Climate-change skeptic: ‘You should not be a skeptic.’
Richard Muller, a physics professor at Cal-Berkeley, has been a celebrated skeptic about the true extent of climate change.
Muller has questioned whether the data had been skewed by the “heat-island effect.” He has had his doubts about the so-called “hockey stick,” which shows global temperatures rising much faster since the early 19th century than at any point in the last thousand years. In the past, he has called the hockey stick “an incredible error” and “the artifact of poor mathematics.” And he has been quite harsh in his condemnation of fellow scientists involved in the s0-called ClimateGate scandal:
“I frankly as a scientist — I now have a list of people whose papers I’m won’t read anymore. You’re not allowed to do this in science. This is not up to our standards.”
So Muller, acting in the best traditions of science, decided to redo that work. He put together a top-notch team that included Saul Perlmutter, who just recently won the Nobel Prize in physics, and Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, another noted scientist who has been critical of some of the work of some of her peers. Their project — funded in part by a grant from the Charles M. Koch Foundation — just completed its two-year work.
Last week, Muller and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature team released its findings (the results have yet to undergo peer review). As Muller described it:
Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK. This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.
As he wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
“When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.”
Here’s a chart produced by Muller’s team, documenting the findings of three other research teams as well as the BEST team. Note how closely the findings track each other.
This is how science works. It checks upon itself. And when the position that you had previously taken has been proved false, you do what Muller has done:
You change your position.
– 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
399 comments Add your comment
Joe COOL
October 24th, 2011
12:51 pm
1st?
Adam
October 24th, 2011
12:54 pm
wow. I am getting popcorn to watch the spin masters at work here.
Cue the “He was never a REAL skeptic” skeptical remarks, and other such useless and yet common nonsense.
Adam
October 24th, 2011
12:59 pm
Bruno: That is good data. It clearly shows that our current “cycle” is seeing a shift that is abnormal for the cyclical data. So thank you for showing that.
kitty
October 24th, 2011
1:00 pm
Adam, also cue, “well, he’s from Berkeley so what do you expect?” as well.
getalife
October 24th, 2011
1:00 pm
The bias is caused by big oil bribes.
I think our troops should be trained on helping after disasters in the world due to this issue.
Peadawg
October 24th, 2011
1:02 pm
“Climate-change skeptic: ‘You should not be a skeptic.’”
It’s the “man-made” part that people are skeptical about. Climate has changed for millions of years. Anyone who denies that is an idiot.
Man-assisted? Yes. Man-made? You should be on Comedy Central with that sh*t.
Road Scholar
October 24th, 2011
1:03 pm
Graphs in color…that will blow the conservative’s minds…esp in Celsius!
JF McNamara
October 24th, 2011
1:03 pm
He’s already done the harm to public perception. It doesn’t really matter if he changes his position, because less intelligent people won’t change their opinions.
As it turns out, he was an irresponsible scientist who got used as a pawn in a political game. He should be treated in the same regard treated his fellow scientists.
Adam
October 24th, 2011
1:04 pm
Peadawg: I think it’s pretty clear by now that most people who say “man made” know that there are ALSO forces other than man that alter climates. It’s a verbal gaffe at this point and if we’re really going to get that technical we should apply similar stringent logic to everyone who says anything even slightly off. That will surely get tiring.
getalife
October 24th, 2011
1:08 pm
I like when cons pretend to be scientists
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
1:11 pm
Oops: correction–The CO2 concentration now is higher than the historic spikes by 10-20%, thought the temperature spike is similar. Failing eyesight to blame there.
saywhat?
October 24th, 2011
1:11 pm
I bet they didn’t take into account sunspots, yeah, sunspots, and that in the seventies they thought there was global cooling, and um, um, it’s Al Gore just trying to make money. There. I just disproved 100 years of scientific research in 60 seconds from my computer and didn’t take a penny of oil company money.
Adam
October 24th, 2011
1:11 pm
Bruno: You didn’t look at the actual data as compared to levels found now. Our current CO2 levels have risen much faster than any time in the data that we can analyze (such as the 400k years you have presented) and are projected to continue to do so. The levels of CO2 that I last saw measured were of the 90s, and they MATCHED closely the highest point in those graphs. It is safe to assume the levels have risen since then, since very little has been done globally to reduce the CO2 output.
ty webb
October 24th, 2011
1:11 pm
can’t we just give more money to solyndra and be done with it?
Peadawg
October 24th, 2011
1:12 pm
Adam,
“Man-made” and “man-assisted” have 2 very distinct meanings. You should say what you mean and mean what you say. As precise as science is, you’d think we could use the correct terminology by now.
Adam
October 24th, 2011
1:12 pm
Bruno: I see your correction and raise you a “sorry I posted after your correction” correction
Daedalus
October 24th, 2011
1:12 pm
Science? Who cares what scientist think. As far as the GOP Presidential field cares, its what the Tea Party folks believe, and that ain’t global warming, evolution or any other trendy sciency stuff.
Did dinosaurs roam the earth 6,000 years ago? You betcha. Cause that’s what the creationists say.
The Scarlet A
October 24th, 2011
1:12 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGa70tVYVKo
Call it like it is
October 24th, 2011
1:13 pm
Whats your point Jay? When its a slow news day it seems like you alway go back to the old climate thing. Okay lets say this is all correct, what are we to do. Americans turn in their cars, all flights are cancled, China going to clean up their act, India will stop turning their rivers into cess pools. What do the scientists say we as humans need to do at this moment to stop the heating of the earth, and will the entire human race do it?
Surprised, you havent hit on Libya going over to Sharia Law yet.
Adam
October 24th, 2011
1:13 pm
Peadawg: It’s important to recognize what people actually mean. Call them out on it enough and I am sure you’ll see the wording change. But as precise as science is, public opinion is fickle. If you continue to make this call out, you get a bunch more people talking about how it’s OBVIOUS that we don’t know ANYTHING because we keep changing our minds, or something. Therefore, no Climate Change *sticks fingers in ears and blows a raspberry*
Adam
October 24th, 2011
1:15 pm
Call it like it is: Okay lets say this is all correct, what are we to do.
That is the proper conversation to have at this point, instead of “LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” that we’ve been getting for the past few decades from skeptics.
What are we to do? Let’s think about it and talk about it so we come to a responsible choice on the matter.
Jay
October 24th, 2011
1:16 pm
Climate has changed for millions of years. Anyone who denies that is an idiot.
In other words, Peadawg, anybody who pushed that “ClimateGate” meme was an idiot?
The whole controversy focused on whether the earth was warming. The scientists in question said it was. Their critics said it wasn’t, that their numbers were fraudulant and cooked.
Now that the scientists have yet again been proved right, we’re seeing a spate of “well nobody really questioned whether the climate was warming anyway” talk, which is total BS.
Adam
October 24th, 2011
1:18 pm
Jay: “well nobody really questioned whether the climate was warming anyway”
*shovels down more popcorn*
Granny Godzilla
October 24th, 2011
1:18 pm
Call it like it is
What are we do do?
Well some can stand around wondering…but some of us are leading by example.
Together, each of us doing something, is better than standing around with the “duh” look on ones face.
Do not let “China won’t do it” be an excuse for you doing nothing.
(Or I suppose, YOU can continue to poop where you dine)
Adam
October 24th, 2011
1:18 pm
MEETING, then LUNCH
Libertarian
October 24th, 2011
1:18 pm
Yawn. No point in America worrying about global warming when China and India don’t give a crap about it.
Jefferson
October 24th, 2011
1:19 pm
Somebody will worry that their boss might tell them to ingor it.
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
1:19 pm
Bruno: I see your correction and raise you a “sorry I posted after your correction” correction
So, in the end, I think both “sides” are right: If we are to believe the Antarctic Ice Core data, there are naturally occurring spikes in both CO2 and temperature through history. The current spike is different insofar as the CO2 level is higher by say, 20%. Will the temperatures start falling again as they have in the past, or is this time different?? My feeling is that neither one of us will be alive long enough to find out.
Common Sense
October 24th, 2011
1:21 pm
And once again we just happened to live at the right times with the right temperatures out of millions of years of existence of this planet.
Weren’t we lucky?
stands for decibels
October 24th, 2011
1:22 pm
Jay, given the topic of discussion and the sort of comments generated on this subject in the past, at some point you might want to employ the services of the new website described here.
Jay
October 24th, 2011
1:23 pm
Not lucky at all, Common. It didn’t happen by chance: We evolved to match the climate, and so did every other living creature on this planet. Those that could not evolve to match the climate disappeared.
Jm
October 24th, 2011
1:23 pm
On topic: jay agree
And glad you could change your position on GSE’s role in the crisis and their oversight
Off topic
Republicans at the state level have been adding private sector jobs at a rate 0.18% faster than democrat governors
Over a decade, that’s an extra 2.6 million jobs
And that’s with a democrat in the whitehouse
Think what can be done if Obama is replaced….
Granny Godzilla
October 24th, 2011
1:23 pm
Libertarian
October 24th, 2011
1:18 pm
Yawn. No point in America worrying about global warming when China and India don’t give a crap about it.
Well isn’t THAT special
godless heathen
October 24th, 2011
1:25 pm
1 degree C rise in 200 years. OMG! Run for the hills. Stop driving, stop industry, stop everything! Especially stop those developing nations from doing any more developing.
Climate change is real. Constant climate is unrealistic.
Rapid climate change has been documented in the past and man has adapted (even flourished) as we (rather our descendents) will.
In only about 10,000 years humans spread out of Africa to every nook and cranny of the planet, cold and hot. In another few thousands of years, humans will inhabit other worlds. The exponential growth of technology will far outpace the threat of minor climatic fluctuations on earth.
Chill.
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
1:27 pm
Those that could not evolve to match the climate disappeared.
A tautology, Jay, same as the “survival of the fittest”.
We evolved to match the climate
The bigger question is do we “evolve” actively, intelligently, or is it all a random process, the luck of the draw kind of thing??
Jm
October 24th, 2011
1:27 pm
Carbon tax fixes pollution from Asia by charging them for their dirty ways
Cap and trade doesn’t nearly as well
Call it like it is
October 24th, 2011
1:27 pm
“Do not let “China won’t do it” be an excuse for you doing nothing”
No I’m not worried about China, but several of your here are touting the high road, are you willing at this moment to go without your car, no plane travel, give up AC in the summer time, quit wasting power on computer monitors by reading useless blogs, quit watching TV and on and on. See its real easy to say oh I have belived in global warming the whole time, I believe in it so much that I have done NOTHING to stop it. Beside changing out light bulbs have you really done anything to support your beliefs? Just by posting back to this, you will have proved my point.
Soothsayer
October 24th, 2011
1:28 pm
How do you like your crow: well-done or pan-seared?
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
1:28 pm
Bruno, the chart you linked, though hard to read accurately due to the huge time spans involved, indicates that those ’spikes’ in CO2 concentrations took thousands of years to manifest themselves.
The straight vertical line at the very end of that graph is even larger in magnitude and has apparently happened in a very few decades.
This corroborates all of the information I have read on this matter. The changes we see now have happened in the geological blink of any eye – NOT over millennium as all of the previous ones have.
THAT is the obvious red flag that so concerns the scientific experts. And the one that Libertarian and others driven by ideology dismiss…
getalife
October 24th, 2011
1:28 pm
Change is constant.
A do nothing obstructionist party is destined to fail.
Profits over the planet means our planet loses like the 99 %.
The 1 % should not be allowed to destroy our planet or our country.
Jm
October 24th, 2011
1:29 pm
Well, at least we’re now debating what, if anything to do now, and not the science itself
Jay
October 24th, 2011
1:29 pm
Wow jm. I didn’t know governors had the power to add private-sector jobs like that. Somebody ought to tell Nathan Deal, don’t you think?
And 0.18 percent, you say? I’m sure that’s a statistically significant number, after controlling for all the other variables at play in our 57 states. Right?
Oh, and by the way, over the past year the state to add the largest numbers of jobs was California, not Texas.
stands for decibels
October 24th, 2011
1:30 pm
For the innumerate among us– we need about 120K new jobs per month in order to tread water, and over over the course of a decade that’d be 14,400,000 total.
To tread water.
Over a decade, that’s an extra 2.6 million jobs
Yeah, that 2.6 million hypothetical jobs from your Gooper guvs, that’d be tres impressive.
Butch Cassidy
October 24th, 2011
1:30 pm
Libertarian – “Yawn. No point in America worrying about global warming when China and India don’t give a crap about it.”
Yawn, no point in America worrying about clean air and water, fair wages and labor laws, the denial of nuclear power to terrorist nations when China and India don’t give a crap about it.
Soothsayer
October 24th, 2011
1:31 pm
Jay, I done tried an tried and I cain’t git me and the Wife’s egos to fit in one of them “small cars.” So I guess we’re gonna have to keep the Excursion. So there.
King of ALL
October 24th, 2011
1:32 pm
He was a “Skeptic in name only”
Jm
October 24th, 2011
1:32 pm
Godless 1:25
U mean really over the last 50 years
And let’s keep in mind we weren’t burning the midnight oil all 50 of those years
There are good reasons to do what we can to fix it, within reason
A degree Celsius every 50 years and in 100 years we’ll be cooking and in 500 it will all be over
Paul
October 24th, 2011
1:32 pm
“This is how science works. It checks upon itself. And when the position that you had previously taken has been proved false, you do what Muller has done:
You change your position.”
Or you stick your fingers in your ears and cry “fake! fraud! Only dummies believe science!”
Hey, we oughta send this to Perry’s campaign!
Butch Cassidy
October 24th, 2011
1:33 pm
godless heathen – “Rapid climate change has been documented in the past and man has adapted (even flourished) as we (rather our descendents) will.”
Yeah, look how well we did last year when Atlanta turned in to a giant ice flow.
Granny Godzilla
October 24th, 2011
1:33 pm
Call it like it is
We cut our family’s use of fossil fuel by 50%
Looking forward to being able to do more.
What are YOU doing? Anything?
