigraphic signature distinct from that of the Holocene or of previous Pleistocene interglacial phases, encompassing novel biotic, sedimentary, and geochemical change. These changes, although likely only in their initial phases, are sufficiently distinct and robustly established for suggestions of a Holocene–Anthropocene boundary in the recent historical past to be geologically reasonable. The boundary may be defined either via Global Stratigraphic Section and Point (“golden spike”) locations or by adopting a numerical date. Formal adoption of this term in the near future will largely depend on its utility, particularly to earth scientists
working on late Holocene successions. This datum, from the perspective of the far future, will most probably approximate a distinctive stratigraphic boundary.
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Geo-politics/Anthropocene%202.pdf
Jay
May 27th, 2011
10:18 am
md, just for the sake of clarity:
Do you, personally, agree that mankind at the very least contributes to climate change and that we should take action to reduce that contribution?
Peadawg, same question to you as well.
md
May 27th, 2011
10:19 am
OK guys, here’s a starting point for you….two simple questions:
What percentage of climate change is due to natural change?
And how did you get the number?
retired early
May 27th, 2011
10:19 am
1811/1801
I do not agree. I think Christie is his own man and calls it like he sees it…that said, he obviously has no plans for higher office.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
10:20 am
I guess it’s true; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie really isn’t running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012:
Exactly.
Too bad Climate Change denial isn’t as easy to debunk as the birthers were.
getalife
May 27th, 2011
10:20 am
“Green jobs are indeed the next growth cycle for the US, getalife”
Thank you Taxpayer.
All those hit jobs on Gore have worked in the gullible minds of our cons.
It does not even matter if it is real or not. We treat our planet better and create a new industry for jobs.
Win win winners while cons love to lose to China.
ragnar danneskjold
May 27th, 2011
10:20 am
Au contraire: even if the data “incontrovertibly” proved rising world temperatures, there is no data set theoretically possible that would attribute the “incontrovertible” rise to anthropogenic activity. As temperatures have not yet reached those levels of 1000 AD, I’m not about to run around like a chicken with its head removed, or a leftist, which is indistinguishable from the former. We all know this is about sending more scarce taxpayer money to “scientists” who have no marketable skill otherwise.
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:21 am
Taxpayer / getalife – greenjobs are not the future.
I’ve had more than a few conversations with a big wind energy producer. It takes far fewer people to operate and maintain a windmill than it does to run a power plant, per kilowatt-hour.
Balance Our Budget
May 27th, 2011
10:22 am
Isn’t it funny how the liberals are quoting Christie.To bad they don’t listen to him on the real issues.
Granny Godzilla
May 27th, 2011
10:23 am
About damned time.
Oh, and damn the deniers.
Jay
May 27th, 2011
10:23 am
Au contraire: even if the data “incontrovertibly” proved rising world temperatures, there is no data set theoretically possible that would attribute the “incontrovertible” rise to anthropogenic activity.
Ragnar is correct, but is unwilling to acknowledge the consequences of being correct.
Given the nature of this problem, “there is no data set theoretically possible that would attribute the “incontrovertible” rise to anthropogenic activity.” In other words, even if mankind is absolutely, 100 percent responsible for rapid changes in the climate, it is impossible to prove it with 100 percent certainty. That is a valid statement.
So what do we do? What is the wise and responsible course? Ragnar chooses to use the lack of total absolute proof — indeed, the impossibility of total absolute proof — as an excuse to do nothing, because it’s easier on us and forces us to make no compromises.
Others, such as Christie, conclude that the overwhelming but not total consensus among scientists makes it imperative to act, lest we leave a badly compromised planet to our children and grandchildren.
md
May 27th, 2011
10:23 am
“Do you, personally, agree that mankind at the very least contributes to climate change and that we should take action to reduce that contribution?”
My stance is that we must be having some effect, but no way of knowing how much. But it is also a cost analysis equation………I see no problem moving toward better environmental policies because they make sense in helping the planet…….but not at the expense of our economy, which would decimate the population…………..
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:24 am
retired early –
“he obviously has no plans for higher office” He’s just trying to get re-elected for starters. So he’s staking out reasonably middle ground / consensus.
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:25 am
“Thank you Taxpayer.”
Getalife, you and Taxpayer agreeing with each other does not make it so.
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:26 am
“We treat our planet better and create a new industry for jobs.”
An appalling lack of fundamental economic knowledge being exhibited in that line.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
10:26 am
“Man-Made Global Warming or Man-Made Climate Change?”
Please, please, please, will some of you AT LEAST get to within five years of current information???
One more time..
Scientists often use the term “climate change” instead of global warming. This is because as the Earth’s average temperature climbs, winds and ocean currents move heat around the globe in ways that can cool some areas, warm others, and change the amount of rain and snow falling. As a result, the climate changes differently in different areas.
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html
redneckbluedog
May 27th, 2011
10:26 am
Governor Christie,
You are a no-good, lily-livered liberal who probably loves homosexuals and Mexicans.
Sincerely,
The T-bag
Adam
May 27th, 2011
10:27 am
To get an answer to that crucial question, Christie says, he has been meeting with experts and scientists for the last few months to discuss the issue in depth, and has also done considerable reading and study on his own.
Wow. Actually it’s too bad he isn’t going to be the candidate for GOP. It really might make a difference in the world to have a fresh GOP candidate who thinks for himself.
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
10:27 am
Taxpayer / getalife – greenjobs are not the future.
Keep telling yourself that, jm. It still will not make it so because only Jean Luc Picard can do that.
Mick
May 27th, 2011
10:27 am
New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the union, there are more people per square mile than any other state. Jersey people know the smell of carbon monoxide in the air, quite frankly it could be the state smell. I’m glad to be in S. Florida, because of the gulf breeze and no major industrial pollution, the air quality is outstandingly clean…
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
10:28 am
To (sic) bad they don’t listen to him on the real issues.
So BoB, this a fake issue?
LOL…
To illustrate just how great the non-scientific, ideologically driven denial truly is:
…even if the data “incontrovertibly” proved rising world temperatures…
IF?
IF??
IF???
The mountains of data, readings, observations and measurements incontrovertibly DOES prove dramatically rising temperatures worldwide.
Hello?
Is anybody home???
Where's My Party?
May 27th, 2011
10:28 am
I think the vast majority of conservatives do acknowledge that we, humans, play a part in the health and well being of our planet. The problem comes with the solutions offered. Most of the time (please note I did not say all) the solution from the left is more taxation and regulation. It is typically another form of taxing “big business” and the “wealthy”. Mr. Christie has hit the nail on the head. Conservation and effeciency is the answer. Not more regulation and taxation.
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:28 am
Folks, Physics 101 tells you the planet will be warmer by dumping more CO2 in there.
More CO2 = more trapped heat. More trapped heat = warmer planet. CO2 up by 20% in last 50 years. Going to up by 50% in another 40 or 50 if nothing is done. Ie, meltdown.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
10:29 am
md: And there in lies the difference in the national argument……..”part of the problem” does not equate to “cause” of the problem…….which is how the argument has been framed to date……..
It is fair to point out that distinction. Yes, we are not causing the whole problem in technical terms. CO2 is coming from non-manmade sources. HOWEVER, MOST of the CO2 that is being emitted IS our fault, and denying THAT is a serious problem, because if we don’t take responsibility for our part in the problem we won’t even TRY to fix it.
Mick
May 27th, 2011
10:29 am
jm@10:28
Absolutely correct sir…the industrial revolution has brought us great technologies the past 150 years, but it’s time to move into the green era of clean energy and leave the dirty coal/fossil fuels in the past…
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:30 am
Adam 10:27 “It really might make a difference in the world to have a fresh GOP candidate who thinks for himself.”
Huntsman. Romney. And others. Take your blinders off.
getalife
May 27th, 2011
10:30 am
jm,
It is not just wind silly.
The President wants toss the kitchen sink at the problem like he did at the w depression.
We are starting to do just that.
Do you want to wait until the oil runs out?
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
10:31 am
“Do you, personally, agree that mankind at the very least contributes to climate change and that we should take action to reduce that contribution?”
Sure, but climate was changing waaaaaaaaaay before cars and coal plants were invented, so there’s NO, NONE, ZERO concrete evidence on how much we contribute to it. The whole “man-made” fear-mongering going on now from liberals and tree-huggers is just an excuse for cap-and-tax.
Jay
May 27th, 2011
10:31 am
Peadawg, does that “sure” extend to “we should take action to reduce that contribution?”
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:31 am
TaxPayer 10:27 – well, you’re so certain of it. Please provide the link that shows the jobs created from the construction and maintenance of windmills or solar panels is greater than those created by the construction and maintenance of gas fired and nuclear power plants.
I look forward to your response arriving never.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
10:31 am
Ragnar — “We all know this is about sending more scarce taxpayer money to “scientists” who have no marketable skill otherwise.”
You’d be very surprised at how marketable the skills of scientists are. My dad’s a senior professor at a major Southern university, and has been one for over 40 years. And he’s been recruited *many* times by private industry to leave academia and come work for them.
Since he’s not interested, they instead contract with him and the school to have him (and his graduate students) do research (and occasionally QA) work for them. You know on commercials where you sometimes hear the phrase “scientists at a major university confirmed it?” My dad’s one of those guys. The businesses send a contract and a fat check, the university skims off a fat percentage and my dad uses the rest to buy equipment, reagents and to pay grad students to do the grunt work in the lab. The business wins because they get the work done. The university wins because they get a generous cut. My dad wins because he gets some new gear for the lab. And the grad students win because they get a paying job so they can afford to stay in school and eat ramen noodles.
NONE OF THIS INVOLVES TAXPAYER FUNDING.
Don’t be so dismissive of scientists and their work; it seems pretty plain to me that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
md
May 27th, 2011
10:32 am
“Folks, Physics 101 tells you the planet will be warmer by dumping more CO2 in there.
More CO2 = more trapped heat. More trapped heat = warmer planet. CO2 up by 20% in last 50 years. Going to up by 50% in another 40 or 50 if nothing is done. Ie, meltdown.”
Why does it tell you that jm?
Does the earth have any natural healing alternatives to counter CO2?
The earth as a whole is a living system……….we are only beginning to grasp what it is about…..and we have to use tons of assumptions to even do that…………
Some of you seem to latch on …..no questions asked.
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
10:32 am
What percentage of climate change is due to natural change?
Would you mind awfully if we used metrics such as ocean heat content or carbon content in the atmosphere or sea level rise or artic ice loss, etc. You know, things that are actually measurable, md. Would that be okay with you. If so, then just click the link that I gave you in my earlier post or let me know that you want me to repost it.
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:32 am
getalife – “Do you want to wait until the oil runs out?”
Not a pertinent question. On that basis, we have another 100 years to wait.
getalife
May 27th, 2011
10:33 am
“Take your blinders off.”
Excellent advice for yourself jm.
Open your mind man.
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
10:33 am
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:31 am
TaxPayer 10:27 – well, you’re so certain of it. Please provide the link that shows the jobs created from the construction and maintenance of windmills or solar panels is greater than those created by the construction and maintenance of gas fired and nuclear power plants.
How about electric cars and recycling centers and higher fuel efficieny designs in power plants and automobiles, etc. There’s more to green than a Trumped golf course, doncha know. By the way, wouldn’t you consider gas fired and nuclear power plants to be more “green” than a coal-fired plant. Just curious.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
10:33 am
“Please, please, please, will some of you AT LEAST get to within five years of current information???”
TaxPayer’s article used both so I was just wondering, AmVet. I thought it had been changed to man-made climate change to sound more sane.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
10:34 am
“Excellent advice for yourself jm.
Open your mind man.”
Seabuiscut has arrived, everyone!
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:34 am
“Open your mind man.”
Spoken like a true dopehead.
I do have my blinders off. I used to be a Democrat. Now I’m a Republican (I’m really just and independent moderate).
How about you Mr. Straight Party Line voter?
Adam
May 27th, 2011
10:35 am
he will come out in a few days and apologize and say that what he was saying should not be quoted as that would be a lie
I sure hope not. I am hoping for more of a press release where he goes “some people are trying to get me to run away from my position and I won’t”
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:36 am
Adam – if there’s one thing to learn about Christie, the guy does not back down. Period. He won’t backtrack.
getalife
May 27th, 2011
10:37 am
jm,
Calm down jm.
No need for name calling.
Left wing management
May 27th, 2011
10:38 am
From a report at Environmental Defense:
CO2 is not coming from human activities
CO2 has natural sources: volcanoes for example. All animals exhale it. How can human activities be affecting the concentration of CO2 on a global scale?
The Facts
Natural processes emit large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, but they also remove it—at nearly identical rates. This balance maintained the concentration of CO2 at a stable level for thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution. In the case of global warming, the question is: What is causing the increase in CO2 concentrations? The answer turns out to be incontrovertible. The isotopic composition of carbon in atmospheric CO2 provides a unique “fingerprint” that tells scientists that the lion’s share of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels.
…
Thermodynamics tells us that the warming of the Earth’s lower atmosphere must arise from one or more processes that supply excess heat to the lower atmosphere. Besides the greenhouse effect, the viable processes are (1) increased output from the sun; (2) increased absorption of heat from the sun due to a change in the Earth’s planetary reflectivity or “albedo”; and (3) an internal variation in the climate system that transfers heat from one part of the Earth to the atmosphere. Direct observations confirm that none of these explains the observed warming over the latter half of the 20th century. For example there has been no appreciable change in solar output over the past two decades (see Figure 1).
Satellite data reveal that the Earth’s reflectivity increased (causing cooling instead of warming) in
the ’60’s, ‘70s, and early ‘80s and has decreased modestly since.
The overall warming from the recent decrease in reflectivity is also small compared to the greenhouse warming. In the case of internal variations, the ocean is the only viable reservoir of internal heat that could have caused the atmosphere to warm on decadal time-scales. However, observations show that the heat content of the ocean has increased instead of decreased over the past few decades (See Figure 2). This indicates that the atmosphere has been a source of heat to the ocean rather than vice versa. Moreover, the amount of heat increase in the ocean is consistent with what is needed to balance the Earth’s energy budget given the excess heating from the enhanced greenhouse effect and the amount of excess heat observed to be stored in the atmosphere (Hansen et al. Science, 308, 2005, pg. 1431). In other words, the amount of heat stored in the ocean over recent years matches the amount of heat that models predict should be trapped on Earth due to the increase in greenhouse gases.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
10:39 am
Peadawg: If Washington wasn’t so busy fighting 3 wars and trying to hand out food to every country in the world, we would probably have enough money to do serious research on clean energy. Seems to me that the politicians in Washington have their priorities messed up.