Anything at all?
Jm
October 24th, 2011
1:34 pm
Jay 1:29 they can’t. I said that for brevity.
They can only provide a pro growth environment. But it works.
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
1:34 pm
Well, at least we’re now debating what, if anything to do now, and not the science itself
From my point of view, that’s never been in question: develop fuel sources which don’t involve burning things. As to date, none of the alternatives are cheaper than burning coal, oil, and natural gas. The price of solar has dropped dramatically the past few decades, so it’s probably just a matter of time.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
1:35 pm
Bruno,
There was an interesting national geographic special on this very ice core drilling project in the ant-Arctic. The consensus among the scientists was that the earth is in fact in a warming cycle. They just didn’t know exactly how much of it was natural vs man made greenhouse gasses. But they said one thing that pretty much put to bed the argument for me. They said that the lag time that it would take for the ice sheets and polar cap to completely melt and for the corresponding rises in sea levels to roughly 80 feet higher than what they are today would take hundreds if not thousands of years. We are already very slowly beginning the transition to an electric car economy and I suspect over the next 100 years at least here we will transform to a successful electric battery economy provided the greens don’t stop us from rebuilding nuclear power. But I just don’t see this doomsday scenario unfolding in 50 or 100 years as the alarmists like to portray it happening.
Don't Tread
October 24th, 2011
1:35 pm
Is the temperature data even reliable?
http://www.surfacestations.org
A quick look at the graph on that site indicates that the vast majority of the temperature sensors have an error of at least +1C.
Common Sense
October 24th, 2011
1:35 pm
Yet by those comments you and others have decided that the planet has evolved enough and therefore we should freeze it at this state.
Of all the generations that ever existed, we are the chosen ones to experience the perfection of balance.
The arrogance on display here is amazing.
Jay
October 24th, 2011
1:37 pm
Well Tread, I have posted on this very blog the work of a team of very well-credentialed scientists, including a new Nobel winner, who looked at that question closely and skeptically and concluded the answer is yes, it is quite reliable.
On the other hand, we have you…..
Jm
October 24th, 2011
1:38 pm
Sfd 1:30 provided evidence of republicans doing better than dems, dismisses it as not big enough
But doesn’t dismiss the fact that R’s are doing better than D’s over the last 12 months
Losing the argument, sfd does.
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
1:38 pm
Ah yes, Paul.
Mr. Global Cooling himself – Rick Perry.
What is it with these guys???
Jimmy62
October 24th, 2011
1:39 pm
Muller has been saying there was global warming since the 70’s. He’s a skeptic only in that he said “I”m a skeptic.” His actual work for three decades shows otherwise as far as global warming. He was talking about it long before Gore.
That’s how it works in journalism, you do research. Jay doesn’t do that, though, so I guess he’s not really a journalist.
stands for decibels
October 24th, 2011
1:41 pm
I concede, jm. Yea, verily, your itty bitty factoid about Gooper governors winning a race to the bottom of providing crap jobs in a crap economy over a cherrypicked timespan blows my big-picture nonsense out of the water.
Jimmy62
October 24th, 2011
1:42 pm
Granny; Fossil fuel usage in the US has been declining. It was in decline before Kyoto, it’s been declining since we didn’t sign Kyoto. The countries that did sign Kyoto have seen rising CO2 output. The problem is not now the US, nor was it ever. The problem is everyone else who hasn’t reached our level of development. So you can either force them to live in poverty, or you can let them spit out some CO2. Either way, technology will solve the problem long before remembering to turn off the lights will.
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
1:43 pm
But I just don’t see this doomsday scenario unfolding in 50 or 100 years as the alarmists like to portray it happening.
TD–Great to see you. While Paul and some others here were apparently focusing on the most inflammatory of the global warming “deniers”, the mainstream conservative message has remained the same. We’re all in support of developing “alternative” fuel sources. It’s more a matter of alarmist vs. non-alarmist, IMO.
St Simons - we're on Island time
October 24th, 2011
1:43 pm
Ohh, the cons will have to invent another word salad talky-point.
“Climate change-haha no way” – oops, tactical retreat
“There’s climate change, nobody said there wasn’t” but it’s not man-made! (whatever the flip THAT means) – oops, tactical retreat
and watch them, watch them, they’ve already got a revisionist word surgeon on this one. It’ll be “oh, we always believed climate change was man-ASSISTED”, (or something like that),
Con – wrong about everything – since 1929
Bosch
October 24th, 2011
1:43 pm
There goes their funding!
Paul
October 24th, 2011
1:44 pm
AmVet
“What is it with these guys???”
He thinks scientists do what they do and say what they say because someone pays them off.
In other words, he thinks others are just like him.
Don't Tread
October 24th, 2011
1:44 pm
I really don’t see how locating temperature sensors next to parking lots and air conditioner units doesn’t introduce error, but I guess common sense isn’t all that common any more.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
October 24th, 2011
1:45 pm
Speaking of the environment, Obama just threw another $400 million dollars to a car manufacturer in Finland to help produce “green” cars. Price tag on the cars, 80K each. Somehow I doubt the average American is going to be driving around in one of these. And guess who owns a big piece of the company, the Google founders. Man, I didn’t realize they needed a government loan? What are they worth now, double digit billions??
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
October 24th, 2011
1:45 pm
It’s the economy stupid. Trade deficits, budget deficits along with too much government that’s overpowering our private sector will kill us a helluva lot sooner than will climate change.
Paul
October 24th, 2011
1:46 pm
Bruno
“While Paul and some others here were apparently focusing on the most inflammatory of the global warming “deniers”, the mainstream conservative message has remained the same. We’re all in support of developing “alternative” fuel sources. It’s more a matter of alarmist vs. non-alarmist, IMO.”
You’re saying the mainstream conservative message is that manmade climate change is real and is supported by science, and the only area of disagreement is over how to mitigate the effects?
Do I have that correct?
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
1:47 pm
Cue up the dabbling around the edges arguments.
One of the more popular, being the sinister placement of the temperature measuring devices.
If only the vast left wing conspiracy gang understood that over 70% of the measuring devices are atop buoys afloat in the world’s oceans. And are MUCH less immune to variations.
As for the surface station chart linked, it is interesting , but not terribly useful.
As it only shows measuring devices in the USA.
This problem is being monitored around the globe as it is a global issue…
getalife
October 24th, 2011
1:47 pm
jm is the onion on this blog.
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
October 24th, 2011
1:48 pm
“And guess who owns a big piece of the company, the Google founders. Man, I didn’t realize they needed a government loan? What are they worth now, double digit billions??”
Yeah but they’re Obama supporters.
w
October 24th, 2011
1:48 pm
AGW is clearly a wealth transfer scam. No doubt. You can almost draw a line between those that stand to benefit and those that stand to lose by for and against.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
October 24th, 2011
1:48 pm
Man Al Gore sure has made himself a rich man off of global warming…
Jm
October 24th, 2011
1:49 pm
Sfd
“I concede, jm”
Well done. Good of you to be honest.
Btw, I didn’t cherry pick, I just did the last year and wanted to see the results. And whether it’s a good or bad economy, adding more jobs is good. So thanks.
Butch Cassidy
October 24th, 2011
1:50 pm
I don’t get it, when it comes to the defecit or over spending, everyone starts crying that “we are spending our childrens and grandchildrens future”. But when it comes to climate change, the immidiate message is “F em! Nice.
Paul
October 24th, 2011
1:50 pm
Woodstock Mike
And many megachurch televangelists have made themselves rich off Christianity.
A charlatan perverts the message. He doesn’t invalidate the message.
godless heathen
October 24th, 2011
1:50 pm
You are right, looked at it wrong.
1^ C from 1810 to 1940 and 1^C from 1940 to 2010.
1^ in 139 years and 1^ in 70 years.
“A degree Celsius every 50 years and in 100 years we’ll be cooking”
That I doubt seriously and who is “we”, kemo sabe?
Jm
October 24th, 2011
1:51 pm
Getalife
I’m a vidalia then.
Boris Badnoff
October 24th, 2011
1:52 pm
Here’s the real story on The Convert.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/44855
If you want to read something literate about this here it is
http://s8int.com/crichton.html
Climate science should be debated in scientific circles. It was turned into a political football by Fat Albert Gort who is raking in dough from the gullible nervous nellies. I do not fear Global temperature variations but I am terrified of ManBearPig.
Jm
October 24th, 2011
1:52 pm
Getalife
I’m sorry if I make you cry though. Buck up, Republicans will fix things.
getalife
October 24th, 2011
1:52 pm
del,
In other words, you don’t understand science so you mindlessly lie about our President.
As usual.
Then mikey opines:
“Man Al Gore sure has made himself a rich man off of global warming…”
Lord help us.
Granny Godzilla
October 24th, 2011
1:53 pm
jimmy62
duh, we all know that. some of us helped that along…
care to try for something constructive?
Woodstock Mike
Did the money go to Finland or are you telling a fib?
That said, in case you haven’t noticed, new technology is expensive, but the cost drops over time.
I got what used to be several rooms of technological hardawre in my little bitty laptop for under 400.00.
JIMBOB
October 24th, 2011
1:54 pm
Atmospheric gas changes are lagging temperature changes from hundreds of years ago. Why would anyone be all up in arms? Ice core samples proved this.
Not surprisingly, the biggest peddlers of this scam are the UN, politicians, and their propagandists that fill the MSM.
barking frog
October 24th, 2011
1:54 pm
If you accept a warming climate, what will you do about it ? This summer I cut off the
air conditioner and opened the windows and sweated away 10 lbs, no wait… that
was just because I couldn’t afford to pay Georgia Power’s high rates…GP may be
helping to save mankind…with the assistance of the PSC!
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
1:55 pm
A charlatan perverts the message. He doesn’t invalidate the message.
Niiice!
And a damn fine, if not dastardly, refudiation of that irrelevant red herring about Mr. Gore, Paul…
getalife
October 24th, 2011
1:55 pm
“Republicans will fix things”
Yeah, like they did last time and hand over their disasters to the dems.
Look up the definition of insanity jm.
You nailed it..
Soothsayer
October 24th, 2011
1:55 pm
Have you ever noticed how the Fright Wing, when confronted with incontrovertible evidence that blows their entire assumptions out of the water, resort to “attack and distract” tactics. Witness the “Al Gore profits from global warming” posts. Very interesting.
Jm
October 24th, 2011
1:56 pm
Godless 1:50
If I typed 100, I meant 500
Yeah, we’ll be gone. But our future generations won’t (depending on your age and life expectancy)
I’m against debt and climate change so much because they are both incredibly difficult to change later and a very big burden to bear
Big Brother
October 24th, 2011
1:57 pm
“According to Time magazine, global warming is 33% worse than we thought. You know what that means? Al Gore is one-third more annoying than we thought.” –Jay Leno
“They say if the warming trend continues, by 2015 Hillary Clinton might actually thaw out.” –Jay Leno, on global warming
“Al Gore announced he is finishing up a new book about global warming and the environment. Yeah, the first chapter talks about how you shouldn’t chop down trees to make a book that no one will read.” –Conan O’Brien
Creed
October 24th, 2011
1:57 pm
Man-made or not.
If man-made, can mere mortals and their money bring change?
Obama didn’t.
Bookman’s next topic? Pick one:
Wealth distribution.
GOP presidential candidates.
Another climate change piece.
Another revolution, OWS or otherwise.
yawn
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
1:57 pm
You’re saying the mainstream conservative message is that manmade climate change is real and is supported by science, and the only area of disagreement is over how to mitigate the effects? Do I have that correct?
Not exactly. We’ve all been looking at the same graphs, just interpreting them differently. The “conservative” interpretation is that there have always been long-term fluctuations in temperature, as the Antarctic Ice Core chart I linked above shows. And while CO2 levels are higher than during past temp spikes, there hasn’t been a corresponding, catastrophic increase in temperatures–yet. Because climatology is far from being an “exact” science, any predictions about are ultimate fate are unreliable. In the meantime, we all support prudent management of the planet which involves developing alternative energy sources which are economically viable.
Does that clear things up??
Eric
October 24th, 2011
1:57 pm
I have never been a skeptic of the warming. The climate goes through cycles. I don’t believe that we should spend billions of dollars for something we probably can’t stop.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
October 24th, 2011
1:57 pm
getalife
Are you denying that Al Gore has become rich by exploiting global warming? I don’t deny global warming but god help you if you don’t realize Al Gore is laughing at you all the way to the bank.
Soothsayer
October 24th, 2011
1:58 pm
“This summer I cut off the air conditioner and opened the windows and sweated away 10 lbs”
What on Earth did people do before there was air conditioning?
Jm
October 24th, 2011
1:59 pm
And godless. 500 years is a blink of an eye historically speaking
With a little work, you can trace your ancestors back that far
Nazan Yar
October 24th, 2011
1:59 pm
As with nearly every issue, the real crux is economics, or the real or perceived value of ‘improvement.’ I think everyone would agree that being responsible in some form or fashion for our actions is important and worth some amount of time/money. Maybe for someone it’s only worth spending $5/year for some improvement X. for another it’s worth billions of dollars for improvement X. I’d rather see an objective article based on some commonality on what’s ‘worth it.’
Eric
October 24th, 2011
1:59 pm
The best thing to do to “clean the earth” is to promote economic freedom around the world. Look at the poorest countries around the world and you will notice how much trash and garbage is in the streets and towns. The water is contaminated as well.
global warming solution
October 24th, 2011
1:59 pm
I say, take out about one billion climate change skeptics and we will be fine. One billion less people breathing out CO2 can and will save the environment
Granny Godzilla
October 24th, 2011
2:00 pm
woodstock mike
al gore was born wealthy….
envious?
who’s laughing at who?
WOODSTOCK MIKE
October 24th, 2011
2:00 pm
“Have you ever noticed how the Fright Wing, when confronted with incontrovertible evidence that blows their entire assumptions out of the water, resort to “attack and distract” tactics. Witness the “Al Gore profits from global warming” posts. Very interesting.”
So please explain what the exact cause of global warming is? This should be funny…
WOODSTOCK MIKE
October 24th, 2011
2:01 pm
“al gore was born wealthy….
envious?”
Granny, I’m a Republican, we don’t hate the rich like you…
Soothsayer
October 24th, 2011
2:01 pm
To paraphrase: admitting that you have a problem is one of the first steps to correcting that problem. Denial helps nothing.
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
2:01 pm
barking frog, out of 117 measured summers in Georgia, this one was number 116, in terms of the hottest ever.
The Texas summer of 2011 was the hottest of the 117. Several other southeastern states had similar readings.
Coincidence? Nobody knows for sure.
Yet.
And that is what terrifies the Republican gainsayers.
Even so, with them it is good to see baby steps.
It was only a couple of years ago, that almost none of them even acknowledged the earth’s sudden rising temps.
Now they begrudgingly do, but come up with endless malarkey to explain it away…
Matti's Southern Drawl
October 24th, 2011
2:01 pm
Truth and reality exist and occur independently of what we think about them, how we feel about them, or how we prefer to interpret them. Just sayin’.
getalife
October 24th, 2011
2:01 pm
mikey,
I don’t know his personal finances and don’t care. It is none of my business.
I do like him fighting for our planet.
Somebody had to step up and lead on this issue and I praise him for that.
I believe we are heavily tilted for profits over our planet and country and hope that changes.
rightwingextreme
October 24th, 2011
2:02 pm
Hey Jay…I fixed your reply.
Jay
October 24th, 2011
1:29 pm
Wow jm. I didn’t know presidents had the power to add private-sector jobs like that. Somebody ought to tell Barack Obama, don’t you think?
Normal
October 24th, 2011
2:02 pm
getalife
October 24th, 2011
1:52 pm
You have to remember that Del, Scout and myself are ex-military. In being that, we have always blamed our plight, especially since most of it is beyond our control, on our superiors. It’s a natural carry over to blame the President for those things that you don’t like and remain beyond your control. Just being what they were trained to be, is all. In my day, the word was…”A bitchin’ sailor is a happy sailor”. Figure that works for Marines, too…
Bosch
October 24th, 2011
2:03 pm
Sooth,
Humans smelled alot worse back then!
Soothsayer
October 24th, 2011
2:03 pm
Heck, Woodstock Rightie, maybe this has something to do with it. Ya think?
Mick
October 24th, 2011
2:03 pm
Mudfoot
October 24th, 2011
2:03 pm
Climate change and and all other forms of natural and man-made disaster could be easily solved if we’d just cut taxes to zero
Mudfoot
October 24th, 2011
2:04 pm
Right Ty?
Soothsayer
October 24th, 2011
2:04 pm
“Humans smelled alot worse back then!”
They still had soap and the local crick.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
October 24th, 2011
2:04 pm
“I don’t know his personal finances and don’t care. It is none of my business.”
Oh, I thought you hate the rich?
TaxPayer
October 24th, 2011
2:05 pm
I hope those Koch-funded scientists were not hoping for more Koch funding with results like that.
I mean, “Watts Up” with those people!!! 
getalife
October 24th, 2011
2:05 pm
Thanks Normal.
I will keep that in mind
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
2:07 pm
This topic perfectly exemplifies the equally bizarre and self-destructive collective stance by the far right-wing fringe AGAINST the American middle class.
They seem to be able to constantly outdo their own lunacy…
Mick
October 24th, 2011
2:08 pm
woodstock
We don’t hate the rich, we just want more of their money. The problem is that there are too many rubes running around trying to exempt them from paying more. They can keep their fortunes, just pay more in line what they earn, end of story…
Paul
October 24th, 2011
2:08 pm
Bruno
“Does that clear things up?”
No.
From your earlier post: “While Paul and some others here were apparently focusing on the most inflammatory of the global warming “deniers”, the mainstream conservative message has remained the same. We’re all in support of developing “alternative” fuel sources. It’s more a matter of alarmist vs. non-alarmist, IMO.”
Are you saying mainstream conservatives accept climate change?
Are you saying mainstream conservatives do or do not believe man bears responsibility for part of the change?
If man does not contribute, then why look for alternate fuel sources?
getalife
October 24th, 2011
2:09 pm
mikey,
You thought wrong.
I don’t hate anybody.
I don’t like the 1 % controlling our government to get nothing but corporate welfare that wastes American taxpayer’s money and hope that changes. The 1 % does not need any help.
I support the 99 % trying to change that fact.
global warming solution
October 24th, 2011
2:10 pm
End capitalism, it’ll end global warming!
TaxPayer
October 24th, 2011
2:11 pm
I just don’t see the big deal, like the cons here, about global warming that will not impact us for at least another hundred or more years when we have much more serious things to worry about right now such as protecting our grandchildren from the ravages of increased national debt and taxation and social security benefits and Medicare and environmental REGULATIONS against air pollution and water pollution and such!!!! The horrors!!!!
global warming solution
October 24th, 2011
2:12 pm
It is time for a state run ecomony where the politicans tell us what we deserve to earn and keep!
Meme Mine
October 24th, 2011
2:12 pm
Boycott all fear mongering climate crisis media.
Climate change crisis from Human CO2 isn’t about pollution or tankers or little kids planting trees. It’s a climate crisis and nothing could possibly be worse than a climate crisis outside of a comet hit and nuclear war. This is literally the end of life for civilization that is being spewed here with billions of children being issued CO2 death warrants. Can someone act like it’s the ultimate emergency please?
Pollution is real but death of the planet by it or Human CO2 is not real.
REAL planet lovers are happy for the planet in climate change being a tragic exaggeration committed by exploiting scientists and unconscionable news editors.
real john
October 24th, 2011
2:12 pm
Two points:
1. Wasn’t it when we had all of the harsh snows, the liberals changed it to Climate Change, not Global Warming?
2. So if I’m reading this graph right, the earth’s temperature raised a whole 1 degrees. So what?? Please don’t tell me cities will go crashing into oceans, that’s complete crap. So the temperature goes up a degree or two; that’s like saying it was 74 instead of 73 today. Do you really notice a big difference.
3. Jay, if you spent as much time investigating how the current president is the most disasterous president in modern history as you do trying to find every little thing to nitpick at Republicans, you probably would be a Pulitzer Prize winner at this point.
A few suggestions:
–Investigating how Bush tried several times to warn that we had a impedning crisis; yet people like Barney Frank said everything was fine.
–Where in the world did $800 billion in stimulus dollars go and what good did it go?? And no, “jobs saved” does not count. All you are doing is prolonging and making the problem worse in the long run.
—since liberals always talk about science, how about doing some investigating to see how our current entitlements, S.S.; Medicare, Medicaid will continue to explode in costs the next few years and what the Dems propose how to slow it??
–How about an article showing campaign contributions to Obama from the evil Wall Street People??
I could go on for awhile but you get the point. Instead of just trying to create more hate and drama, why don’t you look at the Democratic party and do some soul searching. They haven’t exactly been perfect.
Can you name one thing Obama has done to help the economy?? You can’t, because he hasn’t…I don’t know how bad it has too get; before Dems realize that trying to inject “fairness” in our economy, will only hurt more people. Raise “rich” people’s taxes and see what happens? Impose more environmental regulations to businesses…see what happens…trust me, it won’t be pretty for the middle class and poor
Mick
October 24th, 2011
2:12 pm
bruno
Looks like every 50 to 100k years there is a spike in temp.
Paul
October 24th, 2011
2:13 pm
Woodstock Mike
I’ve never heard anyone on the left on this blog say they hate the rich.
I have heard, many times, those on the Right say that’s what the Left believe. But I’ve never heard the Left agree.
Some of the most prominent people on the Left are very, very rich. Like Hollywood types.
And many on the Right do seem to hate them.
Grasshopper
October 24th, 2011
2:13 pm
Change your light bulbs — quick! That will surely help.
Until you throw the broken new $15 bulb in the trash and the dog eats the mercury. Oops.
getalife
October 24th, 2011
2:13 pm
bruno,
Answer Paul’s questions.
Honestly.
allen981
October 24th, 2011
2:13 pm
Too bad Al Gore wasn’t around to save the dinosaurs – ergo, “Earth as we know it – from that horrific cooling period that killed them all.
Since natural, ongoing changes in the physics of the Earth apparently have nothing to do with climate change, such change must have been dinosaur-induced, and ‘ol Al could have lead a campaign for all dinos to ‘pass less gas and save the Earth…’
This of course, is a ridiculous analogy, as is the idea that mankind can control the inexorable physical forces that create the environment in which we live.
Jay B referred to ‘a thousand years’ a few comments back, as if that were a meaningful time frame. Balderdash. In the scope of the timeline of this planet, a thousand years is faster than the blink of an eye. In fact, it was just 10,000 years ago that retreating glaciers formed the English Channel and even the Great Lakes…that’s a nanosecond in the history of this planet.
Oh, and a final question: with all the talk of climate change, increasing storm intensity, etc., where have the hurricanes been this year? And last year?
It’s a shame that every climatalogical event is now perceived as an example of climate change on the planet. Too cool? Climate change; too dry? climate change…
All in all, it’s just weather.
yuzeyurbrane
October 24th, 2011
2:13 pm
I wish I could think that your to-the-point article would drive a stake thru the hearts of the Luddite skeptics . . . but I doubt that will happen.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
October 24th, 2011
2:13 pm
Soothsayer –
It’s not about denying global warming. It’s about spending hundreds of millions on companies and ideas that we aren’t even sure will help. Are you saying your position is to bankrupt the system trying to fight global warming?
Matti's Southern Drawl
October 24th, 2011
2:13 pm
Bruno,
I saw my company’s Websense message blocking your link under the category “Malicious Web Sites.”
Paul
October 24th, 2011
2:14 pm
Bruno
Tell you what I see?
Someone who won’t answer questions to clarify an earlier post?
jm
October 24th, 2011
2:16 pm
Woodstock Mike 2:13 – that’s the beauty of the carbon tax. Use it, and the market can find the least expensive solution to solve the problem.
Cap & Trade just creates more cronyism and winners and losers.
I’m not saying the Carbon Tax is a great idea. I’m just saying what it can do. There are still big risks to it.
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
2:17 pm
Brother B, I already addressed it in an earlier post.
Look at that red line at the far right end of the graph.
It goes STRAIGHT UP FROM APPROXIMATELY 280 TO 360 PPMV in no time flat.
The only other similar increase is when it went from 190 to 290 around 150,000 years ago.
And it took 10,000 years to do so.
Not a few decades.
Truth
October 24th, 2011
2:18 pm
The issue is not climate change but what is causing climate change.
BADA BING
October 24th, 2011
2:20 pm
Hell, 7 billion people is what the problem is. Put the World’s population growth chart up with the other charts and see if it looks similar. You can’t address climate change without including the reduction of the population.
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
2:21 pm
Wasn’t it when we had all of the harsh snows, the liberals changed it to Climate Change, not Global Warming?
A completely fallacious suggestion.
For the umpteenth time, an article from National Geographic dated 2006.
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.
Mick
October 24th, 2011
2:21 pm
bada
The more the merrier…
Bosch
October 24th, 2011
2:22 pm
“The issue is not climate change but what is causing climate change.”
Only for a few people who no one listens to — for the rest of us, we know what is causing it and supporting those companies and scientists who are finding solutions to mitigate it’s effects.
Truth
October 24th, 2011
2:23 pm
BADA BING;
Your solution to fixing the problem could be a problem.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
October 24th, 2011
2:23 pm
Hey Paul, who do you agree with? Steve Jobs or Obama?
“You’re headed for a one-term presidency,” he told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where “regulations and unnecessary costs” make it difficult for them.
Jobs also criticized America’s education system, saying it was “crippled by union work rules,” noted Isaacson. “Until the teachers’ unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform.” Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year.”
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
2:23 pm
Are you saying mainstream conservatives accept climate change?
I’m saying that conservatives see the current “climate change” as part of a long-term pattern of “climate change”. I’ve put the graph up several times. I’m not sure how I can be any clearer.
Are you saying mainstream conservatives do or do not believe man bears responsibility for part of the change?
Again, referring to the graph, the current temperature spike isn’t any different from previous temperature spikes, in spite of the fact that the CO2 concentration is higher. As such, I don’t see how anyone can draw a firm conclusion that our current spike is “man-made”, or even being driven by CO2 at all. As I’ve stated several times, climatology is a developing science, such that current predictions are unreliable.
If man does not contribute, then why look for alternate fuel sources?
It’s simply good common sense to look for and utilize “clean” energies. There’s no difference on either side of the political aisle in that regard, other than perhaps how to go about things in an economically sound fashion.
Truth
October 24th, 2011
2:23 pm
Bosch:
I would encourage you to “Follow the Money” and you may change your opinion on what is causing climate change.
St Simons - we're on Island time
October 24th, 2011
2:24 pm
kinda on-topic, with Perry being the anti science standard bearer
Rick Perry Takes a Stand on Birthers – He Is One –
Just In on Yahoo News:
Governor, That’s not a definitive, “Yes, I believe (Obama was born here)”—
Perry: Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate.
Parade Reporter: But you’ve seen his.
Perry: I don’t know. Have I?
Reporter: You don’t believe what’s been released?
Perry: I don’t know. I had dinner with Donald Trump the other night.
Reporter: And?
Perry: That came up.
Reporter: And he said?
Perry: He doesn’t think it’s real.
aaaaand then there were how many clowns in the car?
Soothsayer
October 24th, 2011
2:25 pm
Well, my scientific research has led to only one conclusion as to what is causing global climate change: senior flatulence. Yes, that’s correct! A bunch of us “old farts” are what’s causing it all. Heck, some days I even contribute twice my normal share just for the fun of it!
Waheema
October 24th, 2011
2:25 pm
And from this chart, Bookman would have us imporverish ourselves to stop a natural cycle of warming adn cooling that has been happening since the beginning of time.