Amen to that
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
10:39 am
It’s like I’ve said before — all you deniers can deny all you want. You are but a tiny fraction of people — the rest of the educated world has judged you and found you wanting and have passed you by. Believe it or not, no matter what politicians say, the rest of the world is actually working to try and reverse the effects of our human activity on this planet. Thank God people don’t listen to whackos.
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:42 am
getalife 10:37 – you sound like the guy on the Xerox ad trying to get the Fighting Irish to do the printing
Adam
May 27th, 2011
10:42 am
md: What percentage of climate change is due to natural change?
Need more context. Over what time frame? Compared to what time frame? Do we have all the variables of human contribution?
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
10:42 am
“Peadawg, does that “sure” extend to “we should take action to reduce that contribution?””
Depends on what you mean by “we should take action to reduce that contribution”, Jay. Cap-and-tax? No.
md
May 27th, 2011
10:43 am
“Would you mind awfully if we used metrics such as ocean heat content or carbon content in the atmosphere or sea level rise or artic ice loss, etc. You know, things that are actually measurable, md. Would that be okay with you.”
Measurable since when??
That is the other part of the faulty data………the “measurements” are from a given time frame…..which happens to be a very very very tiny tiny tiny segment of the overall time…….and you want to run with that data?????
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
10:43 am
Does the earth have any natural healing alternatives to counter CO2?
Why yes, yes it does. Would you like to read more on that aspect. I can give you links. Basically, the earth’s natural healing methods take very long periods of time as opposed to man’s ability to initiate changes on a much shorter timescale and that differential is part of our problem. It’s analogous to the Titanic spotting an iceberg directly in front of it and trying to stop or turn before hitting it.
Left wing management
May 27th, 2011
10:43 am
The link to the report I cited from above from the Environmental Defense Fund:
http://www.edf.org/documents/5279_GlobalwarmingAttributuion.pdf
Joe
May 27th, 2011
10:44 am
He just lost my vote if he did run!!!!
md
May 27th, 2011
10:44 am
“Need more context. Over what time frame? Compared to what time frame? Do we have all the variables of human contribution?”
You don’t need any more context Adam……….if one “knows” one side of the numbers, that number should be readily available……….
Maybe Bosch has the answer………or he can get it from his educated friends………….
Adam
May 27th, 2011
10:45 am
As far as Christie goes, given this revelation, now I want to know where he stands on social issues and budgetary issues. Once we have those answers I think we have a real chance of evaluating whether he is the kind of person we want in office on a national level.
For one thing, it’s obvious he doesn’t bow to party overlords, which is definitely a plus. It means he won’t just change his position whenever the party wind blows, or forget why he was voted for when suddenly his party wants to just push abortion or war legislation.
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
10:45 am
“(I’m really just and independent moderate).”
Your about as “Independent” as Rush, jm.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
10:46 am
The link to the report I cited from above from the Environmental Defense Fund:
http://www.edf.org/documents/5279_GlobalwarmingAttributuion.pdf
4 years ago, really?
@@
May 27th, 2011
10:47 am
Taxpayer:
Landfills? Subdivisions? Fueling cars?
You’re thinking petroleum, I’m thinking methane to fuel manufacturing plants.
And for the record, I’m not convinced MAN is the cause of climate change, global warming or whatever the hell they’re calling it these days. My only interest is to put the middle east in a stranglehold for a change….to limit the U.S. as one of THEIR natural resources.
We will never be 100% free from the need for oil.
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
May 27th, 2011
10:48 am
AmVet:
LOL!
Like the black Atl. police sgt. I heard on the radio once. Said he stopped EVERY WHITE PERSON in his zone after dark as either:
They were lost and needed help out of the area pronto
They were there to buy drugs
In either case, he said it saved lives and he would continue to PROFILE !
1811/1801 - 0311/0317
May 27th, 2011
10:48 am
Granny:
I thougth you were headed for the moon ?
Libertarian
May 27th, 2011
10:48 am
I think a lot of “evil Republicans” would agree that climate change is real and man is contributing. However, most feel that a) we have bigger issues to worry about right now and b) what is the point of America having all these regulations when other countries (India, China) are continuing to pollute at a crazy high rate? Putting regulations on companies here will only serve to encourage them to move more operations overseas where they do not have environmental regulations.
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
10:49 am
That is the other part of the faulty data………the “measurements” are from a given time frame…..which happens to be a very very very tiny tiny tiny segment of the overall time…….and you want to run with that data?????
Would you like to read about things like ice core samples and fourier analysis, md. We have data that span much more than a few hundred years. And, how about measurements of temperature and even the type of carbon in the atmosphere or the change in oxygen content or the mass loss of ice in the arctic. Science is a very very big field. Truly it is. Please try that link that I provided earlier and let’s resort to the use of facts.
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
10:49 am
What is the temperature of the planet supposed to be? We don’t want to cool it too much do we?
Adam
May 27th, 2011
10:49 am
jm: Huntsman. Romney. And others. Take your blinders off.
I did say fresh…. Romney ran last election, for one thing. For another, he is trying to maintain favor with the wingnuts. Christie doesn’t care about that or he wouldn’t say stuff like he just did.
Beavis
May 27th, 2011
10:50 am
Maybe I don’t get it, but how does giving money to the government and rich people stop CO2 emissions? The ruse is to get the government to TAKE your money and give it to the rich, but wait aren’t the liberals for the little guy, I guess I got that wrong too….
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:50 am
Joe 10:44 – don’t be a single issue voter dude.
Bosch 10:45 – coming from you, I’ll take that as a compliment.
Thanks.
Granny Godzilla
May 27th, 2011
10:50 am
Scout
I thought you’d been raptured.
GT
May 27th, 2011
10:51 am
The Republican Party was a viable operation until we graced it with our southern contribution of mental illness. You had people who actually worked off the facts at hand on occasion and were not offended by compromise.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
10:51 am
jm: Adam – if there’s one thing to learn about Christie, the guy does not back down. Period. He won’t backtrack.
Thank goodness. Put him on the ballot and I will seriously look at him versus the other candidate, rather than dismiss him for wingnuttery. That’s the kind of election I want to see.
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:51 am
Adam 10:49 – tell me why Romney is just sooooo bad. please.
Oh, and to be balanced, why don’t you also list his good qualities, then compare those to Obama’s good and bad qualities.
md
May 27th, 2011
10:52 am
“Basically, the earth’s natural healing methods take very long periods of time as opposed to man’s ability to initiate changes on a much shorter timescale and that differential is part of our problem.”
And you know that how??
So if the earth up and corrects the situation in the next ten years, that would be wrong….correct?
And we have no way of knowing if that may or may not occur…………..
Beliefs folks……….it is all about beliefs……..mine included……..but there is just no way to verify any data presented…………ever in our lifetimes………
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:53 am
Libertarian 10:48 – fair points.
Jay
May 27th, 2011
10:54 am
Libertarian, I wish that were true. It isn’t.
Until we can get conservatives to acknowledge that we at least have a problem, it’s impossible to have the next discussion, which is what to do about it.
@@
May 27th, 2011
10:54 am
I find it amusing that up until Christie’s latest revelation, he was, to liberals, the closest thing to Satan.
You guys sure are an easy bunch. Doesn’t take much to convince/alter your opinion. I guess it’s why you vote Democrat….you’re easily swayed.
md
May 27th, 2011
10:54 am
Yes taxpayer, we do……..and the earth has warmed and cooled in cycles for eons……….and there is no way we can say with any certainty how and when that occurs……………
Let’s go back to the original questions………
What percentage is natural change and how did you get your number?
Hint……it can’t be answered…………..
Logic dictates that we are assuming……………….
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:54 am
md 10:52 – so you disagree with Christie?
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
10:54 am
Taxpayer:
Landfills? Subdivisions? Fueling cars?
You’re thinking petroleum, I’m thinking methane to fuel manufacturing plants.
Actually your earlier comment just happened to remind me of a particular subdivision down in Clayton County, or was it in Henry, that was built on a landfill. It’s been a few years so the details are a little rusty for me. I’d have to do some digging. By the way, I was raised in Clayton County and didn’t leave the area until I got married (and moved to Gwinnett and then moved from there) so I know some of the places down there pretty well.
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:55 am
“which is what to do about it.”
Tell the military to take over China and shut down the 10 new coal plants they build EVERY MONTH?
jm
May 27th, 2011
10:57 am
Error Alert (on my part) China is building 25 coal plants per month….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6769743.stm
Jay, what we gonna due, go bomb China’s coal plants?
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
10:57 am
Where’s My Party?, I think the vast majority of conservatives do acknowledge that we, humans, play a part in the health and well being of our planet.
Not much of a stretch there.
Change ” health and well being of our planet” to ” dramatically escalating worldwide temperatures” and the argument gets much dicier.
Just look at the posts here.
Most of the cons are not even willing to acknowledge that temperatures are rising rapidly
The more enlightened are finally and begrudgingly beginning to acknowledge this obvious fact, but spin and twist like ballerinas in an effort to come up with endless cockamamie “reasons”.
None founded in science. And none acknowledge by the world’s experts as a superior explanation.
Here are the two points that break the deniers backs
1) As noted earlier, “ALL of the scientific organizations in the world, considered experts on these matters, agree – AGW is real.
2) After years and years of opportunities, the deniers have not only come up with a countermanding explanation, their piece-meal, cherry picked “answers” have generally been deemed ludicrous.
Loathing liberals, being willfully ignorant about the facts/ science and deriding academia are not part of the solution.
Time to give up the pretense, cons.
You’re only making yourselves look sillier than ever…
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
10:58 am
Jay,
“Until we can get conservatives to acknowledge that we at least have a problem, it’s impossible to have the next discussion, which is what to do about it.”
I wonder how much of that is true in regards to them actually acknowledging it PUBLICALLY. I wonder how much of their (Republicans) attitude is that they probably acknowledge it privately, but won’t dare admit it out loud — and are, instead, letting the private industries take care of it themselves. You certainly do see alot of “green” talk from businesses these days. But again, I wonder how much is talk and how much is actual action.
LV
May 27th, 2011
10:59 am
Chris “Crisco” Christie is all Koched up.
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
11:00 am
And you know that how??
So if the earth up and corrects the situation in the next ten years, that would be wrong….correct?
And we have no way of knowing if that may or may not occur…………..
Beliefs folks……….it is all about beliefs……..mine included……..but there is just no way to verify any data presented…………ever in our lifetimes………
If you really truly wanted to learn how we know some of the things we do know with such a high confidence level, then all you need do is take that first step and click on that link I gave you, md. Unfortunately, I do not get the impression that you wish to learn the background or even a piece of it. You have your mindset and you do not want it to be altered. Now, would you like to know more about how we know, for example, that fossil fuel burning is contributing so much CO2 to the atmosphere. I’ll be glad to discuss many different aspects of global warming so long as we limit it to a discussion of the scientific evidence and there is plenty of it to choose from.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:00 am
jm: It’s not that Romney is SOOO bad, it’s just he has really bad timing. So far there’s only one thing he is nationally known for, and it’s the one thing that most of the GOP cannot stand for reasons that don’t make sense.
So ok, I can only do a good idea, bad idea on this guy for right now due to limited time:
Good idea: His health care plan and implementation
Bad idea: “No Apology” book all about how Obama is apologizing for the country (he wasn’t, isn’t, and never did). In other words, more lies and talking points. In a book. Neo-Con-Capitalism at work: Lie to get more money.
Jay
May 27th, 2011
11:00 am
jm, I think that falls into the “what to do about it” category.
I don’t at all deny that’s a problem. But I think the essential step now is building agreement that a problem exists in the first place. We have to take this as Christie has done, one practical step at a time.
md
May 27th, 2011
11:02 am
“md 10:52 – so you disagree with Christie?”
Not necessarily……i stated earlier that I believe (key word) it also plays some “part” (another key word)…..go back and read my stance if you choose……..
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:02 am
“…have not only come up with a countermanding explanation…”
Redact to read “have not only NOT come up with a countermanding explanation…
Thank you and carry on.
Scout, love that story @10:48…
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:03 am
@@:
1) I do not equate candidates to fictional characters such as Satan and the Messiah.
2) I never thought of the guy as evil, and the only misguided thing I thought he did so far had to do with his state budget. Everything else policy wise seems fairly above board, and as long as he doesn’t push social legislation on people, I think he may be of the libertarian conservative type that the GOP badly needs to get off the crazy train.
Left wing management
May 27th, 2011
11:04 am
md: “Let’s go back to the original questions………/ What percentage is natural change and how did you get your number?”
Your question seems to be premised on the assumption that it must be possible to nail down a precise number, otherwise the model must be faulty, which is a misunderstanding of how science works.
Basically — though I’m no scientist — I would guess the correct answer to your question is that scientific models prove that the human role in global warming (greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels) is NOT zero with a degree of certainty that approaches 100%. In other words, the ONE claim that can be all but ruled out in scientific terms is the claim that humans play NO role in climate change. This is the way that statements and claims are constructed, not, as you’re suggesting, in the manner of: well since you can’t say with 100% certainty that humans ARE responsible, therefore we can go on assuming our role is nil.
jm
May 27th, 2011
11:05 am
Jay 11:00 – I think there’s a typo in the first sentence…. “I don’t think” is I think what you meant to say
Yes, I agree, an incremental approach is best. Efficiency should be at the top of the list, and the least expensive alternatives (natural gas, wind) should be next.
But we play in an international marketplace, and if we go all clean and China’s 1.x billion people are pumping out all their electricity via coal, we’re screwed. And China is a mercantilist dictatorship…. so changing their minds will be absurdly difficult. All they care about is short term economic growth to create jobs so they can stay in office (sound familiar?).
So unless you want to sink our economy, we need to find the energy sources (incl efficiency) that are cheaper than coal.
md
May 27th, 2011
11:05 am
Preach it Am…preach it………..minister of the religion of GW………..