Global warming skeptic is not the same thiing as those who accept the data but doubt the assertion that man is the cause and that the trends can be reversed.
Mick
October 24th, 2011
2:25 pm
woodstock
That’s why jobs did what he did, because he wasn’t a politician and certainly was clueless about education reform, but hey he made some great computers and phones…
Richard Muller no skeptic | JunkScience.com
October 24th, 2011
2:27 pm
[...] Muller, whose recent “study” on surface temperatures, has caused headlines like “Climate-change skeptic: ‘You should not be a skeptic.’“, the San Francisco Chronicle reported in 2006: … Muller estimates 2 in 3 odds that [...]
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
2:27 pm
Wed, Nov 17, 2010
A new Pew poll shows a dramatic change in opinion on climate change among Republicans that seems to mirror a new tone on the issue taken up by GOP politicians.
In the poll, 53 percent of Republicans said there is no evidence for climate change, when only three years ago 62 percent of GOPers said they did believe in global warming. Almost 80 percent of Democrats and a majority of independents said there is solid evidence for global warming.
About half of the approximately 100 freshmen GOP Congressmen do not believe in man-made global warming. The soon-to-be chair of the House Science Committee is a climate-change skeptic.
Even among more moderate Republicans, climate change has become a no-go zone.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who ran on a clean-energy platform just a year ago, told a town hall last week he “can’t figure this stuff out” when asked if he is convinced man-made global warming is a problem.
BADA BING
October 24th, 2011
2:28 pm
Yes Truth, fixing the proplem is going to hurt. Leaders will not want to impose strict popuation control on their people .But millions of people are going to die painfully of disease and hunger. Why have children that are just going to die horribly?
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
2:30 pm
And the most significant reason why most people reject this bizarre Republican intransigence?
The scientific consensus about man-made global warming — which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences — is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting.
TaxPayer
October 24th, 2011
2:30 pm
…There is overwhelming evidence that humans are the dominant cause of this warming, mainly due to our greenhouse gas emissions. Based on fundamental physics and math, we can quantify the amount of warming human activity is causing, and verify that we’re responsible for essentially all of the global warming over the past 3 decades…
WOODSTOCK MIKE
October 24th, 2011
2:30 pm
“That’s why jobs did what he did, because he wasn’t a politician and certainly was clueless about education reform, but hey he made some great computers and phones…”
Yeah, Jobs didn’t know anything about business, he just created one of the largest companies on the planet, LOL. Why should anybody listen to him?
jm
October 24th, 2011
2:30 pm
St. Simons – nice selective editing. And it ended:
“And you said?
I don’t have any idea. It doesn’t matter. He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected. It’s a distractive issue.”
St. Simons, don’t lie. Liberals are looking worse and worse, desperation.
Jay
October 24th, 2011
2:31 pm
If that’s truly the issue, Truth, why all the big controversy about “ClimateGate”, etc.? That whole thing was about conservative claims that the planet wasn’t warming, that it was all made up and fraudulent.
What we have here is what military strategists would call defense in depth, requiring a series of fallback positions to delay the advance of a superior force. In this case the layers are:
A. The planet isn’t warming and if it is you can’t prove it.
B. OK, you can prove the planet is warming, but you can’t prove mankind is causing it.
C. OK, you can demonstrate that an overwhelming percentage of climate scientists say that man is contributing to climate change — a position that even George W. Bush acknowledged as true — but you can’t prove we can do anything about it.
D. OK, even if you can prove that there are reasonable things we can do to slow global warming, I don’t want to and you can’t make me. So there!
Bruno would like to pretend that conservatives have already abandoned Points A and B and perhaps even C, because he knows that debate over those points is intellectually embarrassing to the right. He’s right that afew years ago, things did seem headed in that direction, but more recently conservatives have returned to arguing A and B again.
Jack
October 24th, 2011
2:33 pm
It has been determined that all the fuss about climate change has been due to bovine flatulence. I’m gonna due my part by putting filters on all my cows. And bulls.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
2:34 pm
So when CO2 concentrations were 4 times higher during the age of the dinosaurs were they driving around in humvees? It was so hot that cold blooded dinosaur fossils can be uncovered in the far north of Canada. I wonder if the Chinese, the Indians, and the rest of the world outside of the greens in western Europe give a damn about this so called warming climate? Something tells me they don’t. Must be awesome for the Chinese to get carbon credits subsidized by German taxpayers to pay for the 3 gorges damn that would have been built anyway. The Chinese say Thank you German environmentalist taxpayer fools!
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
2:34 pm
On this matter, it is once again demonstrable that today’s Republicans are, nearly to a man, NOT conservative.
Conservatives, as a whole, have never been anti-science.
They have never been anti-environmental.
They have never been anti-academia.
And they have never been pro-dumbass like this motley crew is.
And one of the few bright bulbs in that party knows so and has the nads to say it
Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
October 24th, 2011
2:35 pm
“At least 70-80% of the Earth’s warming effect comes from water vapor and clouds not CO2. CO2 traps about 10-20% of the world’s heat. Other contributors to warming include high altitude cirrus clouds and sunspots.”
“Currently, the United States Congress is debating a potential five trillion dollar energy policy. This policy will place carbon caps on corporations. This will raise cost of energy significantly. Money raised from these caps would be redistributed to more expensive renewable energy projects. The poor will suffer the most as they will have to contend with rising food prices, rising gas prices and now rising energy costs.”
Mick
October 24th, 2011
2:36 pm
woodstock
Comparing steve jobs with the president doesn’t make much sense. First, I don’t think he’s running or ever wanted to, and if we are going to elect presidents on the basis of successful businesses, wouldn’t bill gates take the cake?
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
2:36 pm
Look at that red line at the far right end of the graph.
It goes STRAIGHT UP FROM APPROXIMATELY 280 TO 360 PPMV in no time flat.
The only other similar increase is when it went from 190 to 290 around 150,000 years ago.
AmVet–Believe it or not, I see the same increase in CO2. What I don’t see is a corresponding spike in temps. In fact, it looks like we’re still a bit cooler than about 8000 years ago, when man’s impact on the environment was minimal.
Having said that, we’re both on the same team as far as moving away from burning fossil fuels. Whether climatology is a settled science or not doesn’t change that fact. Our preferred paths about how to get there may differ, but the goal is the same.
Ft. Smith
October 24th, 2011
2:36 pm
So, in the last forty years the temperatures have risen by one degree. But they fell by half a degree in a period of ten years in the first decade of the 19th century and then rose three quarters of a degree in the next decade at which point they fell another half a degree before they began, in the 1840s their inexorable rise to the 1940s. And then they were stable for thirty years before they rose one degree over the last forty years.
So there you have it. Science.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
2:36 pm
Jay and the sky is falling chicken little crowd. Ya’ll sing out in unison now ” The sky is falling. The sky is falling”.
Soothsayer
October 24th, 2011
2:36 pm
“It has been determined that all the fuss about climate change has been due to bovine flatulence. I’m gonna due my part by putting filters on all my cows. And bulls.”
Jack, if you could put some kind of collection device on your cattle, you’d have enough methane to heat your house in the winter!
Jay
October 24th, 2011
2:37 pm
In the meantime, we all support prudent management of the planet which involves developing alternative energy sources which are economically viable.
In other words, Bruno wants us to do nothing, because if judged solely on grounds of economic viability, fossil fuels will continue to be cheaper for quite a while to come.
Paul
October 24th, 2011
2:38 pm
Woodstock Mike
You asked me if I agreed with Jobs or Obama but you quoted only from Jobs. You did not provide examples from Pres Obama for me to bump it up against.
Jobs was a businessman. Of course he wants to lower his cost of doing business. But as has been demonstrated on this blog, the pace of regulation has lessened under Obama than it was under Bush. Jobs did not provide any background on what regulations impair his or other businesses from competing.
Or how the supposed anti-business attitude has coexisted with the highest after-tax corporate profits in 80 years.
As far as teachers’ unions, I’m a bit mystified. We did not have teachers’ unions in the last couple of states I’ve lived in and those problems seemed to mirror states with teachers’ unions. I also notice Jobs did not address the increased costs of an 11-month school year (districts modify their first class of the day times to save dollars on electricity, so I’m not sure how they’ll cope with Jobs’ proposal).
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
2:38 pm
Feb 5, 2007
Only 13 percent of congressional Republicans say they believe that human activity is causing global warming.
This has been the magnitude of dumbassery in the dysfunctional GOP…
godless heathen
October 24th, 2011
2:40 pm
jm,
To a geologist 500 years ain’t even that.
Yes Jay, man evolved to match the climate – the sub-saharan Africa climate. Now humans live in places like Greenland, Scandanavia, and even Chicago. Places than have “climates” more than 1 or 2 degrees warmer than central Africa. How is that possible? Through technology.
The expansion of technology is going to make this a total non-issue in another 100 years.
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
2:41 pm
And the worst of the worst of the ostriches?
Not surprisingly, the Tea Party.
78 percent of Democrats, 71 percent of Independents, and 53% of Republicans believe in global climate change, while only 34 percent of tea Party members do.
Let them eat astro-turf!
godless heathen
October 24th, 2011
2:42 pm
But Jay, I thought we were running out of fossil fuels.
Which sky is falling this week?
Normal
October 24th, 2011
2:43 pm
To those talkin’ about the Lybian legal system…
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20111023/ML.Libya/
WOODSTOCK MIKE
October 24th, 2011
2:43 pm
“A team of MIT scientists recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels -the first increase in ten years. What baffles the team is that this data contradicts theories stating humans are the primary source of increase in greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. Since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, however, it is probable that this may be part of a natural cycle – and not the direct result of man’s contributions.”
DawgDad
October 24th, 2011
2:44 pm
Science is interesting and informative. Politicized, it is immensely dangerous. We live in very dangerous times.
Science is based on hypothesis and scientific method. When political and social operatives pressure people to accept theory as fact against their free will they act as tyrants.
Modern science is corrupted by politics and moneyed interests, because scientific research is often very expensive. Governments and special interests invest in science for a reason, perhaps for the “good of the public” or “advancement of scientific knowledge” or perhaps for profit and power. Even absent the grants and funding ties once scientific research is is published it is subject to these political, social, and business influences.
So, when you try to convince me [and many, many others] we need to act on “climate change” in the public arena I call for you to please stop advocating we spend taxpayer money to promote your personal or special interests. Liberty and freedom are FAR more important than the selfish interests of the “environmentalists” and others who attempt to profit or power trip off the backs of taxpayers by limiting our freedoms to exist freely.
It’s just like Warren Buffet’s ridiculous demagoguery on tax increases. If you want to do your part to address “climate change”, then by all means I will respect your wishes and contributions. Just don’t tread on me.
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
2:45 pm
One last stat to chew on.
Only 14% of Republicans believe global warming is the result primarily of human action
Their ideology trumps everything.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
October 24th, 2011
2:46 pm
“Comparing steve jobs with the president doesn’t make much sense. First, I don’t think he’s running or ever wanted to, and if we are going to elect presidents on the basis of successful businesses, wouldn’t bill gates take the cake?”
You guys are hilarious. Nobody is comparing Steve Jobs to Obama, the point is simple, liberals continue to preach that new regulations imposed by the Obama adminstration don’t hinder American business. Steve Jobs clearly disagrees and with all due respect to you, he knows more than you do about business.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
October 24th, 2011
2:46 pm
Hmmmmm. I wonder if this Charles Koch Foundation’s got any money for a study I want to do. I wouldn’t need but a hour or so to find what kind of answers the guy wants. And he’d get them in spades.
I’m going to talk this over with my buddy Jim Earl and my other buddy Joe Bill up at Billy Bob’s during our weekly Monday meeting tonight. Seems to me things is looking up. And besides, there’s no reason a bunch of eggheads have to get all the money that’s floating around.
Have a good p.m. everybody.
md
October 24th, 2011
2:47 pm
“It goes STRAIGHT UP FROM APPROXIMATELY 280 TO 360 PPMV in no time flat.
The only other similar increase is when it went from 190 to 290 around 150,000 years ago.
And it took 10,000 years to do so.
Not a few decades.”
I guess folks see what they want to see……..look at it again, and the temperature variation does not mimic past cycles in relation to amount of CO2………the temp spike is actually quite similar to previous spikes, it has not increased in ratio as those past spikes have, the temp is actually lower when one would think it should be higher………………
TaxPayer
October 24th, 2011
2:48 pm
The fact that we have past warming events associated with higher levels of CO2 actually reinforces the theory and data regarding the increased CO2 and the corresponding warming of our planet. It in no way provides evidence to the contrary. Further, the present day increase in CO2 (beyond the natural fluctuations) is known to be due to man’s burning of fossil fuels because it actually leaves a unique “fingerprint” of sorts that can be checked.
godless heathen
October 24th, 2011
2:48 pm
Yea, what does a businessman know about business? Politicians know so much more.
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
2:49 pm
Bruno would like to pretend that conservatives have already abandoned Points A and B and perhaps even C, because he knows that debate over those points is intellectually embarrassing to the right. He’s right that afew years ago, things did seem headed in that direction, but more recently conservatives have returned to arguing A and B again.
Jay–I’m not sure where you came up with this progression of arguments. My position, which I think accurately reflects the average, mainstream, conservative position, hasn’t changed. Whether this fits scenario A, B, or whatever is for you to decide, since it’s your framework.
The fact remains that no dramatic spike in temperatures has occurred in relation to the spike in CO2. Do you see the facts in a different way??
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
2:50 pm
Ah yes, another of the many “dabble around the edges” argument.
This one being proffered by DawgDad that the scientists are all paid off to come up with erroneous data.
And for me, it is always interesting that NEVER ONCE have I seen this assertion corroborated in ANY way, with ANY facts, ANY data, ANY evidence at all to support that oft-parroted claim.
Dad’s certainly has none. As in zero.
Somehow though, this “angle” seems to have passed neo-con peer review…
mm
October 24th, 2011
2:50 pm
“Yawn. No point in America worrying about global warming when China and India don’t give a crap about it.”