And that is all it is in reality……..folks preaching a belief because it is unprovable………
DebbieDoRight
May 27th, 2011
11:05 am
jm: Adam 10:27 “It really might make a difference in the world to have a fresh GOP candidate who thinks for himself.”
Huntsman. Romney. And others. Take your blinders off.
Huh? Romney!?! You mean the “Romeny-who-did-not-like-romneycare-cause-Obama-based-his-model-off-of-it-and-the GOP-hates-it”? THAT Romney? Dude, you started drinking already? Isn’t it a little early?
Libertarian
May 27th, 2011
11:07 am
Jay..
Fair enough….a lot of conservatives that I know believe in climate change (but I am relatively young). Unfortunately for the Republican party, there are too many vocal members who are on the extreme right. But I think the Republican party as we know it is on its way out. There is a new generation of conservatives who believe in things like climate change, equal rights for gays, and who are pro choice, all while being fiscally conservative. The “old white guy” Republican party is being phased out.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
11:08 am
Bosch — “I’M a new conservative? OMG!! Who knew??”
Somewhere, Doom just got a little tickle along his spine.
md
May 27th, 2011
11:08 am
“If you really truly wanted to learn how we know some of the things we do know with such a high confidence level, then all you need do is take that first step and click on that link I gave you, md”
I’ve been around long enough to understand that “confidence level”………….once upon a time, aids could only be contracted though sexual contact…………..
Science is what we “think” we know at any given time……………..
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:08 am
md: There’s plenty of evidence for man’s contribution, and that adding it to already existing CO2 emissions leads to a warming period more rapidly than it would otherwise. Sure, you can argue over the numbers, but why? If you have this evidence, and you can apply it to a potential range of numbers, that is all you need to say “ok, this is real, and we ARE causing a problem here.” Then you can finally approach a solution instead of just throwing up your hands and saying “oh well! Since it causes us minor economic problems to adjust or dependance on these machines, I won’t even TRY”
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
11:09 am
There is a new generation of conservatives who believe in things like climate change, equal rights for gays, and who are pro choice, all while being fiscally conservative.
I’M a new conservative? OMG!! Who knew??
DebbieDoRight
May 27th, 2011
11:09 am
Libertarian: There is a new generation of conservatives who believe in things like climate change, equal rights for gays, and who are pro choice, all while being fiscally conservative. The “old white guy” Republican party is being phased out.
Where or where are these mythical creatures? I don’t see any of them in your Republican Purity Pledge mantras.
getalife
May 27th, 2011
11:09 am
Baby steps to progress in a constantly changing world is as good as it gets from our corrupt government.
We are heading in the right direction but falling behind .
When will you get sick of losing to China?
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
11:09 am
Yes taxpayer, we do……..and the earth has warmed and cooled in cycles for eons……….and there is no way we can say with any certainty how and when that occurs……………
Actually there is a lot we know with a very high level of confidence. We could start with the Milankovitch cycle if you like. Also, like I said ice core sample and fourier analysis have allowed us to learn more about the earth spanning thousands of years, md. It is just science.
Let’s go back to the original questions………
What percentage is natural change and how did you get your number?
Hint……it can’t be answered…………..
As I said before, if you wish to truly discuss climate change, then surely you realize that we must use definable metrics. But if you insist on using “natural change” as a metric, fine. What are its units and what does it consist of and what type of instrument do you measure it with and with what accuracy and precision. Then again, things like sea level rise and temperature are a little easier to deal with.
Logic dictates that we are assuming……………….
Logic dictates that we might assume something and then look for means to evaluate that assumption in an effort to achieve further enlightenment or understanding.
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
11:11 am
Normal! They killed grandma???
jm
May 27th, 2011
11:12 am
Bosch 1:09 welcome to the party!
as getalife says, “open your mind”
md
May 27th, 2011
11:12 am
“I would guess the correct answer to your question is that scientific models prove that the human role in global warming (greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels) is NOT zero with a degree of certainty that approaches 100%.”
And if you ask any scientist about models, they will grudgingly admit that some of the data is assumed………as it must be when it is not “known”……………….
Normal
May 27th, 2011
11:13 am
I see they got the notorious “Grandma Bandit”…shot her dead.
jm
May 27th, 2011
11:13 am
I hate Comcast.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55810.html
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:13 am
But I think the Republican party as we know it is on its way out. There is a new generation of conservatives who believe in things like climate change, equal rights for gays, and who are pro choice, all while being fiscally conservative. The “old white guy” Republican party is being phased out.
If true, you may find me voting Republican again. When this becomes reality, of course.
Michaels
May 27th, 2011
11:14 am
The Path To Prosperity With The GOP:
http://www.mattbors.com/archives/750.html
jconservative
May 27th, 2011
11:14 am
“And there in lies the difference in the national argument……..”part of the problem” does not equate to “cause” of the problem…….which is how the argument has been framed to date……..”
I have never seen any argument by a scientist type that said “cause”, they all say “contribute”. It is the politicians and the bloggers who use the words “cause” and “not happening”.
———————
Jay, you really need to stop using the words conservative and liberal when you mean republican and democrat. I am a Conservative. I am not a Republican. I have been politically active since the 1960 presidential election, met hundreds of elected Republicans and have not found a single conservative in the bunch. After getting into the details of policy they always turn out to be Big Government Liberals, not Conservatives. But hope springs eternal………………….
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
11:15 am
Wow! Big time warp jump there!!!
@@
May 27th, 2011
11:15 am
Adam:
I like Christie. I especially like how he deals with public unions.
============================
One of those DID YOU KNOW? questions.
Research scientists in the Antarctic are able to detect from whence pollutants originate. Contaminants from Russia, China and India are consistent.
Asian funeral pyres emit mercury into the atmosphere. It’s the fillings in their teeth.
Lotsa little tidbits make for an accumulation of pollutants.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:16 am
md, the existing theories compete against each other. (Remember the Scientific method?)
To date, one theory scientifically blows away all of the others. In every measurable way. And why it is accepted as the most plausible. Until AGW, which has withstood long and rigorous testing, can be proven false, it will countermand all of the other MUCH weaker theories.
Objective knowledge is everyone’s friend…
md
May 27th, 2011
11:17 am
“md: There’s plenty of evidence for man’s contribution, and that adding it to already existing CO2 emissions leads to a warming period more rapidly than it would otherwise. ”
Look at your statement………….”more rapidly than it would otherwise”………says who? How?
To state your own “fact”, you have to make an assumption………………….
The fact is, that we don’t “know” 99% of the data used to arrive at our “facts”……………we have to assume it……….
If you can’t give that simple number Adam……….then what do you really “know”?
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:17 am
Scientific Method: Have a Hypothesis and then attempt to DISPROVE it.
Climate Change has not been disproven. Much like Evolution. This is why they remain as legit scientific topics. Both have similar percentages of scientists that agree that Evolution is real and Climate Change is real.
getalife
May 27th, 2011
11:18 am
jm,
Your mind is closed.
I see a huge opportunity to create jobs and investments in America.
You see nothing.
DebbieDoRight
May 27th, 2011
11:18 am
Normal: RE – Grandma Bandit; I found this on the AJC site
At that point, the police officers who had been pursuing her heard a single gunshot, and they returned fire, hitting her multiple times, Parish said. Neither of the officers was injured.
Forgive me for being a cynic, but they must’ve had remarkable hearing to hear that “one” gunshot while their sirens were blaring and other cars were rolling by. What are the odds they won’t find a weapon on her? I’ll take 5 to 1.
Normal
May 27th, 2011
11:19 am
jconservative
May 27th, 2011
11:14 am
“I have been politically active since the 1960 presidential election”
I became politically aware back then myself.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:19 am
md: There are plenty of simple numbers used as data points to reach this conclusion. It’s also simple logic that if you know (FACT) that the earth warms more rapidly when there is more CO2, that ADDING CO2 is going to increase that effect, thereby increasing the rapidity of warming.
Is this really that hard to understand or are you just being deliberately dense to make a point that doesn’t matter in the real discussion?
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
11:20 am
I’ve been around long enough to understand that “confidence level”………….once upon a time, aids could only be contracted though sexual contact…………..
Science is what we “think” we know at any given time……………..
I’ve been around a while too, md, and I see no positive correlation between your beliefs regarding opinions of how aids was contracted and a discussion of climate change. Further, “science” has a definition and it like everything generated by our human brains is part of a thought process. It differentiates us from other lifeforms or at least I like to think so.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:21 am
no different than trying to prove there is or isn’t a god
Very different. Your argument is essentially that because there are a few missing pieces that the whole thing is suspect, which is ridiculous. That argument has been used against evolution and could be used on ANYTHING scientific, even the “assumption” that 1+1=2. It is a ridiculous argument though. Evidence exists for evolution and climate change, evidence does not exist for the existence of a god.
md
May 27th, 2011
11:21 am
“Until AGW, which has withstood long and rigorous testing, can be proven false, it will countermand all of the other MUCH weaker theories.”
Last one before I go……………..”long and rigorous testing”…………..”long” is a relative term when dealing with a subject billions of years old………………..
You, and others, are more than welcome to believe as you choose……..for without the missing data, it is a belief…………..no different than trying to prove there is or isn’t a god…………
Normal
May 27th, 2011
11:21 am
DDR,
I won’t take that bet. Nobody could offer a “give it up, Grandma”?
DebbieDoRight
May 27th, 2011
11:22 am
Is this really that hard to understand or are you just being deliberately dense to make a point that doesn’t matter in the real discussion?
BINGO!
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:22 am
The fact is, that we don’t “know” 99% of the data used to arrive at our “facts”……………we have to assume it……….
That’s a fact?
Please cit your sources…
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:23 am
Last one before I go……………..”long and rigorous testing”…………..”long” is a relative term when dealing with a subject billions of years old………………..
Completely immaterial comparison.
Do you think that cosmology is invalid because we haven’t studied the cosmos for billions of years?
You, and others, are more than welcome to believe as you choose……..for without the missing data, it is a belief…………..no different than trying to prove there is or isn’t a god…………
Incorrect.
It is a scientific theory, not a belief…
dudder
May 27th, 2011
11:24 am
I am a conservative and believe that man does play a role in climate change. I am also an engineer. Several hundred years ago, most industries did not change the molecular structure of the environment. What I mean by that is that cotton stayed, cotton, wood pulp stayed wood pulp, etc. As we have advanced, we have learned how to manipulate and change the resources around us to extract items of benefit. We have also increased the use of resource changing technologies and decreased the use of non changing technologies. For example, we have increased our use of combustion. We take a natural resource, chemically alter the components in it, and put it back into the environment. Plastics, metals, you name it. It is a scientific absurdety to believe that chemically altering and then replacing compounds has NO affect on the environment. Me walking into a room changes it (my body heat affects the room in some way).
Most conservatives would understand this point. What the issue is that environmentalists like Gore have used faulty data and doomsday scenarios to prove their point. First of all, we need to get back to square one and explain how mankind changes the environment around them. Second, we need an independent review of data showing climate change, as that is one of the biggest sources of contention. Finally, we need to quit chastizing those that are not of the same mindset. do you think that by berating and belittling someone you are going to ge them to open their ears, minds and hearts? yell at a child for any length of time and she shuts you out.
Just my thoughts.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:24 am
What the issue is that environmentalists like Gore have used faulty data and doomsday scenarios to prove their point.
The GOP is missing a huge opportunity here by not taking this and going “yes we agree that climate change is happening and we are contributing, but here is our REASONABLE plan to deal with it, minus the doomsday scenarios.”
GOP could be the party of REASON.
But instead, any left wing hysteria is dismissed and right wing hysteria is trumped up to the point of stating belief as fact (just like they are accusing the left wing of on the Climate Change issue). The BIG problem is not dealing with issues seriously, and making everything a fight and black vs. white, red vs. blue, spy vs. spy kind of thing.
md
May 27th, 2011
11:25 am
“I’ve been around a while too, md, and I see no positive correlation between your beliefs regarding opinions of how aids was contracted and a discussion of climate change.”
Well TP, that opinion on aids was the “science” of the time…………………..
Jay
May 27th, 2011
11:26 am
md, you claim to accept that mankind contributes to climate change and that action should be taken. However, you then argue repeatedly and strongly against both conclusions.
Am I missing something? Is it merely that you have a knee-jerk reaction to agreeing with liberals, even when your rational mind tells you that they’re right on this one?
Common Sense
May 27th, 2011
11:27 am
Repeat a lie often enough and even some conservative governors will start to believe it.
md
May 27th, 2011
11:27 am
Adam………one last time…..why can’t you tell us with certainty what percentage is natural?
And if you don’t know that side of the equation, how can you possibly know the other side of the equation……………..
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:28 am
BTW, kudos, Jay.
It’s been much too long since we discussed this topic…
dudder
May 27th, 2011
11:29 am
Gas/coal —> nuclear —> green
We need to rid ourselves of gas/coal technologies at some point in our future (several hundred years out) and move to replenishable, environmental technology. The only problem with a direct move is that all green technology is highly inefficient and expensive when compared to gas/coal. A good intermediary, one that can get us from point at to point b is nuclear power. It is not as cheap as gas/coal but is cheaper and more efficient over the lifespan of the reactor than green energy technologies. Enact a law (yeah, we know laws can be changed) to allow more nuclear energy development but cut it off after a certain period of time. Like in 200 years nuclear power will be outlawyed here. As part of the deal, the nuclear industry would be required to help develop green technologies. Dont know how it will work, but just a thought.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:31 am
…environmentalists like Gore have used faulty data…to prove their point.
dudder, and what *exactly* is this faulty data?
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:32 am
md: Because I’m not a climate scientist? How about you ask someone who HAS studied the data in numbers form. I’m with Christie, “When you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts…. we know enough to know that we are at least a part of the problem.”
Your argument seems to be aimed at the fallacy that a small degree of missing data or uncertainty means we should do nothing or pretend there is a *possibility* that we aren’t REALLY contributing to the problem (there is no such possibility, based on ACTUAL scientific evidence, btw).
getalife
May 27th, 2011
11:34 am
We know the oil will run out.
We know we need alternative energy.
We know we need to take care of the planet.
We know we need to create jobs.
There are your facts that matter.
@@
May 27th, 2011
11:34 am
Given the developing and undeveloped countries throughout the world, I don’t think reducing CO2 is realistic. Figuring out how to capture and reuse is what we should be focused on.