Yep, I was waiting for that one.
And we’re following India and China into the slave labor markets as well.
Thank you righties. 13 more months of this and we’ll see a huge turnaround for Obama. You can’t shovel sh*t everyday without a few more people picking up the smell.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
October 24th, 2011
2:50 pm
“Only 14% of Republicans believe global warming is the result primarily of human action”
Include these guys in the 86%…
“Authors Dennis Avery and Fred Singer looked at the work of more than 500 scientists and argue that these experts are doubtful the phenomenon is caused by man-made greenhouse gases.
Climate change is much more likely to be part of a cycle of warming and cooling that has happened regularly every 1,500 years for the last million years, they say.
And the doom and gloom merchants, who point to the threat to the polar bear from the melting North Pole, are wrong, the authors say.
Even if our climate is changing, it is not all bad, they suggest, because past cold periods have killed twice as many people as warm periods. Mr Avery said: “Not all of these researchers who doubt man-made climate change would describe themselves as global warming sceptics but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”
md
October 24th, 2011
2:52 pm
“In other words, Bruno wants us to do nothing, because if judged solely on grounds of economic viability, fossil fuels will continue to be cheaper for quite a while to come.”
Just the reality of the situation………unless the dems want the “poor and middle” class to bear the brunt of the shift, as they surely will pulling all these gas guzzlers off the roads and the cost of goods increasing due to increases in related transportation costs are absorbed into the economy……
DawgDad
October 24th, 2011
2:53 pm
“This one being proffered by DawgDad that the scientists are all paid off to come up with erroneous data.”
I did NOT say that. Read again.
godless heathen
October 24th, 2011
2:54 pm
Interesting thing about Mulley’s study is that it was partially funded by the Koch Foundation, yet the neo-libs love it. If the results of Mulley’s study had not agreed with their dogma, they would have claimed it was invalid for that reason alone.
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
2:55 pm
Mike, what part of The scientific consensus about man-made global warming — which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences — is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting. escapes you?
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
2:57 pm
So what is your point, Dad?
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
2:57 pm
In other words, Bruno wants us to do nothing, because if judged solely on grounds of economic viability, fossil fuels will continue to be cheaper for quite a while to come.
Hyperbole much Jay?? I intentionally mentioned economically viability because it is so conspicuously absent from liberal discussions about developing alternative fuels. It’s part of the equation, but not the sole factor. At any rate, it’s worth it to keep pushing the research forward. Do you know any conservatives who think otherwise, whether a category A, B, C, or D??
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
2:58 pm
The fact remains that no dramatic spike in temperatures has occurred in relation to the spike in CO2. Do you see the facts in a different way??- Bruno
This is a factual statement unless of course the 1 degree that temps have risen in the past 100 years constitutes “a dramatic spike in termps directly related to CO2″. Is a 1 degree rise in 1 century dramatic? Um. No. And if it were dramatic is the evidence absolutely conclusive that this 1 degree rise in temps is from man made activities? Um. Nope.
Road to Victory
October 24th, 2011
3:00 pm
“This one being proffered by DawgDad that the scientists are all paid off to come up with erroneous data.”
They were, AmVet. Sorry you missed all the e-mails that were leaked.
Granny Godzilla
October 24th, 2011
3:02 pm
expense….
like the infrastucture that had to be built to get gas lights to our cities? and then the do-over to switch to electricity?
should we have not spent that money?
perhaps we should never have created infrastucture for telephones, since we were eventually going to have cell towers.
md
October 24th, 2011
3:02 pm
Asked this the other day, and had no takers:
Since the majority of scientists have concluded that the Shroud of Turin can not be duplicated even with today’s technology, does that prove their must be a God?
TaxPayer
October 24th, 2011
3:04 pm
I loves science and I wish others did too.
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
3:04 pm
Bruno
Tell you what I see?
Someone who won’t answer questions to clarify an earlier post?
Paul–Just making sure you caught my 2:23. Wouldn’t want you to think I was dodging your questions. Let me know if anything is unclear.
Libertarian
October 24th, 2011
3:05 pm
Eh, the world will probably end due to nuclear war in the middle east WAY before climate change gets us. Might as well enjoy your muscle cars and old school light bulbs in the mean time.
Mick
October 24th, 2011
3:06 pm
md
No. Just like they don’t know all the methods the egyptians used for preservation, so it goes with the shroud…
md
October 24th, 2011
3:06 pm
“should we have not spent that money?”
Were we 14 trillion in the hole then??
Different times and different equation now…………..
mm
October 24th, 2011
3:06 pm
As usual, righties just want everything to stay the same.
md
October 24th, 2011
3:08 pm
“As usual, righties just want everything to stay the same.”
I’m guessing the millions of Americans that can’t afford a new car might feel that way too……
md
October 24th, 2011
3:09 pm
Mick……just throwing it out there in relation to the topic……….after all, a majority of scientists agree……….
So in this instance, it really means nothing………correct?
Hmmm………….
DawgDad
October 24th, 2011
3:09 pm
My point is the debate is POLITICAL, and the remedial actions proposed impose or extend tyranny in very costly and dangerous ways. I do not believe you or anyone promoting action on “climate change” are well-intended, politically. I believe your interests are selfish and mainly political.
My “secondary” point you are somewhat warping in translation is much of the science is funded by government and special interests with a profit or political motive. This is corrupting, and if you can’t see that you are blinded by your politics.
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
3:10 pm
Is a 1 degree rise in 1 century dramatic? Um. No. And if it were dramatic is the evidence absolutely conclusive that this 1 degree rise in temps is from man made activities? Um. Nope.
TD and Woodstock Mike–Good, factually based posts. I’ll hang around for a few minutes to see if we can get some reasonable rebuttals to the facts. So far I’m only seeing hyperbole.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:11 pm
At least 70-80% of the Earth’s warming effect comes from water vapor and clouds not CO2. CO2 traps about 10-20% of the world’s heat. Other contributors to warming include high altitude cirrus clouds and sunspots.”- Woodstock Mike
Woodstock Mike,
The solution is simple. We appoint a cloud czar to regulate clouds. As for the sun the Dems will make a law against too much solar sunspot activity and create a new govt agency to regulate both the sun and those pesky clouds.
Granny Godzilla
October 24th, 2011
3:11 pm
md
we have been unable to recreate certain techniques in mummification…
does that prove their is a god?
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
3:11 pm
Laugh off the one degree rise.
The rate of warming since the late 1970s has been about three times greater than the century-scale trend.
It is obviously accelerating. And quickly.
And more than a few of the stubborn fools deny this, as I’ve demonstrated that they have from the get go.
And somehow out of the blue, you naysayers expect it to level off or go back down?
Truly reckless in the face of overwhelming evidence…
Paul
October 24th, 2011
3:11 pm
Bruno
I saw it, thanks and thought Jay’s 2:31 (and those from others that followed) responded appropriately, so no need for me to repeat what they said.
Regarding your 2:49, I see your position as waaaay outside the mainstream of conservative Republican belief, but that’s just how I see it.
Mick
October 24th, 2011
3:11 pm
md
Actually, I’m a fan of the shroud and would like nothing more than it to be authentic. We always assume that we know it all, especially many around here…
Jay
October 24th, 2011
3:12 pm
Bruno, you have conceded that:
A. Higher C02 concentrations correlate throughout the geological record with higher temperatures.
B. Atmospheric C02 levels today are higher than they have ever been. *
Yet even though you concede that higher CO2 concentrations correlate with higher temperatures, and even though you concede that CO2 concentrations are already well above the norm and are trending much much higher, you take the no-worries-mate attitude.
Do you have children? Do you have to have grandchildren?
You also ask: “So where’s the temperature increase?”
Here it is: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
We’ve established that the CO2 levels began increasing in 1800; what have temperatures done since that date? And again, those data are not in question, as Muller has once again established.
* You claim the CO2 concentration today is 10 to 20 percent above historic norms; in reality, the natural range of the past 650,000 years has been 180-300 parts per million; we are by latest count at well above 380 ppv. So we are at 26.6 percent above the HIGHEST levels ever recorded. All of that increase has occurred since the industrial revolution, and it is projected to roughly double or even triple again by the end of the century.
mm
October 24th, 2011
3:12 pm
“I’m guessing the millions of Americans that can’t afford a new car might feel that way too……”
This narrow minded reply proves my point. Who said a new car was the only way so solve the problem?
Granny Godzilla
October 24th, 2011
3:14 pm
md
the electrification of rural America happened largely during the depression….
telephone lines too….
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:15 pm
I loves that global warming. Longer growing seasons which means fewer people around the world going hungry and less harsh winter storms. I can’t wait to have some beachfront property in a warm summer day on the Hudson Bay. Its gonna be great!!!!
Aquagirl
October 24th, 2011
3:16 pm
we have been unable to recreate certain techniques in mummification…does that prove their is a god?
Hail Osiris!
Mick
October 24th, 2011
3:16 pm
Yes, granny the wpa and the ccc helped build back this country contrary to the revisionist fdr haters…
Granny Godzilla
October 24th, 2011
3:16 pm
“I’m guessing the millions of Americans that can’t afford a new car might feel that way too……”
and when those auto’s eventually give out….there will most likely be a good selection of more efficient used cars that need good homes
godless heathen
October 24th, 2011
3:17 pm
“This narrow minded reply proves my point. Who said a new car was the only way so solve the problem?”
Just one way proposed, along with putting all the coal companies out of business as proposed by our leader, B.H. Obama.
Paul
October 24th, 2011
3:17 pm
Bruno
Clarification: I see your position that there is any temp change at all as waaay outside the conservative Republican mainstream.
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
3:19 pm
My point is the debate is POLITICAL.
Absolutely, 100%, completely and utterly wrong. And it explains perfectly why you completely disregard the facts and the science.
YOU want it to be political. Desperately.
Because you have already lost the scientific debate. Hell, you were never even in it.
And your beliefs (???) are totally irrelevant.
This is corrupting, and if you can’t see that you are blinded by your politics.
I’ll tell you what I am not blind to, is that YOU and NONE of you cons who posit this claim, have EVER produced the very first scintilla of evidence to support it.
NOTHING. EVER.
And you will not now.
You just claim it to be so, with nothing at all to substantiate it, and think that intelligent people are just going to believe you?
No sale.
Facts and science, just ain’t your bad, Dad…
md
October 24th, 2011
3:20 pm
“This narrow minded reply proves my point. Who said a new car was the only way so solve the problem?”
We are talking about conversion off fossil fuels………..and those folks don’t want to hear it…….they have no choice. So who has the narrow mind?
jm
October 24th, 2011
3:21 pm
Of note, Jay. (and all the readers)
That Koch money didn’t seem to influence the outcome.
Any more than money can significantly influence elections…..
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
3:22 pm
A. Higher C02 concentrations correlate throughout the geological record with higher temperatures.
B. Atmospheric C02 levels today are higher than they have ever been.
You forgot Part C: The current spike in CO2 has NOT been matched with a corresponding spike in temperatures. Which merely points to the difference between correlation and causation. As WM’s earlier post mentioned, CO2 is only one part of the temp regulation cycle on earth.
So we are at 26.6 percent above the HIGHEST levels ever recorded. All of that increase has occurred since the industrial revolution, and it is projected to roughly double or even triple again by the end of the century.)
Comparing peak CO2 levels is valid because we currently are in “peak conditions”. Again, the CO2 levels are “out of balance” with prior experience. What does this mean?? Unfortunately, climatology is not able to accurately tell us. So, your guess is as good as mine right now. As for end-of-the century predictions, I’m sure they will be wrong as well since innovation usually comes like a lightning bolt, changing things radically in 10-20 years time.
Welcome to the occupation (Trotsky)
October 24th, 2011
3:22 pm
The conservative position in a nutshell:
Ok, maybe there is something to global warming. But because it cannot be definitively proven that taking action in the proposed ways will not harm capitalism and/or be a win for the critics of capitalism, we must refuse to act.
Better to face ecological catastrophe than to ever let down our guard against capitalism’s critics even for one minute.
Paul
October 24th, 2011
3:22 pm
jm
“Any more than money can significantly influence elections…..”
If money doesn’t significantly influence elections, then why do candidates, corporations and PACs spend billions?
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
3:23 pm
That last should have ended with *bag, Dad.*
But not Baghdad…
md
October 24th, 2011
3:26 pm
“and when those auto’s eventually give out….there will most likely be a good selection of more efficient used cars that need good homes”
And that cycle takes how long?
As for mummification……….I think that actually helps with my overall argument………….
josef
October 24th, 2011
3:27 pm
Peer review, it’s what scholarly inquiry is all about…and challenging one’s own precepts, then acknowledging error when error is found…no embarassment and no deflating of ego or professional standing…too bad the bloggers, politicians and media can’t do the same…
Jay
October 24th, 2011
3:27 pm
You forgot Part C: The current spike in CO2 has NOT been matched with a corresponding spike in temperatures.
No, I did not forget Part C. Read my 3:12 again. The post-1800 spike in temperature — correlating with the post-1800 spike in CO2 has already been observed and is clearly underway. That was the whole point of Muller’s study.
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
3:28 pm
We’ve established that the CO2 levels began increasing in 1800; what have temperatures done since that date? And again, those data are not in question, as Muller has once again established.
Clarification: I see your position that there is any temp change at all as waaay outside the conservative Republican mainstream.
Jay and Paul–Conservatives have referred to long-term climate change from the beginning of this debate, which the link I provided confirms. You guys keep trying to restrict the debate to a much narrower time frame in which both average temperature and CO2 levels have risen in order to “prove” causation in the short run. I’m looking at the bigger picture.
you take the no-worries-mate attitude. Do you have children? Do you have to have grandchildren?
Inaccurate portrayal, Jay. No kids, but my concern for good stewardship of the planet is no less.
Matti's Southern Drawl
October 24th, 2011
3:29 pm
DawgDad: “I do not believe you or anyone promoting action on “climate change” are well-intended, politically. I believe your interests are selfish and mainly political.”
Wait… what? Are you saying it’s SELFISH and POLITICAL for us to want our children to breathe cleaner AIR? For us to promote action on climate change that leads to development of energy sources that give us CLEANER AIR and pose less risk to water and life forms on our planet than, say…. I dunno, explodinig oil rigs in the Gulf? That’s what you call SELFISH?
Geeeeebus H Cricketstix, man!
Granny Godzilla
October 24th, 2011
3:29 pm
md
that cycle takes how long?
wouldn’t you think it varies. are you in a big hurry?
As far as mummification helping your argument unless you are suggesting that Jesus or God made mummies – can’t see how it does.
Obozonomics
October 24th, 2011
3:29 pm
I so glad that we have millions of years of temperature data to back global warming , oh wait we have about 100 years, well any way Owl Gore knows and he is a climatologist, oh wait he is a lawyer, OK but he said it, it must be true. I would like one of you “global warming” enthusiast to explain why it was 20 degrees hotter when the dinosaurs where around? Please? Who was driving around in Hummers back then? By the way are these the same “scientist” that said we had an ice age coming in the 1960’s?
md
October 24th, 2011
3:30 pm
“the electrification of rural America happened largely during the depression….”
Understand………but we are now talking trillion……..with a T.
What happens if we continue to spend and the economy doesn’t bounce back?
Folks don’t want to compare the US with Greece, but that is basically what we are talking about………..the USSR didn’t think they would overspend either…………
Paul
October 24th, 2011
3:30 pm
Bruno 3:22
I’ve linked to this presentation many times here. It was a mind changer for me. I’ve not had anyone refute the data or the conclusions. You may want to jump to the part regarding changes since the Industrial Revolution, which seems germane to your post.
Some who don’t have the attention span or desire for new information can’t sit thru it all. I trust you will.
http://www.byutv.byu.edu/watch/a83c1385-eaf6-4f20-9c5a-b7460700a0da
Adam
October 24th, 2011
3:32 pm
Heck, at least Romney and Christie and Huntsman know Climate Change is real. One of them should be the nominee. I vote Huntsman, frankly.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:32 pm
Do you have children? Do you have to have grandchildren?- Jay
Jay,
I would like to ask the same question of you. Because if you do have children and grandchildren perhaps you yourself will be far more conscious of the very real and very proveable danger of our country being systematically bankrupted by this president. And unlike the global warming debate in which the causes of this 1 degree rise in temps over the last century are debateable the level of debt we are accumulating is not. It is right there staring at our children and grandchildren’s futures. Do you not care about runaway debt that is far more crushing in the immediate 50 years then global warming? From all of your blogs I don’t believe I have seen one single blog critical of Obama’s runaway spending.
Even if global warming were true in the sense that temps will rise dramatically- which they haven’t to date, then please tell me what damage specifically can be done if temps rise 10 degrees? And please don’t bring up rising oceans levels. The same scientists who did the ice core studies have also said that if temps rise 10 degrees or more that due to the lag time involved in freezing and refreezing that it would take numerous centuries if not thousands of years for ocean levels to rise to the levels they were hundreds of thousands of years ago when temps were substantially higher. Which leads me to ask why were temps so much higher than?
Granny Godzilla
October 24th, 2011
3:32 pm
md
what was the value of the debt during the depression talking current dollars?
Adam
October 24th, 2011
3:33 pm
md: The difference between US and Greece is that Greece very clearly overspent on social programs, and our clear overspenders are defense, medical, and tax cuts. Yet, for some reason, we decide to apply cuts to NONE of those.
md
October 24th, 2011
3:34 pm
“As far as mummification helping your argument unless you are suggesting that Jesus or God made mummies – can’t see how it does.”
Might be because the Shroud example was just that…..an example…….in relation to today’s topic.
Has more to do with scientist’s agreeing to understand a given point in time……..vs the whole subject.
jm
October 24th, 2011
3:34 pm
Paul 3:22 cause they’re not bright. They’re buying votes once people are already in congress (influence peddling), not trying to influence the election outcomes which is insanely difficult
They don’t care who’s in office (D or R), as long as they get what they want
Paul
October 24th, 2011
3:35 pm
Bruno
“You guys keep trying to restrict the debate to a much narrower time frame in which both average temperature and CO2 levels have risen in order to “prove” causation in the short run. I’m looking at the bigger picture.”
We have? I do? The only time I’ve mentioned time frames was in my prior post. I took issue (which is why I asked for clarification) that conservative mainstream Republican thought accepts climate change.
I believe Jay referenced the studies, which does indeed involve a shorter time frame, because this is when man’s actions had a significant, measurable impact on climate.
jm
October 24th, 2011
3:36 pm
Jay – of note. The volcanoes that created the isthmus of panama did more to change the climate than anything else in recent history. Prior to that, there wasn’t ice in the arctic.
Just a fascinating tidbit.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:36 pm
All I want to know is this. If we have been burning fossil fuels relentlessly since the dawn of the Industrial Age then how come temps have only risen 1 stinking degree in the past century? Good grief our temps here in ATL vary between near 100 degrees at the height of summer to temps in the teens in the worst of winter. A variation of 80 degrees in a mere 6 months. So how is it that 1 degree over a century or even 4 or 5 degrees over a century is so damn bad if we have 6 month fluctuations of 80 degrees? Have you people completely lost your minds?
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
3:36 pm
Bruno, two points.
I have demonstrated, with numerous links, that your assertion about Republicans generally acknowledging global warming is bogus.
Even in October 2011, there is still a majority of them who do not even admit the earth’s temperatures are rising.
And only 14% who do, say that mankind is involved anyway.
My point is that they are FAR outside of all other demographics, as well as the scientific community on this matter.
Also, you seem to avoid the point I’ve made about the chart that you have linked.
Once again, I implore you to look at that vertical line at the end of the chart.
There is NOTHING else on that graph that even comes close to it…
md
October 24th, 2011
3:37 pm
Adam……overspending is overspending………matters not what was bought.
The point is, to continue to spend banking on a rebound is not necessarily a good idea…….there are plenty of instances where the rebound never comes………and do we want to contemplate those consequences………….want to or not, it would be wise to do so………….
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
3:41 pm
All I want to know is this. If we have been burning fossil fuels relentlessly since the dawn of the Industrial Age then how come temps have only risen 1 stinking degree in the past century?
I’m going to guess that at the dawn of the Industrial revolution, this nation, in and of itself, was pumping 6,000,000,000 TONS of pollutants into the atmosphere every single year.
As we do now…
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:41 pm
Jm,
I don’t remember the exact stats but similarly the Mt. St. Helens eruption put more CO2 gasses into the air. Perhaps the Dems can regulate volcanos or at least make a law against them spewing so much CO2 gas. And we need to regulate cow flatulence too since cows fart so much emitting untold amounts of methane gas into the atmosphere.
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
3:41 pm
Oops. NOT pumping…
md
October 24th, 2011
3:41 pm
“Once again, I implore you to look at that vertical line at the end of the chart.
There is NOTHING else on that graph that even comes close to it…”
Am…….you fail to see the blue line on that same graph…….look again.
Is the ratio the same as prior periods??
If not (it isn’t)…….why not?
Adam
October 24th, 2011
3:44 pm
md: Adam……overspending is overspending………matters not what was bought.
Well that’s not true. Take the household analogy. If all you did was spend money on the laser security system, and you let your kids have just enough food to live (or maybe one of them dies, oh well, he was a freeloader anyway), you take a pay cut at your job that was supposed to be temporary for ten years, and you spent a lot more money on those pills for yourself than you could have…. well, what’s wrong with this picture?
That analogy there is more apt than the simple dollar figures. There’s more than just dollars and cents involved here.
Stevie Ray
October 24th, 2011
3:45 pm
Jay,
You seem to get a bit more emotional about this issue…hats’ off.
I remain skeptical of two things: no disputing the data post 1800 is credible. The data for the 3 million-plus years prior has very limited credibility as the long term efficacy of ice plugs and tree ring data is actuarially discounted. We simply don’t know with any high confidence that the cycles are longer or shorter that the last 200 years data may suggest.
The other problem is that we can’t make India, China or any others to accept any data findings. We also don’t know if anything we can do that is in fashion (technologically) will make one iota difference.
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
3:45 pm
BTW, just to put this denial in perspective, 6,000,000,000 tons = 12,000,000,000,000 pounds of gases!
12 trillion pounds every year.
And that is not even factoring in the unknown trillions more by the rest of the industrialized world.
So nope, nothing there to look at, is there?
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
3:45 pm
Some who don’t have the attention span or desire for new information can’t sit thru it all. I trust you will.
Paul–I’ve watched this presentation before. While well-presented, it doesn’t land a knockout blow, and doesn’t change my position.
Also, you seem to avoid the point I’ve made about the chart that you have linked.
I answered you at 2:36.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/10/24/climate-change-skeptic-you-should-not-be-a-skeptic/?cp=4#comment-762536
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:45 pm
AmVet,
Obviously we use and emit more energy and greenhouse gasses than ever before but at the same time we also have vastly cleaner emissions than we did a century or even 50 years ago. If we look at some pics of Pittsburgh, ATL, and Birmingham from the 50s and 60s compared to today the difference in the big black clouds of smog that used to hang over those cities vs today is like night and day. Personally I would still like to see it much cleaner though but that’s just me. BTW your comments today blasting us cons have been blistering but at least they’ve been quite humorous at the same time. That I can readily deal with. The tea party ostrich reference had me rolling.
Adam
October 24th, 2011
3:46 pm
Thulsa Doom: Volcanoes have more correlation with mining than other ways we pump gas into the air.
mm
October 24th, 2011
3:46 pm
“We are talking about conversion off fossil fuels………..and those folks don’t want to hear it…….they have no choice. So who has the narrow mind?”
Nobody is talking about eliminating the need for fossil fuels. The goal is to reduce dependance on it up to the point we can live off of the oil we produce. Why are you so in love with the oil companies?
TaxPayer
October 24th, 2011
3:48 pm
What topics are covered in a Republican’s faith-based science text.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:49 pm
AmVet,
The bad part is that if we completely stopped or even reduced our emissions which are probably the cleanest in the world it really doesn’t matter. China, India, and other developing nations are not going to do so. So we are all arguing a moot point. Personally I would love to see us go to the electric car powered by nuclear power and get rid of as much fossil fuel burning as possible. Not because I believe in the alarmist theory of global warming but because I love being outdoors and I frigging hate smog. The day of the electric car can’t come fast enough for me.
jm
October 24th, 2011
3:50 pm
Thulsa 3:49 – I agree with much of what you’re saying. But we don’t have a leg to stand on to try to tell them to cut their emissions if we’re not doing much to cut ours.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:51 pm
Adam,
Not sure what you mean or what your point is when you say volcanoes have more correlation with mining? Volcanic eruptions spew gasses into the air just like our own fossil fuel burning. Mining to my knowledge does not. When you mine the last thing you want is gas in the air and hence the potential for explosions.
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
3:52 pm
I’m going to guess that at the dawn of the Industrial revolution, this nation, in and of itself, was pumping 6,000,000,000 TONS of pollutants into the atmosphere every single year.
As we do now…
Last word, then gotta run. We all benefit from technology, liberals and conservatives alike, so we all share culpability equally for the resulting harm to our environment. To claim that one group is fundamentally different from the other is silly. Though we all look forward to the day when we have clean energy available, it isn’t going to happen overnight. As painful as it is for you Libs to hear, economics is going to be a consideration at each step of the way. The good news is that we’re headed in the right direction as we speak.
md
October 24th, 2011
3:54 pm
“Why are you so in love with the oil companies?”
Interesting assumption……..not close, but interesting none the less.
Merely reponding to the reality……even Van Jones, the green czar himself, will tell one the math is just not there……….
I have no problem moving into alternatives……..but not at any rate that would be counter-productive with the economy……..I can’t see how a nose-diving economy, and the millions that will suffer because of it, is a good idea……….suffer now or maybe suffer later? I choose the not now scenario…..but that’s just me.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:55 pm
Jm,
True enough. But our emission standards are already much cleaner than most nations. And if we did cut overall emissions I seriously doubt nations like China and India would follow suit. I could be mistaken but I believe they have already said so.
mm
October 24th, 2011
3:56 pm
“China, India, and other developing nations are not going to do so. So we are all arguing a moot point.”
Do we want to lead or follow?
md
October 24th, 2011
3:56 pm
Adam……do you see an agreement on the table on what will get cut??
I haven’t……..so no, spending is spending………..it’s the bottom line that currently matters……
Adam
October 24th, 2011
3:57 pm
Bruno: Economics is a consideration, yes, but not to be used as a bludgeon for any attempt to change anything. If we admit that we need to make some changes, then the question is WHAT changes, not how much they cost.
Second, one group IS fundamentally different from the other – not in culpability but in how they approach the issue. One side says we are helping to cause the problem and we should make efforts to stop that or slow it down as much as possible. The other side is saying the problem just doesn’t exist, or if it exists we can’t do anything about it and/or are not contributing.
Which side of those two do you think is taking more responsibility? The side that admits there is a problem and we should take steps to fix it, or the side that says there ISN’T any problem at all?
josef
October 24th, 2011
3:57 pm
It’s a slow news day when we have global warming as the topic…
So, early returns from Tunisia show two things…the moderate Islamacists look like a 50% share of the 80% who went to the polls. On the other hand, the secularists look like they tooj a 50% share of the 80% who went to the polls…quo vadis, Tunisia? Any thoughts…?
jm
October 24th, 2011
3:57 pm
Thulsa 3:55 – agreed. But we could tax their imports to adjust for carbon and give our producers credit for exports since they wouldn’t be paying the tax abroad. The general view is this wouldn’t violate WTO rules.
In short, we can reduce our emissions and not hurt our trade position.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:58 pm
TaxPayer
October 24th, 2011
3:48 pm
What topics are covered in a Republican’s faith-based science text.