I’m an advocate of conserving and recycling.
I’m outta here since there’s no scientist(s) on board….just a bunch of wannabes.
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
11:35 am
The fact is, that we don’t “know” 99% of the data used to arrive at our “facts”……………we have to assume it……….
Yes, md, we do have to assume that we exist and are not fabrications of an over-active non-being’s non-existent thought process but only if we choose to do so.
ragnar danneskjold
May 27th, 2011
11:35 am
Dear Jay @ 10:23, thanks. I can agree with the direction of your analysis. Even if mankind is absolutely, 1 percent responsible for rapid changes in the climate, it is impossible to prove it with even 1 percent certainty. But the consequence of that truth is that the leftist perspective is that freedom must be diminished and costs increased due to the theoretical potentiality of some effect. The conservative view would be that such draconian destruction of the economy should be guided only by some near certainty of “proof” and potential cure. No leftist has yet offered any “cure” for the problem, merely an intention to inflict new costs and controls over the behaviors of the individuals.
My view is that more people die from frostbite than will ever die from global warming. Frostbite deaths are provable, but global warming deaths remain merely theoretical. Leftists always want to inflict new government controls based entirely on theory, whereas conservatives recognize the destruction governments leave in their wake,
jconservative
May 27th, 2011
11:36 am
“There’s undeniable data that CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing.”
Christie has this one 100% correct:
We have been keeping track of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere since 1959. These numbers are in “parts per millon”.
1959 – 318.16
1969 – 326.76
1979 – 339.2
1989 – 355.11
1999 – 370.1
2009 – 389.43
The basic trend is obvious. But note the size of the increases. From 1959 to 1969 up 8.60, from 1999 to 2009 up 19.33. Trends within trends within trends.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
May 27th, 2011
11:37 am
Why is it that the default for climate change deniers is do nothing until you can aboslutely prove what we are doing is bad instead of if it is possibly bad and will harm our children and their children, let’s figure out how to minimize impact until we can prove that it is not bad.
The experiment we continue to proceed with blindly and haphazardly is the only planet we can live on right now.
DebbieDoRight
May 27th, 2011
11:39 am
Normal: DDR, I won’t take that bet. Nobody could offer a “give it up, Grandma”?
Word. I hate to say “trigger happy police…” but…..
Oh well, I missed the game last night, (bridal crap with my sister — are ALL women crazy bridezillas when they’re about to get married? who really CARES about a stoooopid flower arrangement? They’re just flower for god’s sake!!), didn’t get in until late, got to work early and just heard that the HEAT WON!! yippeee!!! Now i’ve gotta go on the Cleveland Blogs and dog everyone who dogged LeBron. Life is good!!!
Common Sense
May 27th, 2011
11:39 am
@md He cannot tell you because you are treating this planet as a closed fixed size system.
The truth is that the Earth is affected by many items outside the planet.
How much hotter or cooler can the sun burn? What about the impact of solar winds and magnetic storms? All of these variables are under constant change. Yet for comfort we all seek a number that is concise and accurate. It does not exist.
Saturn has the largest storm ever seen by man raging on it’s surface. Yet this planet is millions of miles further away from the source of energy that fuels those storms: The Sun
http://www.space.com/11720-monster-saturn-storm-cassini-spacecraft.html
The question is how much you are willing to spend not to change the numbers to the left of the decimal point, but to the right of it. Because that is the only side of the number you will ever change.
Even then you will not be sure it was not because of reasons other than what you think you affected.
Left wing management
May 27th, 2011
11:39 am
Jay: “Am I missing something? Is it merely that you have a knee-jerk reaction to agreeing with liberals, even when your rational mind tells you that they’re right on this one?”
My sense is it’s that meme that was put out there some years back by Limbaugh especially that “climate change” can be purely and simply reduced to the attempt of Marxist liberals post-Berlin Wall to advance their anti-capitalist agenda. And therefore, it must be opposed no matter what. The question of its truth value almost never even enters into it. One gets the sense this position would mandate opposing it EVEN if it were proved true, capitalism of course for them being that which mustn’t be questioned.
md: “There’s plenty of evidence for man’s contribution, and that adding it to already existing CO2 emissions leads to a warming period more rapidly than it would otherwise. ” / Look at your statement………….”more rapidly than it would otherwise”………says who? How? ”
Again — since you seem to have missed it above — I’ll post again the debunking of this claim by the Environmental Defense Fund:
False claim: CO2 is not coming from human activities
CO2 has natural sources: volcanoes for example. All animals exhale it. How can human activities be affecting the concentration of CO2 on a global scale?
The Facts
Natural processes emit large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, but they also remove it—at nearly identical rates. This balance maintained the concentration of CO2 at a stable level for thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution. In the case of global warming, the question is: What is causing the increase in CO2 concentrations? The answer turns out to be incontrovertible. The isotopic composition of carbon in atmospheric CO2 provides a unique “fingerprint” that tells scientists that the lion’s share of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere is from the burning of fossil fuels.
md
May 27th, 2011
11:39 am
You folks do know that “scientific theory” is the same as an educated guess………guess being the operative word.
Well it’s been fun, but I have to run over to the Temple of the Holy Deniers…….you folks be sure to say high to the minister over at the Church of the Unwavering Believers……………
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
11:43 am
md,
Your collective comments today on climate change lead me to assume that you have no interest or background in science and that you have simply chosen to be antagonistic regarding climate change without actually delving into any true discussion on the matter. Jay likely has you pegged — you take your stance because you perceive climate change as something that you must attact because it represents the liberal or progressive mindset and you shall have none of that.
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
11:45 am
Well it’s been fun, but I have to run over to the Temple of the Holy Deniers
Finally! Some truth about md doth come forth. I’m feeling a Monty Python moment coming on.
md
May 27th, 2011
11:45 am
“md, you claim to accept that mankind contributes to climate change and that action should be taken. However, you then argue repeatedly and strongly against both conclusions.”
Not at all Jay………merely pointing out that we have no clue how much our contribution may be…….it very well may be infinitesimal………….setting policy on that vs just trying to do things right by the planet are two totally different concepts…..
Now I’m out………………
Another opinion
May 27th, 2011
11:46 am
As one who grew up in New Jersey, I’ve always admired the independence that its citizens showed in their politics and voting patterns. It certainly influenced me and throughout my life, I have never voted straight-line for either party or completely agreed with either side’s positions. If more Americans did this, the sheep-like dedication that people have to their beloved Democrat-this or Republican-that would vanish. And – why is climate change a political issue instead of just a scientific issue, anyway? Only because Al Gore decided to make it one. If you take the politics out of it, it’s much easier to debate the facts and findings.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
11:47 am
md: Your either-or/black-and-white approach to this issue is the problem, not the science. The science is sound. Stop being so dense.
Left wing management
May 27th, 2011
11:47 am
md: “You folks do know that “scientific theory” is the same as an educated guess………guess being the operative word”
Nothing could be further from the truth.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:48 am
Moonspots, sunspots, volcanoes, wobbles in the earth’s orbit, cow flatulence.
These are the right-wing think tanks’ countermanding theories?
Because there is still a great deal of uncertainty in the theory of AGW, it does not mean that it is unfounded.
Again, I implore, where are the superior, alternative explanations?
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:49 am
And I know it seems like I’m piling on md, but stating that scientific theories are equivalent to religious faith, is just plain silly…
@@
May 27th, 2011
11:50 am
One last comment.
When jay’s “scientists” have figured out how to put a cork in erupting volcanoes (Hellooooo, Al Gore)…
I’ll give a listen.
schnirt
Controlling the environment is like trying to control The Great Miss-a-sip’ (Hellooooo Kool-aid drinkers).
Can’t be done.
Ciao for now!
jm
May 27th, 2011
11:51 am
getalife 11:34 – that post was a testament to the fact that your career was not spent as an economist or business person
ragnar danneskjold
May 27th, 2011
11:52 am
WSJ April 25:
“How unconvincing is the green legal doctrine of the climate tort? So much so that not a single Justice seemed persuaded when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments last Tuesday—even some of the liberals questioned the theory with Scalia-like vigor.
“In American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, a group of state attorneys general are suing five utilities, claiming their carbon emissions are a “nuisance” under common law. Boiled down, they’re asking the Court to give judges the power to create climate policies—and weigh their costs and benefits—that would ordinarily be fashioned by the politically accountable branches.
“But don’t take our word for it. “I mean, even just reading that part of your complaint, it sounds like the paradigmatic thing that administrative agencies do rather than courts,” Justice Elena Kagan told New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood. “Now what,” chimed in Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “the relief you’re seeking seems to me to set up a district judge, who does not have the resources, the expertise, as a kind of super-EPA.”
“Later, Justice Kagan, President Obama’s second nominee to the High Court, asked, “General, do you think that you have a federal common law cause of action against anybody in the world?” After all, everyone contributes to global warming. “Obviously the greatest benefit to reduce global warming would be, of course, to shut down the power plants, right?” as Chief Justice John Roberts put it. Should the courts have that power too—but extended over the entire economy?
“Or “can the courts set a tax?” wondered Stephen Breyer. Ms. Underwood claimed that such a policy wouldn’t “abate the nuisance,” to which Justice Breyer acidly replied, “Oh, this will. This is addressed to that. It says abate the nuisance, here’s how you’re going to do it. You’re going to put a $20 a tax ton on carbon, and lo and behold, you will discover that nuisance will be abated.”
“It’s heartening to see the Justices reaffirm their faith in the democratic process, especially after a 2006 case that the Obama Administration has used to justify its autocratic choice to impose carbon regulation via the Environmental Protection Agency. But even the proponents of the climate tort have been open about their bad faith. The point of this and other lawsuits has merely been to harass industry and coerce business into supporting a carbon crackdown, no matter what elected representatives decide.”
jm
May 27th, 2011
11:52 am
jconservative 11:36 – “1999 to 2009 up 19.33.” One word: China.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
11:53 am
“Nothing could be further from the truth.”
From dictionary.com:
Theory: “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.” – i.e. a educated guess. If not, then what would you call it, LWM? Scientists can guess as to how much man is contributing to climate all they want. But they’ll never be facts. Just theories and educated guesses.
getalife
May 27th, 2011
11:54 am
“Controlling the environment is like trying to control The Great Miss-a-sip’ (Hellooooo Kool-aid drinkers).
Can’t be done.”
Morganza spillway.
Yes, it was done.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:54 am
More remedial education for the HeadRush acolytes…
While volcanoes can certainly have a large effect on climate, their effects are transient. They produce large amounts of methane and carbon dioxide but massive volcanic discharges are rare and their major effects last only for a few years, whereas human-caused pollution is continuously renewed. There is no plausible volcanic explanation for the observed warming trend of the last century.
Left wing management
May 27th, 2011
11:55 am
Another opinion: “And – why is climate change a political issue instead of just a scientific issue, anyway? Only because Al Gore decided to make it one. If you take the politics out of it, it’s much easier to debate the facts and findings.”
You’re wrong there. Climate change has been a more or less political issue – in this country and abroad – since well before Al Gore came on the scene. But you’re right insofar as the current FORM of that politicization — i.e. either you deny climate change or you’re an anti-capitalist Marxist – is new (post Berlin Wall) and more specific to this country.
But as I mentioned above, those who are responsible for THIS politicization are those – like Limbaugh – who claim that the matter comes down to a binary up or down vote of no confidence in capitalism (neoliberals like Gore having seen no problem with integrating an awareness of climate change into market capitalism).
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
11:56 am
“And I know it seems like I’m piling on md, but stating that scientific theories are equivalent to religious faith, is just plain silly…”
How so? There’s no concrete evidence on whether or not God exists. Just as there’s no concrete evidence for scientific theories…that’s why they are called theories. Sure, some are more widely accepted than others, but they are still theories.
saywhat?
May 27th, 2011
11:56 am
I hope my educated guess regarding the theory of gravity holds true and and I don’t float off into space on my way to lunch.
getalife
May 27th, 2011
11:57 am
Not to worry cons.
As long as they can write big checks to stop alternatives, not much will change on this issue.
Our planet, our troops and economy will continue to pay the price for our addiction to oil.
jm
May 27th, 2011
11:57 am
Jay. BTW, betting odds are that Regional Transportation Tax will fail the first time. Story has it most transit taxes fail the first time. Only after people sit in traffic another 5 – 10 years after will they say: sh-t, we shoulda done that, and then pass it the second time.
Traffic is going to suck in this city for another 15-20 years. Maybe after it is fixed I can come back.
Dan
May 27th, 2011
11:58 am
Peadawg – There is concrete evidence. That’s what science is about: advancing or debunking theories through observation and experiments. The observations and experiments yield EVIDENCE.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
12:00 pm
getalife@11:54 BINGO
Bruno
May 27th, 2011
12:02 pm
From earlier:
his larger point is not diversity for diversity’s sake, but diversity as a strategy to reach a diverse audience.
Can you people get past race for 2 minutes?
It sure would be nice if you Libs would make up your minds, because you can’t have it both ways. But as long as it benefits you politically to keep the racial pot stirred up, it will never end. I can accept that, but it doesn’t make you “better” people as you seem to think.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:02 pm
“The observations and experiments yield EVIDENCE.” – There’s evidence about man contributions, yes. But exactly how much? How do put a price (cap-and-tax) on something you don’t know?
Adam
May 27th, 2011
12:03 pm
Peadawg: Just as there’s no concrete evidence for scientific theories…that’s why they are called theories.
This is incorrect. There is concrete evidence, just not enough to make it absolutely true in all cases. But there is solid evidence and THAT is why they are called theories, not because there is no evidence. The no evidence part is the beginning stages, the hypothesis. A Scientific Theory is very different from “I have a theory.”
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
12:05 pm
Just as there’s no concrete evidence for scientific theories…
“A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.”
em·pir·i·cal –adjective
provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
Or, if you prefer to use non-scientific terms – concrete evidence…
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:05 pm
Off topic but interesting is Kyle’s blog today on Fannie and Freddie. Go ‘ol bailouts in action!!!
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
12:05 pm
Peadawg — “How so? There’s no concrete evidence on whether or not God exists. Just as there’s no concrete evidence for scientific theories…that’s why they are called theories. Sure, some are more widely accepted than others, but they are still theories.”