Nice one I even laughed but its just hyperbole.
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
3:58 pm
Rock on, Doom.
My bark, as has often been noted, is worse than my bite!
And yes, thanks to the relentless efforts of primarily arch-conservatives (laughing and eye roll here), our environment has been cleaned up a great deal since the 1970s.
I cannot possibly know, with any real certainty, if the overwhelming majority of the earth’s climate-related scientists are correct about this matter or not.
But the much less than countervailing arguments are to date, so desperately weak, fragmented and discredited as to give them little, if any credence at all.
And as is always the case, the scientific method will get closer and closer to the truth…
Let’s be smart about this.
Let’s quit raping this planet all for the mighty dollar.
Most of the earth’s rainforests are already gone. Thousands and thousands of animal and plant species have suffered mass extinctions in the past century. Because of mankind.
Time to stop doing the Jethro Tull…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eoy91sYdQPE
jm
October 24th, 2011
3:59 pm
“Do we want to lead or follow?”
Hollow and pointless words coming from the unemployed 1%er…..
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:59 pm
But we could tax their imports to adjust for carbon and give our producers credit for exports since they wouldn’t be paying the tax abroad
Jm,
Only problem is our pols don’t have the balls for that and the blame America first crowd wouldn’t be on board with it.
TaxPayer
October 24th, 2011
3:59 pm
We might stand a chance if we start educating the Republican’s children. They’ll need lots of science and math and they’ll need someone capable of teaching them. Hmmm. Home schooling is out of the question if they need help with their studies.
Adam
October 24th, 2011
4:00 pm
md: You mean you already forgot the spending cuts only “deal”?
Come on man, a little intellectual honesty. The only cuts that have been proposed have been small potatoes and they have gone after programs that don’t even come close to being part of the big problem. People talk about “across the board” cuts, but will NOT accept cuts to things they like, such as defense and a reversal of tax cuts.
I guess the people who are against changing anything are going to have a real hard time dealing with reality if they also let the Bush tax cuts expire in their entirety.
Adam
October 24th, 2011
4:01 pm
josef: so in Tunisia, 80% went to the polls and none of them were radicals? Only half moderate, half secularists? Did I read that right?
TaxPayer
October 24th, 2011
4:01 pm
Nice one I even laughed but its just hyperbole.
If only you and other Republicans could provide verifiable evidence to support that hypothesis.
md
October 24th, 2011
4:02 pm
“Do we want to lead or follow?”
Depends on where we are going………..I prefer to follow on the road to recession…………
Paul
October 24th, 2011
4:02 pm
Bruno
I seem to recall you’ve watched parts of it?
The data presented regarding conditions 400,000 years back contrasted with time since the Industrial Revolution seemed to me pretty convincing. What about it does not persuade you?
Just go to the 24 minute 25 second point in the presentation.
For the rest of you, he has charts. And one with a line that goes way, way UP on the far right.
http://www.byutv.byu.edu/watch/a83c1385-eaf6-4f20-9c5a-b7460700a0da
josef
October 24th, 2011
4:04 pm
Adam
Pretty much so…none of the parties on the ballot with any significant showing could be classified as radicals…either of the religous or the secularists…
getalife
October 24th, 2011
4:04 pm
rove called that a huge mistake St Simons.
I agree with rove.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
4:04 pm
AmVet,
I’m actually with you on not raping the planet and like I said I have my own selfish reasons for wanting reduced emissions and a cleaner planet. I just think that economic realities clash with tha in the short termt. And to be honest the only thing that really makes my blood boil is that I would ideally like to go nuclear which is safe, clean, and used to be cheap. Go nuclear and power millions of electric cars with that power. But the liberals and the greens won’t let us have it. To be honest its as if they don’t want us to have any power other than wind and solar and that is simply not economically feasible.
Paul
October 24th, 2011
4:06 pm
Bruno
I see you’ve left the building.
When you get back, if you do a search on your name and see the 4:02, you’ll have a specific answer indicating you’ve watched the whole thing? Or at least the chart part, yes?
Something other than ‘it didn’t persuade me.” Like, perhaps, the reasons why? And what countervailing evidence does persuade you? And why Dr. Long’s data and conclusions are incorrect and the sources you accept are correct?
josef
October 24th, 2011
4:06 pm
ADAM
And, note, I said that it looks like the moderate Islamacists and secularists took a 50% share of those who went to the polls…
md
October 24th, 2011
4:07 pm
“If we admit that we need to make some changes, then the question is WHAT changes, not how much they cost.”
Wrong…….there is a balance needed for both………..
As for your last response……not sure what that means……..the point was/is, there is no agreement on how to go forward………….but while we contemplate, Rome burns…………….
Which means the bottom line hasn’t changed…….we are in deep doo doo and going no-where fast, and the misfits are stuck in the mud wrestling pit.
Stevie Ray
October 24th, 2011
4:11 pm
The sulfur injections into the sky posed my Nathan Myhrvold who among other things, studied under Stephen Hawkings and co-founded Microsoft.
…”. running a hose up to the stratosphere with balloons and using that hose to pump out enough sulfur particles to dim the sun’s heat just enough to counteract the effects of global warming. The estimated cost would be about two hundred and fifty million dollars.”
“Nathan Myhrvold suggests that volcanoes and other natural processes already pump out sulfur into the stratosphere and that his scheme, if adopted, would increase that amount by only one percent. Nathan Myhrvold therefore thinks that there would not be any unintended consequences (like starting a new ice age.)”
Problem is twofold, first the left wingers don’t want man messing with the stratosphere. Second, we are actually experiencing a cooling period since 1998 so the results may be skewed.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
4:11 pm
Doom, in some ways, I’ve always been a bad liberal!
My thinking is, how the hell are we ever gonna get to Star Trek, unless we can master nuclear energy without catastrophes?!
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
4:12 pm
Pretty much so…none of the parties on the ballot with any significant showing could be classified as radicals…either of the religous or the secularists…
josef,
Hope springs eternal!
AmVet,
I’m out for a little bit but one last thing. I believe you and I talked one evening about that great national geographic special when they were doing the ice core drilling. The consensus among the scientists was that the earth is warming but they stated that in the worst case scenario that if temps rose 10 degrees by the end of the century that it would take several hundred years minimally to several thousands of years in lag time before ocean levels would rise substantially and threaten civilization. And I hate to say it but it will hard to see us not blowing ourselves to hell and back within a 1000 years. Anyway I’m out for a little while. Yall have fun.
md
October 24th, 2011
4:13 pm
“For the rest of you, he has charts. And one with a line that goes way, way UP on the far right.”
Which is essentially the same chart Bruno posted earlier absent the correlating temp info. And when put together, the ratios do not correspond with the amount of CO2……..
Big Brother
October 24th, 2011
4:13 pm
The Ten Best Things about Global Warming
1. Why pay for tattoos when melanoma’s free?
2. No more pesky weeds. In fact, no more pesky plants.
3. Nile Encephalitis: not just for Egyptians anymore.
4. Furnaces convert easily into tornado shelters.
5. Helsinki: the new Riviera.
6. Middle East oil producers feel right at home— everywhere.
7. Golfers only need a putter and a sand wedge.
8. For those who can’t get enough of global warming. One word: Venus.
9. Steaks, medium rare, on the hoof.
10. Three thongs and you’re dressed!
If you meet a women, start talking about global warming. It’s a real icebreaker.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
4:15 pm
AmVet,
I figure if a very green country like France can get 80% of its power from nuke then why not us? Plus Chernobyl has been the world’s only serious accident. The Japan leak was negligible and that plant design was faulty from the point of conception back in the 70s. 2 U.S engineers quit over it back then. Its amazingly safe despite public anxiety that it is not. Anyway, Rock on. I’m out.
Paul
October 24th, 2011
4:15 pm
md
You didn’t even look at it, did you -
St Simons - we're on Island time
October 24th, 2011
4:16 pm
the two philosophies at war in our nation now – are We
“All in This Together” or is it
“Every Man for Himself”
This issue will give you the answer to that, and you won’t have to lie, or spin, or play verbal chess, or try to mindbleep your followers with loud talking points or cirque de soliel contortionist logic.
Stevie Ray
October 24th, 2011
4:16 pm
As for your last response……not sure what that means……..the point was/is, there is no agreement on how to go forward………….but while we contemplate, Rome burns…………….
MD:
A little dramatic don’t you think? Considering many of us can see flames…certainly from Asia. How much money and at who’s expense would you spare none of?
I’m confused
josef
October 24th, 2011
4:17 pm
Thulsa…
I’m keeping an eye on it…there is a reason for hope here, imo. It’s sort of the Turkey of the Arab world…
ZamVet
Speaking of the nuclear, did you happen to catch the one on the one of the learning channels on the “Nuclear Wolves?” Seems Mother Nature is making a point around Chernobyl…
josef
October 24th, 2011
4:21 pm
ZamVet
ooops…make that RADIOACTIVE Wolves…PBS Nature…
TaxPayer
October 24th, 2011
4:23 pm
Anthony Watts published a post today titled “The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review” and complained that BEST didn’t peer review the four papers they pre-released today. This is the same Anthony Watts who published a paper with Joe D’Aleo titled “Is The US Surface Temperature Record Reliable?” two full years before he published the associated peer reviewed paper. Oh, and the peer-reviewed paper came to the opposite conclusion of the Heartland paper.
Oops! Y’all followers of all “Watts Up” trash talk might want to lend your cohort a hand so he can try to dislodge that foot in mouth problem he’s got going over there.
TruthBe
October 24th, 2011
4:24 pm
Hocus-Pocus = Man made Climate Change. Al Gore and Co. are snake oil salesmen.
md
October 24th, 2011
4:25 pm
“You didn’t even look at it, did you -”
I looked at your chart Paul……and it is basically the same chart Bruno posted earlier…..but there was also temp data on Bruno’s chart which was absent from yours………if one looks at the Bruno chart, the ratios are not consistent with the rise of CO2…………….
Wonder why??
md
October 24th, 2011
4:26 pm
Stevie…….that post is not in relation to global warming…….but with our debt.
pogo
October 24th, 2011
4:27 pm
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Groundhog Day, AGAIN. Over and over and over again. Everyday Jay proves how little it takes to entertain liberals and how willing they are to “gobble his bait”.
As for the subject, if you liberals are so worried about Global Warming why don’t you quit spending your lives on this blog and shut your computers down? The electricity to run them is coming from somewhere, isn’t it? And, more than likely that source is in large part consists of the burning of CO2 producing coal. Put your money where your mouths are. Shut them down. Nah, you won’t do it. You talk a lot but don’t want to sacrifice anything. That is the way of the liberal. And the old ones are the worse.
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
4:30 pm
josef, alas, I only saw a tiny part of that program. it looked great, though.
One of the really great aspects of a thread like this is that it radically separates Jay’s blogdom into two distinct camps.
And not the ones that you may think I am referring to
Those that at least try to offer relevant, cogent information.
And those like that 4:24…
josef
October 24th, 2011
4:34 pm
ZamVet
Catch it on replay…it’s worth watching…
Mighty Righty
October 24th, 2011
4:34 pm
Notice the so called “hockey stick effects” begins with government grants to study global warming. Also notice today weather bureaus are located worldwide at airports surounded by concrete, asphalt in metropolitan areas. When this study began there were no airports, concrete or asphalt. Also note on any given day there is a variance of as much as 5 degrees from one side of atlanta to the other. ICal-Berkley profs are well known for their complete absence of common sense.
Paul
October 24th, 2011
4:34 pm
md
The reason I asked if you even looked at the link is because, while the chart is labeled CO2 the narrative made clear it’s but one component of greenhouse gasses. It also addresses, just a few seconds later in the narrative, the temperature issue (1 degree C) and notes the negative impact even a seemingly ’small’ change has.
See, when you question something with a ‘wonder why’ it kinda leads to the question ‘wonder why the poster never read or listened to the information?”
TruthBe
October 24th, 2011
4:34 pm
josef, There is no such thing as the Tooth Fairy or Moderate Islamacists. If you knew
anything about Islam than you would know that the extremist Muslims rule the
so-called moderate ones. Just look around. The 15-25 percent hardliners rule the
remaining ones in all the Islamic Countries. As a Jewish person you should know
this josef. Israel faces these racials everyday.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
October 24th, 2011
4:36 pm
Hmmmm…. and the stupid parade of posts continues.. I am confident the Koch Foundation would be glad to know they are part of the “government grants”. Do the right wingnuts ever read the original story before they pontificate blowhardness and ignorance?
md
October 24th, 2011
4:38 pm
“See, when you question something with a ‘wonder why’ it kinda leads to the question ‘wonder why the poster never read or listened to the information?””
I guess turnabout is fair play……..Did you even look at Bruno’s chart??
That is where the “wonder why” is coming from………….
Stevie Ray
October 24th, 2011
4:40 pm
MD: thanks for clarification and i retract any contention it may have suggested.
Amen brother…I’m of the opinion that the US Gov’t wastes about $1 trillion per year in IRS inefficiences, Medicare/Medicaid as well as 7 or 8 other key categories. Not only is the how-wouse ablaze, but the fire department’s hoses are leaking mightily.
getalife
October 24th, 2011
4:42 pm
“Moderate Islamist Party Claims Victory in Tunisia
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK 2:05 PM ET
Ennahda appeared to emerge as the big winner in Tunisia on Monday as preliminary results leaked out in the voting for an assembly to draft a constitution and shape a new government.”NYT.
Good for them.
Keep corporate money out of your elections and good luck Tunisia.
Bosch
October 24th, 2011
4:43 pm
TruthBe,
It is YOU that obviously knows nothing of Islam — no one “rules” another. The whole concept of their “salvation” (which actually isn’t even a concept in the religion) revolves around the INDIVIDUAL’S complete submission to Allah. In Islam, no one submits to anyone else except Allah. Or so I’ve heard and read.
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
4:44 pm
Notice the so called “hockey stick effects” begins with government grants to study global warming.