The conflation of scientific theory with religious dogmatism does not indict the scientific research and theory thereunto pertaining, nor does it invest religious dogmatism with a halo of real-world validity and respect.
It just makes the comparer look like a d**k. Look up “Russell’s Teapot,” Peadawg.
jconservative
May 27th, 2011
12:08 pm
jm May 27th, 2011
11:52 am
jconservative 11:36 – “1999 to 2009 up 19.33.” One word: China.
I would say three words, 1. China, 2. India, 3. USA.
Note this is an alphabetical listing.
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
12:08 pm
When jay’s “scientists” have figured out how to put a cork in erupting volcanoes (Hellooooo, Al Gore)…
I’ll give a listen.
I think, given the resources, scientists and engineers could find a way but you wouldn’t want to pay for it.
Good little liberal
May 27th, 2011
12:10 pm
Climate change real? Man contributes?
Well lets start giving money to Al Gore and George Soros. That will fix it!!!
St Simons - we're on Island time
May 27th, 2011
12:11 pm
This one gets me too angry. The stupid, I mean.
Everyone anywhere near the ocean, including Christie,
knows it’s true & a fact.
Watch the cons walk backwards on everythang.
They smell the Defeat, the Recalls, the Buyer’s Remorse.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:12 pm
AmVet, Joe Mama, Adam,
Where’s the evidence of exactly how much man contributes? How much do you (cap and) tax? I would love to see some studies on where scientist have tried to do this. Would be some good entertainment.
stands for decibels
May 27th, 2011
12:13 pm
Thanks, Chris. This acceptance of scientific reality mitigates your dickish decision to halt the rail tunnel by as much as 0.15%.
jconservative
May 27th, 2011
12:14 pm
Re theories and such, a few definitions of interest.
Science – Our attempt to explain nature.
Theory (in science) – A statement that explains all available data, with no exceptions.
hypothesis: a tentative or working assumption which scientific study has yet to validate.
Bruno
May 27th, 2011
12:14 pm
“When you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts….
Same old tired “climate change” arguments. I hope that some of you scientific “experts” on board realize that facts can’t be voted on, so whatever percentage of scientists believe something is irrelevant, as the History of Science clearly demonstrates.
As for the facts about climate change:
(1) The earth’s temperature has varied by a little more than 1 degree Celsius over the past 150 years, the only time period for which we have accurate measurements. Though the upward trend is possibly of concern, the amount of variation is fairly slight in the grand scheme of things.
(2) All of the predictions regarding anthropogenic climate change are based on computer models, models which have been shown to be faulty in the past.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:14 pm
“I think, given the resources, scientists and engineers could find a way but you wouldn’t want to pay for it.”
Not while we’re funding 3 wars and food for the entire world, nope.
getalife
May 27th, 2011
12:16 pm
We need to get our country back.
The gop and cons can’t govern.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
12:19 pm
Where’s the evidence of exactly how much man contributes?
Why move the goal posts?
The amount of pollutants, carcinogens and GHGs pumped into our atmosphere has been measured.
Your argument was that there was “no concrete evidence”. Which is patently fallacious. Now you merely ask, unwittingly, what is the EXACT amount of that concrete evidence.
“How much do you (cap and) tax?”
Thanks, but I’ll pass on the invite to your red herring lunch. This out of the blue canard, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand – “Just as there’s no concrete evidence for scientific theories…that’s why they are called theories.”
If you want to acknowledge that you are incorrect and move onto the topic of cap and trade, fine.
(I’m opposed to it…)
Dave R.
May 27th, 2011
12:19 pm
Bruno, you forgot one other:
(3) We deliberately place our temperature sensors in heat sinks – some know them as “cities” – and exclaim “Wow! Look how much hotter we got!”
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
12:21 pm
Peadawg — “Where’s the evidence of exactly how much man contributes?”
Given your earlier conflation of global warming and religion, I don’t think you’re interested in — or would accept — any evidence at all. Your POV is pretty clear.
FWIW, I think you’re the kind of guy who decried automobiles because he feared what their acceptance would do to his buggy-whip factory investments.
“How much do you (cap and) tax?”
How much do you *tithe?* How does one propitiate one’s deity so as to ensure that no earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes and/or tsunami bedevil one?
“I would love to see some studies on where scientist have tried to do this. Would be some good entertainment.”
Almost as funny as reading “Dr.” Kent Hovind’s ’scientifical’ explanations of Genesis and the flood.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:24 pm
“Given your earlier conflation of global warming and religion, I don’t think you’re interested in — or would accept — any evidence at all. Your POV is pretty clear.” – I never denied climate change. I said there’s nothing more than theories about how much man contributes. And my question to those who advocate cap-and-tax, how do you know how much to tax if you don’t know exactly how much man contributes? Answer: You don’t know.
godless heathen
May 27th, 2011
12:27 pm
Why is going to take more people to create green energy than the old kind of energy?
Finn McCool
May 27th, 2011
12:28 pm
reduced to the attempt of Marxist liberals post-Berlin Wall to advance their anti-capitalist agenda.
Lately it’s been blamed on the left’s capitalist tendencies. If you own stock in a company that would benefit from massive government expenditures in combatting global warming, you could realize some serious profits.
Oh well, the wingnuts will get you coming and going. “Where’s the scapegoat? Who can we blame something on?”
saywhat?
May 27th, 2011
12:29 pm
At least we can all agree the “theory” of relativity has been proven by the out of order postings on the AJC blogs!
St Simons - we're on Island time
May 27th, 2011
12:29 pm
Please, cons, don’t stop. Don’t walk back the crazy.
Don’t stop trying to destroy Medicare
Don’t stop trying to destroy SS/FICA
Don’t stop trying to defy Science.
Don’t stop legislating people’s private lives, screeching “big gubmint”
Don’t stop ignoring Jobs
Don’t stop cutting kid’s pre-k
Don’t stop cutting poor kids’ nutrition.
Don’t stop. Dear God, don’t stop.
Cmon, cons. Say it – Let em eat cake.
Just a little more, cons…..
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
12:29 pm
Peadawg — “I never denied climate change.”
And, of course, I never said that you did.
“I said there’s nothing more than theories about how much man contributes.”
No, you conflated climate change with religious belief. I’m going to hold your feet to the fire on that. What are *your* religious beliefs, exactly? What CONCRETE EVIDENCE do you have to support them?
“And my question to those who advocate cap-and-tax, how do you know how much to tax if you don’t know exactly how much man contributes? Answer: You don’t know.”
Before you go making a liar of yourself, please show me where I “advocate(d) cap-and-tax.”
Don’t tire yourself out looking for it; I didn’t.
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
12:30 pm
“Just as there’s no concrete evidence for scientific theories…that’s why they are called theories.”
Peadawg, why don’t you run down to the Science Building there at UGA and tell that to some of the scientists there and see what kind of reaction you get.
Finn McCool
May 27th, 2011
12:31 pm
If Christie keeps bucking the GOP trend by showing a smidgin of some actual intellect and a set of nads, he could get my vote.
Joe Cool~"PRESIDENT Obama" Tells Birthers,"Thanks For Playing BI+CHES"
May 27th, 2011
12:31 pm
Scout, tell me what you think about this:
Okla. jury convicts pharmacist once hailed as hero:
OKLAHOMA CITY – A jury Thursday convicted an Oklahoma City pharmacist of first-degree murder, saying he went too far when he pumped six bullets into a teenager who tried to rob the drug store where he worked, and suggested he spend the rest of his life in prison.
A prosecutor, however, said that after Ersland shot Antwun Parker in the head, knocking the 16-year-old to the ground, Ersland made himself “judge, jury, executioner” by getting a second handgun and shooting the boy five times in the abdomen. A coroner’s report said the latter shots killed Parker.
A video from the store showed Ersland firing a pistol at two men after they burst into the store, one of them armed. Ersland hit Parker with one shot, knocking him to the ground, and chased the other suspect out the door. After returning to the pharmacy, he retrieved a second gun and shot Parker five more times 46 seconds after firing the first shot.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_pharmacy_shooting#mwpphu-container
Message from Matti
May 27th, 2011
12:33 pm
Awww. I really feel for the hold-out, hard-core, right-wing extremists these days. It must be tough for them to watch the intelligent members of the Republican Party stand up, put on their adult pants, and be reasonable, while those who are sticking to the party-first, no-compromise, extremist positions are behaving like clowns, making more punchlines than headlines. Bless their hearts.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:33 pm
““And my question to those who advocate cap-and-tax, how do you know how much to tax if you don’t know exactly how much man contributes? Answer: You don’t know.””
“Before you go making a liar of yourself, please show me where I “advocate(d) cap-and-tax. Don’t tire yourself out looking for it; I didn’t.””
I never said you did. Consider the words Joe Mama, ” to those who advocate cap-and-tax”…if you don’t advocate cap-and-tax, then that question really pertain to you, now does it punkin? Nice try though.
saywhat?
May 27th, 2011
12:34 pm
“Why is going to take more people to create green energy than the old kind of energy?”
1) Research and development- old energy needs much less of this
2) New infrastructure- jobs to build it, jobs to tear down the obsolete infrastructure
3) New manufacturing facilities to produce the technologies needed for green energy
40 By becoming a leader in green energy, we develop exportable products and secrvise
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:36 pm
“What are *your* religious beliefs, exactly?” – What does that have to do with anything?
“What CONCRETE EVIDENCE do you have to support them?” None. It’s all faith and theories. Just like the contributions of man to climate change.
Left wing management
May 27th, 2011
12:38 pm
Finn: “Lately it’s been blamed on the left’s capitalist tendencies. If you own stock in a company that would benefit from massive government expenditures in combatting global warming, you could realize some serious profits.”
Interesting. Perhaps just an iteration of the age-old right wing model of paranoia towards the corrupting, intruding “other” — whether defined in ethnic terms or otherwise — i.e., they’re not only lazy and unproductive (looking for “handouts”), but they’re also devilishly persistent and tireless in their efforts to undermine our one true way (the purity of our wives/daughters, capitalism, whatever)?
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:41 pm
doesn’t really pertain*
@ 12:33
Seeking High Ground
May 27th, 2011
12:42 pm
St. Simons 12:11 – what you got to complain about? Just go buy some insurance.
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
12:43 pm
None. It’s all faith and theories. Just like the contributions of man to climate change.
No, not just like it.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:45 pm
“No, not just like it.” – And you’re entitled to your opinion, TaxPayer.
jm
May 27th, 2011
12:47 pm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-26-waiting-as-son-serves-in-war-zone_n.htm
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
12:50 pm
Peadawg,
Faith is needed to believe in a God. It is not a prerequisite for a scientific endeavor.
godless heathen
May 27th, 2011
12:51 pm
But you are destroying jobs in the old industries. Lots of people work in a coal mine and a coal fired power plant. A windmill, not so many. And I’m not arguing against renewable energy, I just don’t think green jobs are going to the savior for the US economy. Especially jobs that only exist because big gov subsidizes something.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
12:51 pm
Yes, people are entitled to their own opinions.
Just not their own facts…
@@
May 27th, 2011
12:52 pm
Getalife:
You’ve got your Morganza Spillway…screw everyone else, right?
Folks in NO would say urban development in Missouri and Illinois is the problem. Folks upstream (Missouri and Illinois) would say New Orleanians shouldn’t have built below sea level…they chose to live in a bowl? They should be the ones to suffer.
You all lose, the river wins.
After last night’s storm, I’ve got a huge mess in the yard. Back to cleaning it up.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
12:52 pm
Peadawg — “I never said you did. Consider the words Joe Mama, ” to those who advocate cap-and-tax”…if you don’t advocate cap-and-tax, then that question really pertain to you, now does it punkin? Nice try though.”
Begs the question of why you, in response to me, defended yourself by saying you had never denied climate change, despite the fact that I’d never claimed you had.
But hang around, punkin — because I’m about to make you a liar.
Peadawg — “None. It’s all faith and theories. Just like the contributions of man to climate change.”
Well, then, Peadawg, let’s see your CONCRETE EVIDENCE for the phenomenon of climate change. If you can provide it, then demonstrate conclusively that climate change is affirmatively and unquestionably non-anthopogenic in character. If you cannot, then you will have conceded that your own opinions about climate change are as unsupported as are the opinions of those who espouse an anthropogenic view of the phenomenon.
If, OTOH, you *cannot* provide it, then why are you bothering to argue about it in the first place?
Either way, you’ll be outed as a liar, Octodawg.
So bring it on. Present your concrete evidence for climate change. Then prove conclusively that climate change is solely due to natural processes, not anthropogenic ones.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
12:53 pm
“Just not their own facts…” – I haven’t seen any facts pertaining to how much man contributes to climate change…just guestimates and whatnot. Please provide some facts and I’ll be more than happy to read them.
godless heathen
May 27th, 2011
12:59 pm
Another consideration. Who is studying the possible negative effects on the climate from the construction of millions of windmills. What’s going to happen when all the energy in the wind is converted to vibrating our eardrums via ipods? Inconsequential, you say? I’m sure Henry Ford felt the same about his automobiles.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
1:00 pm
“Present your concrete evidence for climate change.” – Google “climate change evidence” for yourself. I’m not going to post 31,900,000 links on here for you. Again, I’ve never denied that the climate is changing….it’s been changing since the Earth was created. I don’t think anyone else is either.
” Then prove conclusively that climate change is solely due to natural processes” – I never said that it was “solely due to natural processes,” so nothing to prove there.
Want to keep going, Joe?
Ivan
May 27th, 2011
1:02 pm
“md, if conservatives — I mean, any conservatives at all — could bring themselves to acknowledge that mankind is AT LEAST a part of it, to use Christie’s term, and that we need to take action, that would be HUGE.
But in the absolutist GOP, that can’t be allowed to happen.”
Someone doesn’t get out of the Left tent very much.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
1:06 pm
Peadawg — “Google “climate change evidence” for yourself. I’m not going to post 31,900,000 links on here for you.”
Translation: Octodawg goes SQUIRT, swims away.
It appears that when Octodawg thinks something’s true, he doesn’t feel it necessary to present evidence. When *you* do, however, you’ve got to shovel links to keep him happy. I see how this works.
“Again, I’ve never denied that the climate is changing….it’s been changing since the Earth was created. I don’t think anyone else is either.”
Present your concrete evidence for this belief.
“I never said that it was “solely due to natural processes,” so nothing to prove there.”
Of course there is. You deny the possibility of anthropogenic processes having any influence, so by definition, you *are* saying that it’s solely due to natural processes. Unless you now want to assert that part of all of it is driven by MAGIC.
Your evidence, please.
“Want to keep going, Joe?”
Absolutely. That hole of yours just gets deeper and deeper.
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
1:08 pm
” It’s all faith and theories. Just like the contributions of man to climate change.”
Yeah Peadawg, run on down to the Science Building there at UGA and tell all the scientists there and see what kind of reaction you get.
stands for decibels
May 27th, 2011
1:11 pm
off topic, but Herman Cain fans might take heart that 538’s Nate Silver says there’s a case to be made for taking the man’s candidacy seriously:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/the-simple-case-for-taking-herman-cain-seriously/#
Independent
May 27th, 2011
1:13 pm
I should have made it clear from the beginning — and have now done so — that the problem with RGGI was not its reliance on cap and trade, but the fact that cap-and-trade can’t work when implemented on a very limited regional basis. For example, while New Jersey was a member of the RGGI effort, neighboring Pennsylvania is not. That just isn’t going to work.
That also applies to the U.S and China. If we go cap, tax and trade and China does not, how does that affect GLOBAL Climate Change?
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
1:14 pm
“You deny the possibility of anthropogenic processes having any influence, so by definition, you *are* saying that it’s solely due to natural processes.” – Show me where I said I deny the possibility of anthropogenic processes having any influence. Please oh please oh please show me where I’ve said that!!!!! BTW, I’m not going to prove something I never said.
“Translation: Octodawg goes SQUIRT, swims away.” – LOL, fine. I’ll do the google search for you: http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=climate+change+evidence – There you go. Pick any link on the first page. What more you like?? You asked for proof of climate change and I provided the link(s).
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
1:14 pm
heathen @12:51, the same arguments were used by those opposed to the railroads in the 1830s…
TnGelding
May 27th, 2011
1:14 pm
Bold, but let’s wait and see if he can follow up on it. Sounds like NJ is on the right path, tho.
jt
May 27th, 2011
1:15 pm
AGW is a useful tool………………
During a job interview, There are three possible answers to the question “Do you believe in AGW?
A).Yes
B).No
C).There is no way to tell.
Applicants answering with A should be given absolutely no additional consideration. You probably knew this already in that real dum people usually look it.(pierced eyeballs and neck tattoos and stuffetc…..).
Applicants answering B could be decent but one must ask WHY one doesn not believe it. If the answer is “because Rush or Hannity says so”,,,give no more consideration. These people are usually sheep and will probably wind up voting for RINOs or something.(that less of two evil crap which has gotten us into all of our present trouble.
Applicants answering C display a superior intellect and are worthy of having the job.They probably vote for Ron Paul which means that they deserve an immense hiring on bonus.
.
Yes…that is ALL that the AGW scam is useful for.
yuzeyurbrane
May 27th, 2011
1:17 pm
Christie makes another interesting Republican Presidential possibility who will not be among those to choose from. The Republicans must relagate their lunatic fringe back to the fringe if they want to survive.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
1:17 pm
Speaking of your own facts, hi jt!
Are you gonna hang around for FNTM?
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
1:18 pm
Poke, poke, poke… there’s nothing happening… poke, poke, poke… is this thing broke. I cannot seem to generate a fact-based discussion on global warming with a Republican. Then again, I don’t think they like science, in general. This Christie fella appears to be an outlier.
Lee
May 27th, 2011
1:19 pm
What this is really about:
NJ consumers pay 16.14 cents/kwh. Georgia residents pay 9.8 cents/kwh. If you look at this table, you will realize that the New England states have the highest rates in the country.
http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html
The RGGI was never about global warming or greenhouse gasses. It was about eliminating the competitive advantage that states with heavy reliance on abundent coal fired generation enjoy.
The power to tax (and to regulate) is the power to destroy.
New Jersey only obtains 12% of their net generation from coal – about 685 megawatts. I.e., one new natural gas fired combined cycle will replace that.
Christie is getting out of the RGGI because it didn’t have the effect they wanted – which was to drive the price of coal fired generation up and eliminate the competitive advantage that these states have over New Jersey.
End of story.
ken
May 27th, 2011
1:20 pm
It seems that we don’t hear about the anthropogenic global warming hoax in the media like it used to be. It could be because many people are not buying into it anymore. I know I don’t. Climate change has occurred for billions of years and will continue to do so. Politicians are going to have to scramble up to find another “crisis” to raise taxes on, because they are no longer fooling the general population with the global warming crisis.
Finn McCool
May 27th, 2011
1:21 pm
comedian Colin Quinn:
“You think people in third world countries worry about Global Warming? We go over there and tell em “I know you just got air conditioning and cars and stuff, but we want you to NOT use them. See we used too many of them and, well..actually, it’s a funny story”
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
1:21 pm
Independent, we contribute some huge part of the total. If we ameliorate that, it dos not negate the benefit, because others aren’t.
As for the economics, there are ways of dealing with that, as well.
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
1:22 pm
Least not forget there are truck loads on money to be made in GCC…surely that’s not motivating Christie’s new awakened opinion much less Gore’s initial motavation
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
1:23 pm
ken, appealing to the generally uninformed generation population is a fool’s errand.
A similar percentage still believes the president is not an American.
Go survey the acknowledged experts, and let me know what the figures are…
jt
May 27th, 2011
1:23 pm
AmVet
I’ll swap one or two with you………..if I haven’t stroked out from working in the garden while drinking Gin and Tangerays.
.
I didn’t have any trouble doing that 20 years ago.I think someone made the Tangerays more powerful or something.
Finn McCool
May 27th, 2011
1:23 pm
sorry, I just saw his stand up routine on the tube last night. This is a paraphrase:
“I know our society is doing ok as long as I can read magazine headlines like “Why he’s cheating on you”. When I start seeing headlines like “How to get out from under the rubble in 5 easy steps, that’s when I start worrying.”
Finn McCool
May 27th, 2011
1:23 pm
Ok, one more Colin Quinn:
Muslims pray like they know a bomb is about to go off somewhere.
jt
May 27th, 2011
1:24 pm
I meant Tankeray and tonics…………………….see what I mean?
Logical Dude
May 27th, 2011
1:25 pm
(paraphrasing)
I, for one, welcome our new Venusian Overlords, who are driving this Global Warming to fit more like their planet, Venus.
snarky
I really wish we could resist them by reducing our CO2 emissions so we can keep the planet habitable by humans for the next thousand years. But no, we are powerless to resist the onward movement of the Venusians who are forcing us to spew so much CO2 into the atmosphere, making our world much hotter to suit their needs.
/snarky
jt
May 27th, 2011
1:25 pm
tanqueray………………sheeesh.
.
Just a few more.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
1:29 pm
Tanqueray and tonic?
Now there is a man of class and sophistication!
All while gardening, no less! Very impressive.
“Though an old man I am but a young gardener.” ~Thomas Jefferson
“I live in the garden; I just sleep in the house.”~Jim Long
Looking forward to your musical contributions…
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
1:30 pm
Finn — “Muslims pray like they know a bomb is about to go off somewhere.”
Hee.
My wife’s boss drives crazy, fast and aggressive. So my wife tells her “you drive like you’re saved and you know it.” Wife’s Southern Baptist boss grins and basks in the glow.
godless heathen
May 27th, 2011
1:33 pm
“heathen @12:51, the same arguments were used by those opposed to the railroads in the 1830s…”
Wasn’t saying it in opposition. Just saying don’t count on green jobs for salvation unless you are willing to fix the other reasons all the jobs have left the USA.
Thulsa Doom
May 27th, 2011
1:34 pm
“When you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts…. we know enough to know that we are at least a part of the problem.”- Jay
Um. Yes. Most scientists agree the climate is in a gradual warming trend. Some agree that man is at least part of the problem. After this is where the Dems begin their lying campaign. Most of those same scientists also believe that man’s role in global warming is not the chief culprit- that most of the problem is naturally occurring. Yet there are people out there foolish enough to believe that in a geologic millisecond that running some cars can dramatically alter the Earth’s atmosphere.
What people on here need to keep in mind is that scientists are like everyone else. They have their own agendas- such as obtaining funds and grants for studying this ahem- problem or perceived problem.
Kinda funny that people are all up in arms about global temps possibly rising 1 stinking degree overall when we have temperature variations every 6 months of 80-90 degrees from the teens at the height of winter to the upper 90s just here in Georgia. Too funny and much ado about nothing.
But lets go ahead and shut down our cars and walk to work. Think China, India,and the rest of the world- especially the developing world- will follow suit? If ya’ll libs believe that then please pick me up one of them chocolaty unicorns when you return from fantasy land.
mm
May 27th, 2011
1:40 pm
Jay,
You could start an ostrich farm with all these head in the sand whiners on this blog.
Run, Sarah, run!
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
1:41 pm
Doom — “What people on here need to keep in mind is that scientists are like everyone else. They have their own agendas- such as obtaining funds and grants for studying this ahem- problem or perceived problem.”
What do you think *you* know about it, Doom?
My recollection is that you’re involved in the health insurance industry and not a scientist at all.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
1:43 pm
Joe, I also find this vast left wing conspiracy a real hoot.
Let’ see if I understand it correctly.
Dozens and dozens and dozens of the world’s most prestigious scientific organizationa with longstanding track records of scientific excellence and discovery have all decided suddenly and en masse to shiite the bed and ruin their generally impeccable reputations over AGW?
It makes absolutely NO sense to me.
And where, pray tell, is the first scintilla of evidence to bolster this bizarre claim that the motivation is for a few pieces of silver?
You know, the smoking gun in the form of worldwide, ice cold mushroom cloud?
LOL…
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
1:45 pm
And of course Doom doesn’t post a link to his “evidence.” (eyeroll)
Usually, when people don’t do that, it turns out that they’re afraid of holes being poked in their “proof.”
Thulsa Doom
May 27th, 2011
1:46 pm
Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while IPCC claim majority endorse the theory.
A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the “consensus view,” that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.
In direct conflict with assertions by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a scientific consensus agrees it is 90% likely that man is responsible for warming, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte’s survey contends that only 45% support the theory and that is only if you include papers that merely lean towards endorsement.
Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, and science blog DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy which states:
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
Man made warming proponents have often pointed to a similar survey that was conducted by history professor Naomi Oreskes on peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003 which found that a majority of scientists supported the theory.
Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte sought to update the research and according to DailyTech, used the same database and search terms as Oreskes but reached a radically different conclusion.
The introduction and the summary of the IPCC’s report was written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the input of actual scientists was minimal. In addition, all sections that were written by selected scientists were edited to comply with the report summary.
Some of the scientists involved even admitted that the IPCC models failed to accurately predict climate change and that “none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate”.
By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world and is not directly influenced by any governmental body.
Schulte’s survey confirms the claim that the climate change momentum has shifted among prominent scientists who are now benefiting from a greater depth of research. A spate of new research papers has significantly chilled fears of global warming.
The new survey provides undeniable proof that the world is being sold a lie on climate change by a group of politicians and elite lobbyists who wish to seize on the opportunity to hype the global warming threat and use it as a means of social manipulation for political and corporate gain.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
1:47 pm
“What do you think *you* know about it, Doom?”
Uh oh! Watch out Tulsa. Joe finally left me alone after I put him in his place and shut him up @ 1:14. Now he’s moved on to you.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
1:49 pm
@@: You’ve got your Morganza Spillway…screw everyone else, right?
GOALPOST MOVEMENT ALERT
Folks upstream (Missouri and Illinois) would say New Orleanians shouldn’t have built below sea level…they chose to live in a bowl?
For the record, 1) it wasn’t like that when they first started building. And most of New Orleans proper isn’t actually under sea level. 2) Everywhere you live has some sort of risk, and not everyone has the “choice” to live where they live.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
May 27th, 2011
1:49 pm
Well, while you all are arguing about greenhouse gases I see the cops shot and killed the Grandma Bandit three times. What a shame!
I don’t know whether to condemn her for robbing drug stores or put her up for a medal for Private Innerprize. I mean, you got to like the spunk of a old person that won’t set around on SS and the public dole and decides to start a business on her own. Unlike the rest of the coots that want to sponge off of our taxes.
Have a good p.m. everybody.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
1:51 pm
Octodawg — “Uh oh! Watch out Tulsa. Joe finally left me alone”
Joe will *never* leave you alone.
“after I put him in his place”
By responding to Joe’s requests for evidence, which you had heretofore petulantly refused to do.
“and shut him up @ 1:14.”
How silent do I appear now?
“Now he’s moved on to you.”
Nope. Doom’s *always* on the menu.
Octodawg — “LOL, fine. I’ll do the google search for you”
A Google search is not evidence. Present YOUR evidence. The evidence that YOU have personally found persuasive. A Google search is no more evidence than is a stack of Encyclopedia Britannica volumes.
“There you go. Pick any link on the first page. What more you like?? You asked for proof of climate change and I provided the link(s).
You’ve provided no links to evidence that YOU personally find persuasive. What are you, eleven years old?
Please present specific links to evidence that supports your position and which you personally find persuasive.
USMC
May 27th, 2011
1:51 pm
“GOP’s Chris Christie: Climate change real; man contributes”–Jay Bookman
I thought it was GLOBAL WARMING?
Adam
May 27th, 2011
1:51 pm
Peadawg: I haven’t seen any facts pertaining to how much man contributes to climate change…just guestimates and whatnot. Please provide some facts and I’ll be more than happy to read them.
Following up md’s deliberate density in order to discuss the issue as though the topic of EXACTLY HOW MUCH???? actually matters is NOT convincing anyone that climate change isn’t real. Well, it’s not convincing anyone who didn’t already BELIEVE that it isn’t real.
See, the real argument is thus:
- People who think climate change is real think so because either a) they are a scientist who has studied the issue and come to the conclusion on a scientific basis or b) trust the grand majority of scientists on the issue
- People who don’t think climate change exists, or who deny man’s involvement in any small capacity, have this out of a sense of BELIEF, not science.
Science shows that climate change is real, and that man is contributing. You don’t NEED an exact number of HOW MUCH. You only need to know that we need to reduce our part in the problem. Then you can approach a reasonable solution if you really sit down and think about it, instead of doing some sort of “well your idea sucks, so we won’t do anything!”
mm
May 27th, 2011
1:53 pm
Post a link Doom. Or are you afraid to admit it is a rightwing viral email?
saywhat?
May 27th, 2011
1:55 pm
USMC -”I thought it was GLOBAL WARMING?”
Well I guess you thought wrong. Judging by your usual posts, you should be used to it by now.
Thulsa Doom
May 27th, 2011
1:58 pm
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
1:41 pm
Doom — “What people on here need to keep in mind is that scientists are like everyone else. They have their own agendas- such as obtaining funds and grants for studying this ahem- problem or perceived problem.”
What do you think *you* know about it, Doom?
Joe Mama, I believe I will simply defer to the scientists. And by that I don’t mean the IPCC report which as the article points out was written by politicians with minimal input from scientists. I suggest that you also defer to the scientists.
My recollection is that you’re involved in the health insurance industry and not a scientist at all.- Joe Mama
Joe Mama, Can you please point out to me where in my statement I claimed to be a scientist? If you can prove I made such claim I will send you $1,000.
My recollection is that you also are also not a scientist at all. But of course I’m not claiming that you are a scientist to begin with. If I am mistaken and you are perhaps a climate scientist then I apologize in advance. You may go ahead and paste your peer reviewed papers on climate change. I patiently await your scientific paper if you just happen to be a climate scientist.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
1:59 pm
I thought it was GLOBAL WARMING?
USMC, wake up and catch up!
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
10:26 am
“Man-Made Global Warming or Man-Made Climate Change?”
Please, please, please, will some of you AT LEAST get to within five years of current information???
One more time..
Scientists often use the term “climate change” instead of global warming. This is because as the Earth’s average temperature climbs, winds and ocean currents move heat around the globe in ways that can cool some areas, warm others, and change the amount of rain and snow falling. As a result, the climate changes differently in different areas.
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html
mm., here are the links I could find for the info posted in that 1:46.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Definitive+Proof%3A+Majority+Of+Scientists+Do+Not+Support+Man+Made+Warming+Theory+Survey+of+peer+reviewed+studies+reveals+less+than+50%25+of+published+scientists+believe+global+warming+is+man+made.+More+skeptics+than+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Not exactly a veritable who’s who of scientific excellence, huh?
Thulsa Doom
May 27th, 2011
2:00 pm
USMC,
It was global warming. Of course last week when there were 2-3 days when temperatures were 15-20 degrees below normal it was at that point “climate change”. Its kinda like the flavor of the day. It changes depending on the political winds of the far left.
mm and Joe Mama,
What was that about a link? I didn’t post it originally because I think I had posted the entire article or almost all of it.
http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
2:01 pm
“Please present specific links to evidence that supports your position and which you personally find persuasive.” – Good grief man. I’ve provided over 3 million links for you. If you’re not satisfied with those you won’t be satisfied no matter what I do. Sounds like you’re getting desperate.
“By responding to Joe’s requests for evidence, which you had heretofore petulantly refused to do.” – Evidence to what? You asked for evidence of something I never said. As for the 2nd part, see above.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
2:02 pm
Thulsa: Most of those same scientists also believe that man’s role in global warming is not the chief culprit- that most of the problem is naturally occurring
This isn’t actually true, but even if it WAS, I have two words for you: COMPOUND EFFECT.
C’mon guys. The man did his OWN research and came to the conclusion that Climate Change is real and man is contributing. What have you got? IPCC emails that don’t prove anything and cheap shots at Al Gore? C’mon man!
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
2:03 pm
“you drive like you’re saved and you know it.”
I must remember that one.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
2:03 pm
Damnation. I should have used the tiny url equivalent:
http://tinyurl.com/3kym4nd
Here, however, are a couple of real surveys:
Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and resulted in the following two conclusions:
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
And…
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change” believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.
@@
May 27th, 2011
2:04 pm
Don’t know if AmVet was responding to my “cork the erupting volcano” remark or not. If he was, he’s assuming I was talkin’ about above ground? I wasn’t.
There are also volcanic fissures on the ocean floor. More than was originally thought.
Scientists, YES SCIENTISTS, are theorizing, YES THEORIZING, that the oceans’ warming is because of those fissures, or volcanic ridges, as it were.
Seismic profiles of the rifting Guaymas Basin in the Gulf of California show molten rock from a deep-sea ridge squeezing far and wide as “sills” of magma into the layers of ocean floor sediments. The sediments, which are loaded with organic debris, are baked by the magma and so release vast amounts of greenhouse gases.
You’ll have to ask THE SCIENTISTS for the SPECIFIC # that supports their “vast amounts”. As of now, they have no way of knowing whether it’s less, equal to, or more than YOUR SCIENTIST(S) who THEORIZES that humans contribute most.
schnirt
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
2:05 pm
Doom,
As mm requested and as I do too — link please or admit your plagarism.
Dusty
May 27th, 2011
2:07 pm
Ho; hum…Bookman is making his Repub list and checking it twice. Seems Christi MIGHT run so lets quibble and dabble to make it nice.
But no being nice long. Even though Georgia gives Bookman a halfway decent job and a fine state to live in, he’s got no manners. Listen to him”(and I do confess while watching it, no major political in Georgia would be capble of such a performance.)” Got that?? GEORGIA!! Why sit in this nice state croaking and complaining ? Nobody is making Bookman stay in Georgia. The road to Pennsylvania is wide open.
Global warming..Yes, indeed. Summer is coming. You betcha!!! (Thank you, Sarah!)..
Adam
May 27th, 2011
2:09 pm
Sometimes I think you deniers would really actually not be deniers if you didn’t have liberal bogeymen to poke fun at for saying it’s real and we need to do something about it.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
2:10 pm
Doom — “Joe Mama, I believe I will simply defer to the scientists. And by that I don’t mean the IPCC report which as the article points out was written by politicians with minimal input from scientists. I suggest that you also defer to the scientists.”
Nope. Here’s why:
The first scientist cited in your post:
“Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte’s”
Not a climatologist. The second one cited in your post:
“history professor Naomi Oreskes”
Not a climatologist.
I grew up with a scientist in the house. I’m not afraid of them, I know how they think and work, and I know enough of their methodology to spot scientific misinformation and bullspit when it’s posted.
And I smell both all over that post of yours.
You’re like the nitwit outside the Smithsonian Institute in Washington who told me to reject the notion of climate change because ‘the director of the Smithsonian rejects it!’
I pointed out that the director — at the time — was a *historian.*
You remind me of that guy, Doom.
Thulsa Doom
May 27th, 2011
2:11 pm
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
1:47 pm
“What do you think *you* know about it, Doom?”
Uh oh! Watch out Tulsa. Joe finally left me alone after I put him in his place and shut him up @ 1:14. Now he’s moved on to you.
Peadawg,
I blow his nonsense out of the water day after day. His modus operandi is always the same. He starts playing his semantics and word games about what was said and what wasn’t said to obfuscate the fact that he’s often wrong. When you whip him at his own game is when his frustration really mounts.
Peadawg,
See here’s the thing. Joe and I were both in the Navy but that’s where the similarities end. I’m driving an aircraft carrier. Little Joe- he’s down there in a rowboat. His friend mm is beside him in a rubber dinghy. They just gotta get outta the way before they get run over by the looming juggernaut. Little Joe will put up a fight but in the end his little rowboat just aint got the ammo of my aircraft carrier.
godless heathen
May 27th, 2011
2:11 pm
The climate is always changing. The rate of climate change is the issue. Very dramatic and drastic changes in the climate have been documented in sub-saharan Africa 2-3 million years ago. Cycles on the order of 400 years from very wet to very dry conditions. To what is this attributed?
Adam
May 27th, 2011
2:12 pm
“If you don’t like it, move” is about the same as “If you don’t like the price of gas, don’t buy any”
USMC
May 27th, 2011
2:12 pm
HEY! Hands off Barney’s “Boy”!
I’m sure if a Republican Congressman’s BOYFRIEND had been given special treatment in getting hired at Freddie Mac AT THE PAY SCALE of Barney Frank’s “Cabin Boy”, the Liberals AND the Media would be screaming Bloody Murder.
Unbelievable!
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
2:13 pm
Of course last week when there were 2-3 days when temperatures were 15-20 degrees below …
An example of localized weather is meaningless and has virtually zero to do with global climatology.
saywhat?
May 27th, 2011
2:13 pm
Godless heathen asks “The climate is always changing. The rate of climate change is the issue. Very dramatic and drastic changes in the climate have been documented in sub-saharan Africa 2-3 million years ago. Cycles on the order of 400 years from very wet to very dry conditions. To what is this attributed?”
My best guess would be………..SOCIALISM!!!!!!
Thulsa Doom
May 27th, 2011
2:15 pm
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
2:13 pm
Of course last week when there were 2-3 days when temperatures were 15-20 degrees below …
An example of localized weather is meaningless and has virtually zero to do with global climatology.
AmVet,
I agree but I just point it out for fun because I remember watching Diane Sawyer and then Brian Williams I think it was trying to suggest a link between global warming and tornadoes when the tornados hit Tuscaloosa, AL and many other towns a few weeks ago.
Seems I also remember all the linkage the lefties were bringing up several years ago when we had 14 hurricanes in one year. They were trying to provide linkage then. And then the next year I think we had 2-3 hurricanes. But in the meantime they had gotten their bunk out and so gullible people were thinking “14 hurricanes- must be global warming!”
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
2:16 pm
Doom — “My recollection is that you’re involved in the health insurance industry and not a scientist at all.- Joe Mama
“Joe Mama, Can you please point out to me where in my statement I claimed to be a scientist? If you can prove I made such claim I will send you $1,000.”
If you can point out to me where I said you claimed to be one, I’ll give *you* $2,000.
Here’s what I said, so you can work on your reading comprehension: “My recollection is that you’re involved in the health insurance industry and not a scientist at all.”
“My recollection is that you also are also not a scientist at all. But of course I’m not claiming that you are a scientist to begin with. If I am mistaken and you are perhaps a climate scientist then I apologize in advance. You may go ahead and paste your peer reviewed papers on climate change. I patiently await your scientific paper if you just happen to be a climate scientist.”
I’m not a climate scientist. But I grew up with a scientist in the house and was hanging around laboratories from the time I was in elementary school. I understand the scientific process, the peer-review process and the scientific method.
But I doubt you’re conversant with any of that. Especially if you’re relying on the word of a medical researcher when it comes to climatology.
Here’s a hint — find scientific experts from WITHIN a given field of study when you want to make claims that PERTAIN to that field of study.
Alternately, don’t go to a nuclear physicist when you’ve got a cold, and don’t rely on a physician to run your nuclear reactor.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
2:21 pm
Doom — “What was that about a link? I didn’t post it originally because I think I had posted the entire article or almost all of it.”
I believe that Jay prefers for people to post a few sentences or a couple of paragraphs, and then the link. Online periodicals can get in trouble for reproducing an entire article without attribution; Free Republic’s gotten in hot water for doing that in the past.
“http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm”
Yeah, I figured it was from someplace like that. If you want that spittle-flecked shriek accepted as science, then find it on a scientific or research-related site, not on some right-wing nutcase’s rant ranch.
If you want to debate science, then present scientific evidence, not political fever dreams. A quick poke around that guy’s website makes his mindset clear, and it ain’t science.
Misty Fyed
May 27th, 2011
2:22 pm
“Man kind contributes to climate change”……..
and so does the temperature of the sun, so does the number of cows that pass gas, so does the number of volcanoes that erupt in a year….etc. etc.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
2:22 pm
Octodawg — ““Please present specific links to evidence that supports your position and which you personally find persuasive.” – Good grief man. I’ve provided over 3 million links for you.”
You find *every one of those links* supportive of your position and persuasive, huh? All 3 million+ of them? (laughing, pointing)
“If you’re not satisfied with those you won’t be satisfied no matter what I do. Sounds like you’re getting desperate.”
Sounds like you are, given your refusal to present what you’ve been demanding of others all day.
“Evidence to what?”
Evidence to support your beliefs in re climate change, which you’ve been demanding from others all day.
“You asked for evidence of something I never said.”
I’ve asked for the same evidence you’ve been demanding from others. If you’re not willing to present it, then why should others?
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
2:23 pm
Well Joe Mama did the deed — yes, Doom, indeed — what DO all the world’s History professors have to say about climate change? I’d be just as interested in that as I would what as to the professional opinions of Animal Science professors discussing the implication of Christian Theology in India.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
2:25 pm
I agree but I just point it out for fun because I remember watching Diane Sawyer and then Brian Williams I think it was trying to suggest a link between global warming and tornadoes when the tornados (sic) hit Tuscaloosa, AL and many other towns a few weeks ago.
So why follow the lead of obvious TV persoanlity twits, like those two?
Gawd knows, pure conjecture already has a significant seat at this table.
Soothsayer
May 27th, 2011
2:26 pm
Well, Jay done kicked over another anthill with this climate change shyte! I can tell you with absolute certainty that my 1st gen Hummer don’t contribute no more to climate change/global warming than my Mini does! They’s both cars and that’s that!
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
2:27 pm
J Mama @ 2:10 “I grew up with a scientist in the house. I’m not afraid of them, I know how they think and work, and I know enough of their methodology to spot scientific misinformation and bullspit when it’s posted”
Sorry, but being able to repeat a recipe doesn’t make you a chef !
Dusty
May 27th, 2011
2:29 pm
BOSCH,
It is becoming more obvious every day. You love your puppies more than you love Republicans and we never bite.
By the way, has any one seen Granny Godzilla or has that already been asked? Does she have a gold jeep? hmm I hope not.
Mighy Righty
May 27th, 2011
2:30 pm
He lost my vote.
@@
May 27th, 2011
2:31 pm
Adam:
How you people can blog while getting anything else done is beyond me. I’m lousy at doing both.
GOALPOST MOVEMENT ALERT
For the record, 1) it wasn’t like that when they first started building. And most of New Orleans proper isn’t actually under sea level. 2) Everywhere you live has some sort of risk, and not everyone has the “choice” to live where they live.
I’m not blaming NO, just pointing out that natural disasters are a given…man’s manipulation of the environment doesn’t need to contribute more.
My tomato plants tying up so I’m off to buy pantyhose.
KINKY!!!!
@@
May 27th, 2011
2:33 pm
DID YOU KNOW?
Pantyhose (nylon) are/is a by-product of petroleum. I haven’t owned a pair in years.
Yay for me!
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
2:40 pm
Schrodinger’s Cat — “Sorry, but being able to repeat a recipe doesn’t make you a chef!”
I’m not claiming to be one. I’m simply pointing out the erroneous pseudo-scientific assertions and claims of others.
If people are going to make scientific claims, then it behooves them to have some sort of evidentiary support for that, preferably from within the scientific community that *studies* the field in question.
Relying on a medical researcher and a historian for support in re claims about global climate change isn’t evidentiary; it’s misleading at best, and blatantly dishonest at worst.
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
2:40 pm
time warp!
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
2:45 pm
Thulsa,
How much commission do you make on the sale of one of those Medicare Advantage scams. Does it vary with the company that offers it. Do you make more off of a policy you sell to someone that’s 65 versus 85. Do you make a living wage at it — $10k, $20k per year.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
2:50 pm
Bosch and Joe Mama, it strikes me as being akin to, “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV”!
There are numerous scientific disciplines directly related to the topic – climatology, oceanography, meteorology, cryology and glaciology, paleoclimatology, geophysics, other inter-disciplines in biology, physics, chemistry, environmental science and earth science.
History and medical research? That’s a bit of a stretch…
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
2:51 pm
J Mama – “evidentiary” support is evidential regardless of the source…to that end I don’t think either side has any “evidence” that is beyond circumstantial “lite”…Give a disingenuous scientist raw data on anything and they can manipulate it to tell the story they want to tell…
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
3:01 pm
” J Mama – Climate change “evidence” from a historian can hardly be cited as substantive. I strongly question whether it could be considered evidentiary at all.”
Why? What does it matter who opens the “box”? The cat is either dead or alive either way
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
3:01 pm
S. Cat — “J Mama – “evidentiary” support is evidential regardless of the source…to that end I don’t think either side has any “evidence” that is beyond circumstantial “lite”…Give a disingenuous scientist raw data on anything and they can manipulate it to tell the story they want to tell…”
Climate change “evidence” from a historian can hardly be cited as substantive. I strongly question whether it could be considered evidentiary at all.
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
3:05 pm
time warp x2
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
3:05 pm
JB, I have a request.
Would you ban the xbox spambot at 3:01?
Thanks…
Thulsa Doom
May 27th, 2011
3:06 pm
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
2:45 pm
Thulsa,
How much commission do you make on the sale of one of those Medicare Advantage scams. Does it vary with the company that offers it. Do you make more off of a policy you sell to someone that’s 65 versus 85. Do you make a living wage at it — $10k, $20k per year.
Taxpayer, I’ll go ahead and answer it and then I gotta go. On a Medicare Advantage sale I make $436 per sale for someone aging into Medicare or taking an Advantage plan for the first time and only $234 on someone who has been on a different Advantage plan before and is switching to one that I offer.
I try to make 1 or 2 sales per day and always have 1-2 appointments in the morning that are set up for me by a girl that works for me. That’s why you guys never see me in the morning- usually I get here in the afternoon. My close ratio is about 90% or more. Its hard not to sell something that is often a zero premium. So you can do the math and figure out what I make. I also get $50 per sale overrides on any agents under me.
Now if they do away with Medicare Advantage I can sell private Medicare supplements which are more profitable, stay on the books usually forever, and you get lifetime renewal commissions on them. I just sold a Medicare supplement yesterday to a person on Medicare disability that will pay me $700 for example so when possible I would much prefer Medicare supplement plans. But I also get yearly renewal commissions on Medicare Advantage products forever. The renewals on both add up pretty well over time.
On this Medicare Advantage that you call a scam the people that benefit are the lower income and low middle class folks. That’s the irony of why the libs tend to oppose Med Adv. I would prefer to sell Med supplements which are private plans and have no subsidy from Medicare but the fact is that most folks just can’t afford them.
Now if you do away with MedAdv then I’m cool with that. They’ll have no choice but to purchase Supplements or supplement type products that are far more profitable for me. They would be doing me a huge favor and putting mega bucks in my pocket. But I like the MedAdv plans because they help poor and middle class seniors more than you can imagine. I would have thought libs would be in favor of helping those who have less since this is really their only option left. You would think anyway.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
3:11 pm
S. Cat — “Why? What does it matter who opens the “box”? The cat is either dead or alive either way”
It has to do with the relative value of the source and the information emanating therefrom. If I want evidence supporting an economic theory or proposed course of action, a geologist is not a particularly informed or valuable source. But beyond that, even if the geologist was the only authority I could get, I’d probably abandon his position (assuming I had taken it up) in the face of stronger information from better and more applicable sources. I’m not going to rely on and defend my position with the geologist’s claims when a dozen economists show up and start disagreeing with it — I’m going to listen to them and probably give their views some credence.
This is something of a metaphor for the scientific method itself.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
3:16 pm
S. Cat — “I do find it interesting that ya’ll pick and choose which science to embrace and which to deny..Just a few weeks ago our beloved host (Jay) summarily dismissed modern physics, chaos theory, and, the butterfly effect as nothing more than a myth”
Respectfully, I’m not responsible for Jay’s arguments any more than he’s responsible for mine. You seem to be implying that our arguments are (or are supposed to be) bound by some form of collective responsibility and ownership.
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
3:17 pm
I do find it interesting that ya’ll pick and choose which science to embrace and which to deny..Just a few weeks ago our beloved host (Jay) summarily dismissed modern physics, chaos theory, and, the butterfly effect as nothing more than a myth
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
3:21 pm
If the data is real…what does it matter the source?
I’m sure anyone from any scientific background can tell temperature and do a litany of statistical analysis…if it’s real it’s real..it either floats or sinks..
My point?…unless you’ve done the analysis yourself (assuming you know how) then why rely on the “opinion” of others…especially the “opinions” of those who stand to make great financial gains on the matter…just sayin’
poison pen
May 27th, 2011
3:22 pm
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:31 am
…environmentalists like Gore have used faulty data…to prove their point.
dudder, and what *exactly* is this faulty data?
AmVet, I believe he said that the Oceans will rise with all the Glaciers melting, so he then went out and bought a Mansion on the ocean so he can watch it.
Please send him more money so he can keep on studying it.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
3:27 pm
pen, you believe he said?
That’s your idea of “what *exactly * is this faulty data?”?
Damn, man. How intellectually lazy can you be?
Send him money? Since you’re so up on him, can you get me his address?
Sorry, pen. No sale.
I’ll continue to defer to the world’s scientific experts rather than you far, far right wing ideologues
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
3:29 pm
You seem to be implying that our arguments are (or are supposed to be) bound by some form of collective responsibility and ownership…
Not implying anything…except maybe selective reasoning as illustrated in my example of Jay
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
3:39 pm
S. Cat — “If the data is real…what does it matter the source? I’m sure anyone from any scientific background can tell temperature and do a litany of statistical analysis…if it’s real it’s real..it either floats or sinks..”
My point is that some would give undue credence to the claims of individuals and groups who are *less* qualified to make those claims, and would, possibly based upon personal factors like politics, personal adherence, etc. *discount* the claims of those *more* qualified to speak to the matter simply based upon that personal affinity.
“My point?…unless you’ve done the analysis yourself (assuming you know how) then why rely on the “opinion” of others…especially the “opinions” of those who stand to make great financial gains on the matter…just sayin’
My point is that *even if* you’ve done the analysis yourself, there are likely to be persons or groups who are more knowledgeable than you and whose statements on the matter are much more likely to be accurate and supportable.
“Not implying anything…except maybe selective reasoning as illustrated in my example of Jay”
Fair enough. I don’t know Jay (outside of his blog) and I’ve never met him, spoken to him or exchanged e-mail with him. I can’t speak to his thought process; only my own.
I’m out, Cat — thanks for a very interesting if altogether too brief discussion.
All be well and drive safely this weekend. The kids are out of school now, and I feel quite sure that they’re not watching the road as carefully as they should.
The global warming hoax
May 27th, 2011
3:44 pm
This is fascinating: “IPCC claimed in its 1990 assessment that global temperatures should rise 0.6 degrees Celsius between 1990 and 2010, yet NASA satellite data show global temperatures warmed by merely half that amount, at most.” I have closely followed the satellite data and found exactly what you say – namely that temperature increase from 1990 to 2010 was a third of a degree, not 0.6 degrees as these guys predicted. But this is not the full story: this entire temperature increase took place in a short period of four years from 1998 to 2002. There was no warming before and there is none after. The cause of it was oceanic, not anthropogenic, and it was related to the anomalous super El Nino of 1998. The problem is, however that Hansen declared the arrival of warming in 1988 and satellites cannot see any of his warming. What they do see is a temperature oscillation, up and down by half a degree for twenty years, but no rise until the super El Nino shows up. Checking temperature curves from NASA, NOAA, and the Met Office however shows that they all report warming for this period. This so-called “late twentieth century warming” does not exist and graphs showing it are cooked. As in falsified. You can find out exactly how it was done from “What Warming?” whose second edition is now out on Amazon.
TP
May 27th, 2011
3:44 pm
As far as I am concerned Christie just gassed any chance of my vote. I thought Al Gore’s proof of his insanity would have at least meant something.
Al Gore the global warming expert
May 27th, 2011
3:56 pm
I believe everything Gore said in his movie about climate change. Never mind the 23 documented scientific errors noted in his movie.
When Al Gore says that global warming will result in ocean levels rising to the point where all of Cuba and all or most of Florida will be under water I believe it. Never mind that a third of Cuba is mountainous with 5-6 thousand foot peaks. Heck- I guess if all of Cuba will be under water then so will every American city except possibly Denver- elevation 5,000 feet.
Loved the camera shot where Gore showed the ice sheets breaking up around antarctica. Oh, it was later revealed and admitted to by Gore that they used styrofoam and that that really wasn’t antarctica? Oh well. At least it was good enough special effects to fool most people. Unfortunately the BS didn’t fool everyone. Thank God for some clear thinking people out there.
What happened 100 million years ago when all of North America was a hot, temperate rain forest supporting cold blooded reptiles like dinosaurs. Well you dolts. Didn’t you know the dinosaurs were burning fossil fuels, driving SUVs, and all that?
The recent ice age 10,000 years ago? Cavemen were driving their cars also which started somehow causing global heating which somehow caused an ice age.
md
May 27th, 2011
4:08 pm
I see some still don’t understand the difference between the concept of “possible” vs the concept of “certain”………………
And dense Adam? I don’t believe I’m one of those that have swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker……..
I’ll ask one last time……..what percentage of the warming is natural??????
Someone obviously not as dense as I should have a logical answer…………..
Adam
May 27th, 2011
4:33 pm
md: Your argument based on your EXACTLY HOW MUCH question is meaningless. I have explained why. You don’t NEED to know exactly how much to accept that it’s happening, that humans have an effect, and that action can be taken to minimize that effect. That is ALL I have to say about it, for the umpteenth time.
oldguy
May 27th, 2011
4:49 pm
Hey Jay,
I have the answer!!! Humans are responsible for global warming?? Then lets kill off 50% of the humans. I’ve got plenty of ammo so I’ll start (now where do all the libs gather?)
In case you haven’t noticed the earth is round (you know, like Al Gore) so the atmosphere goes all around; so when India, China, Russia, etc open a new coal fired power plant to provide power to make all those little trinkets everyone likes [on the average of one a week] you get mega tons of new pollution in the air! Have you and Obozo come up with a plan to stop that illegal imigration from coming into our air space??
Waiting……….Waiting………
md
May 27th, 2011
5:35 pm
“md: Your argument based on your EXACTLY HOW MUCH question is meaningless. I have explained why. You don’t NEED to know exactly how much to accept that it’s happening, that humans have an effect, and that action can be taken to minimize that effect. That is ALL I have to say about it, for the umpteenth time.”
No Adam, it is not meaningless……..if the number is actually 100%, then the whole argument is moot……….since we don’t know that number, there is certainly a possibility that the number could be anything.
And no, one does not need to know to BELIEVE that we are contributing………..it still comes down to belief…..just like god, evolution, and a host of other theories that are out there………….
If one insists one saying it is a “known” fact, one is not being honest with oneself about all the possibilities……….as I said before, even these expert scientists will admit that their models are based on educated assumptions………they have to be….there is no data that verifies the info for 4 billion years…………….
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
May 27th, 2011
5:49 pm
Jay, I refer you to the March/April edition of the Tech alumni magazine for the most concise, short refutation of global warming I have seen (a response from an engineer). This will be over your head, as well as that of any politician, but trust me, global warming is a pure hoax intended only to curtail the activities of corporations and citizens. For something more on your level, I refer you to the Algore Armageddon countdown on Rush’s website. I believe it was the former President of Poland that said something along the lines of “Yesterday’s communists are today’s environmentalists”. Y’all need to move on to something else, like “the earth is flat”, or something like that.
Schrodinger's cat
May 27th, 2011
7:22 pm
BTW…wasn’t it CT that said something to the effect of…man is powerless over mother nature
She was refering to the nuke plant in JP after the quake and tsunami – so which is it?…our fault or we’re too small to have an impact in scope of things..?
I honestly think you humans really believe you’re that smart
Schrodinger's cat
May 27th, 2011
7:35 pm
md -”If one insists one saying it is a “known” fact, one is not being honest with oneself about all the possibilities……….”
As my friend Heisenberg used say…”You can never know anything with complete certainty!”
MONROE GEMS CH
May 28th, 2011
2:50 pm
ЗАВЕРШАЕТ СВОЮ РАБОТУ ЮВЕЛИРНЫЙ БУТИК – MONROE GEMS CH !!!
Продолжается финальная ликвидация изделий с бриллиантами и драгоценными камнями по низким ценам .
ИМЕННО ДЛЯ ВАС ДОПОЛНИТЕЛЬНЫЕ СКИДКИ !!!
Отправка во все регионы.
Adam
May 31st, 2011
12:04 pm
md: I can see that you just don’t understand the concept of what I am trying to say, and making up a false equivalence between faith and fact. That means we can’t discuss this because you don’t even get where I’m coming from, and you have some sort of false reality going in your head.