Already refudiated earlier today by yours truly. And a ludicrous, utterly unsubstantiated claim.
Also notice today weather bureaus are located worldwide at airports surounded (sic) by concrete, asphalt in metropolitan areas. When this study began there were no airports, concrete or asphalt. Also note on any given day there is a variance of as much as 5 degrees from one side of atlanta to the other.
Already refudiated earlier today by yours truly. Worldwide satellite based measurements and ocean-wide based buoys, comprise the largest percentage of measuring devices and data in use.
Nothing with any meat on them bones?
professional skeptic
October 24th, 2011
4:44 pm
A good skeptic will take appropriate steps to verify his/her claims, and an even better one will admit when the facts suggest s/he is wrong.
Well done!
md
October 24th, 2011
4:45 pm
“In Islam, no one submits to anyone else except Allah”
Which is why MAD is obsolete with a theocracy………….
Bosch
October 24th, 2011
4:47 pm
md @ 4:45
What?
Paul
October 24th, 2011
4:49 pm
md
I do beg your pardon. I took it to mean ‘wonder why the Doctor/Professor omitted data that was essential to the point” so you can understand the confusion.
Didn’t sound like you. Shoulda’ known better but after some of the posts I’ve read today it seems like people were eating nutty flakes for breakfast.
josef
October 24th, 2011
4:57 pm
TruthBe
i don’t make any claim of being any type of “expert” on Islam (or Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism or my own Judaism). I have learned, though, that there are as many different “brands” and interpretations of Islam as there are of most other religious doctrines…and that 15-25% minority you speak of does the same with Christianity and, in Israel, Judaism, seeking to impose their own particular brand on everyone else…
getalife
It’s interesting that the party leader has, in his fist comments, gone to great length to assure the secular Tunisians that it will be a moderate approach and, more significantly, he has gone way out of his way to reassure the foreign capital investors…he knows that he can’t afford to alienate either of these two elements. I understand that he will be required to form a coalition government, it should be interesting to see which of the secular parties he courts…
Stevie Ray
October 24th, 2011
4:58 pm
PAUL:
What graph are you referring to as I’m bored with work and want to opine.
Also, I noticed on an earlier post you asked ‘If man does not contribute, then why look for alternate fuel sources?’ I’m likely taking you out of context and apologize in advance if that’s the case but one answer is too get the H*LL out of the middle east by eliminating our sole “interests”….it sure ain’t Israel. Lots of oil reserves right here in Dakotas that match Saudi reserves we are not allowed to utilize….
Paul
October 24th, 2011
4:59 pm
md
In answer to your question ‘wonder why’ I’d have to say Dr. Long stated accurate temperature measurement doesn’t go back very far at all. Even then, he showed the range of values that exist for a given point in time. The chart Bruno cited purports to show accurate temperature plots going back 400,000 years, no range of uncertainty.
The methodology between the two is stark.
Doggone/GA
October 24th, 2011
5:01 pm
” no one submits to anyone else except Allah. Or so I’ve heard and read.”
That’s certainly the original concept, but religious leaders being – like all those in power “power hungry – have distorted it into following teachers rather than JUST the teachings of Allah.
carlosgvv
October 24th, 2011
5:02 pm
And this is how The Republican Party and Big Business work. When their position on global warming is proved to be false, they will ignore the evidence and, when pressed, declare this evidence to be just more liberal bias and error. In other words, when their patronage and money is involved, they will take any lying position possible in order to keep their patronage funding and profits. And, of course, the gullible faithful will believe everything they are told by their Republican heros.
Normal
October 24th, 2011
5:02 pm
Everybody dress up as a Muslim for Halloween and go trick or treatin’ at TruthBe’s house…He seems skeered of ‘em…
Paul
October 24th, 2011
5:05 pm
Normal
Thass funny. Mean, but funny!
We should do it -
josef
October 24th, 2011
5:06 pm
Normal
Last year one of my Bengali neighbors who wears the hijab came with her little monsters…she dressed as a witch! Pointed hat over the hijab, painted on scary face, fake nose, carrying a broom…ah, America! Ain’t it one grand place for diversity?
Stevie Ray
October 24th, 2011
5:06 pm
Josef,
I hear you. I’m wondering when Islamist US citizens will organize there folks into a non-taxable entity and use non-taxable funds to extort agenda items from Rightwingnuts? Nothing is more wrong than the Christians using tax exempt funds to decide Republican elections (or not votes totalling 30 million if you believe that Jeffers snake oiler in Texas)and generally set human rights issues back decades just like they have done with science since Galleleo…We need to take non-exempt status away and leave religion out of bounds.
Appropos of absolutely nothing…
josef
October 24th, 2011
5:07 pm
Doggone
As a Christian whom I respect, correct me here if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Christianity teach submission to the Christ?
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
5:08 pm
Normal, LOL…
Perhaps he will be forced, under Sharia law, to move to Dearbornistan, Michigan!
(getalife remembers one of the earlier loon chicks at ML’s, who was convinced some world-ending plot was being cooked up by the Moozlims up there…)
Thomas
October 24th, 2011
5:08 pm
Sorry Jay- couldn’t rebut your defensive wrap on the knuckles to the Cain plan as I was busy creating jobs. Sorry dude, if you change the income tax number (higher) it is by definition not regressive. You are a myopic writer that has little to no syndication. You could change that by a little less adolescent anger and little more education and understanding that the rest of the world is not dumb.
Paul
October 24th, 2011
5:09 pm
josef 5:07
I like where this is going…. heh, heh, heh…..
josef
October 24th, 2011
5:10 pm
Stevie Ray
There have already been some efforts that direction…they’re just not getting much traction…radical, fundamentalist Islam has about the same “charm” for American Muslims as radical, fundamentalist Christianity or Judaism and that is, not much…
josef
October 24th, 2011
5:11 pm
PAUL
Well, EOI aside and you being another practicing Christian whose opinions I respect…am I correct?
TaxPayer
October 24th, 2011
5:13 pm
…human-produced global warming has been caused by the rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the last 200 years — rising over 390 parts per million after remaining below 300 parts per million for the previous 800,000 years. And unlike natural heat variations, the current temperature increase caused by CO2 is being recorded occurring all around the globe – on the ground, in the air and in the oceans…
Stevie Ray
October 24th, 2011
5:16 pm
Thanks PAUL,
I’m with ya. The only fact that I truly believe about this issue is that not enough credible evidence exists to justify at this point whether we really have a problem. Being of an actuarial bent, the data, well….sucks. All politics and no substance. Anyone who is already setting up the carbon trading exchanges is not worthy of debate.
Paul
October 24th, 2011
5:16 pm
josef
Yup.
Not just submission, but a complete change of attitude, outlook and reliance with attitudes and actions that will conform to His example.
Most of us regularly blow it, but we try –
The Scarlet A
October 24th, 2011
5:18 pm
josef
October 24th, 2011
5:07 pm
Doggone
As a Christian whom I respect, correct me here if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Christianity teach submission to the Christ?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Josef, as a practisioner of Judaism whom I respect, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Judaism call for blood sacrifices, (perfect lambs and doves), and other burnt offerings for each particular sin at specific times?
Doggone/GA
October 24th, 2011
5:18 pm
“As a Christian whom I respect, correct me here if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Christianity teach submission to the Christ?”
for those versions that believe in the Trinity, they teach submission to Christ as being the Father, Son and Holy Ghost all in one. I can’t speak for other sects, as I was brought up in a Trinity version – Lutheranism.
But a very interesting show I saw a while back about Islam made it clear that the religions original teachings were submission to Allah, not to an earthy, living teacher and that the “Imam” systema has subverted that original teaching.
I think from the aspect of a no longer living teacher (Jesus or Mohammad) those teachings are the way to reach peace with God and any living teacher who distorts those original teachings can be considered a false prophet.
But…there will ALWAYS be people who need to be told what to do and they will always be subject to a distorted version of their religion that speaks to their own prejudices. A clear case, if you will, of making a god in man’s image.
Or, as someone once put it: “You you’ve made god in your image when your god hates the same people you do”
Paul
October 24th, 2011
5:19 pm
Stevie Ray
I should say that when I began this journey of examination I had pretty much the same attitude. The change occurred when I happened across that second link. Just a thorough, rather dispassionate presentation of data with supported conclusions. I’d encourage you to take about a half hour and listen to it.
Makes much of the counter-arguments I read here seem rather pathetically juvenile.
Normal
October 24th, 2011
5:20 pm
Yeah, the Muslim thing was a cheap shot, but so am I
BTW: Did the Rapture happen Friday and I was Left Behind? Or did it happen and nobody made the grade? Is Scout still here?
josef
October 24th, 2011
5:20 pm
PAUL
That’s what I understood to be the underpinning of the Christian faith…
Just an off the wall comment here, but I was talking to a Tunisian colleague about Tunisia’s particular intepretations of things and she said, “well, you gotta remember, we ARE the descendents of the Barbary pirates!”
Doggone/GA
October 24th, 2011
5:25 pm
“well, you gotta remember, we ARE the descendents of the Barbary pirates!”
Sound like the Australians. Wasn’t it back in the ’80s when it became all the rage to trace your family tree and see how many criminals you had in your background?
The Scarlet A
October 24th, 2011
5:28 pm
Normal: Scout was deliberately left behind to fight for the new recruits.
Paul
October 24th, 2011
5:28 pm
Doggone/GA
Well, if your genealogy links into that penal colony down under…
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
5:28 pm
Normal, I think there was a lot of rupturing, but no rapturing…
josef
October 24th, 2011
5:29 pm
SCARLET
Not any more…not since the codification of the Babylonian Talmud…Judaism is an evolutionary faith and, not always very successfully, tries to keep abreast of the times…
Doggone/GA
October 24th, 2011
5:31 pm
“Well, if your genealogy links into that penal colony down under”
Not mine! Mine seems to come to a completely “normal” ending in the Scotch-Irish and German background typical of someone born in Pennsylvania
josef
October 24th, 2011
5:32 pm
Doggone
No pirates or criminals in my family tree….there’s the ever how many greats grandpappy who “…had shipping interests in Barbados…” or the more recent one involved “in railroads and ancillary interests…”
Doggone/GA
October 24th, 2011
5:35 pm
Josef – mine, as far as I’ve been able to trace it, is pretty much working-class right down the line. Steel workers, blacksmiths, builders, farmers. That’s about it as far as I can tell.
The Scarlet A
October 24th, 2011
5:36 pm
josef: Is that how it works? I’ve always wondered about that. So if I google “the codification of the Babylonian Talmud” I will get the answer to the question I’ve had since I was about 8? Back then when I asked, I was hushed by the adults. Finally I quit asking it.
Stevie Ray
October 24th, 2011
5:37 pm
PAUL:
Will check it out and appreciate the link. It’s unusual to find others who dont’ suffer from “information-based bias” and actually enjoy researching each issue before being told by tradition or the folks at the club how to think. Love to see Jay or others so smitten with the same old Republicans stink, Democrats stink, and the blame game for one single day, collect data contrary to their core beliefs and for that day, argue the other side.
carlosgvv
October 24th, 2011
5:38 pm
Since no one on Earth knows who actually wrote any of the Old and New Testaments, it is so interesting to read so many of you talking about them as though they are positively the proven words of God. And, of course, your retort that it is all about faith. This only goes from bad to worse since you seemingly don’t know the difference between faith and fact. Sad, mindless and pathetic.
Soothsayer
October 24th, 2011
5:41 pm
You goad and provoke violent extremist groups into retaliating against your attacks, your civilian-slaughtering invasions and incursions into their territory. Being unable to confront directly your war machine – the largest, most advanced military force in the history of the world, sustained by a tsunami of public money that each year surpasses the military spending of the rest of the world – they naturally respond with “asymmetrical” operations. At first, these are directed at nearby targets: your supply lines, the forces of your local proxies and allies, and other chaos-inducing depredations in the groups’ own regions, designed to foul the lines of your control and drive you out. Just as naturally, you use these attacks to justify an even greater military presence in their regions. The cycle inevitably, inexorably ratchets upwards and outwards, until at last the extremists strike at your homeland – either with your connivance, or your covert acquiescence, or, in any event, with your foreknowledge that such an attack was sure to come. This is the moment you have waited for; this is exactly what you wanted. Now you can whip the herd back into a martial frenzy, keep the Long War going, and push aside the rabble’s petty, small-minded desires for a peaceful, prosperous life at home, minding their own business.”
Paul
October 24th, 2011
5:41 pm
Stevie Ray
“collect data contrary to their core beliefs and for that day, argue the other side.”
We’ve a little club here known as the EOIs – Equal Opportunity Instigators.
Keep it up and you may just get an invite -
josef
October 24th, 2011
5:43 pm
Doggone
I love shaking MY family tree…behind the blue-haired biddy version is the real tale…one of my cousins and I have a ball sometimes when we find ourselves in the position of having to be “a gentleman” when responding to their inquiries…the “ancilliary interests” being high class wh*re houses!
I think I may have posted this before, but not long ago one of the BHB set needed our “help” in identifying a photograph which she “thought were the young ladies of Ms Martha’s finishing school” Ha! The young ladies were on the verandah of Ms Martha’s husband’s bordello! We were “true Southern gentlemen of culture and breeding,” though, responding we were “unable to verify that the building was the school!”
Doggone/GA
October 24th, 2011
5:43 pm
“And, of course, your retort that it is all about faith”
Well, but you have to remember…there’s a difference between positive faith and blind faith.
Paul
October 24th, 2011
5:43 pm
carlosgvv
“Since no one on Earth knows who actually wrote any of the Old and New Testaments,”
Actually, in many cases, for the core basis absent later embellishments, we do -
Doggone/GA
October 24th, 2011
5:45 pm
Joseph – that’s very close to the essence of tact! “Telling someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip”!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
October 24th, 2011
5:46 pm
I shook my family tree once…..and a bunch of nuts dropped out. Including my own sister who keeps telling me how “accurate” Fox is in all its reporting.
Doggone/GA
October 24th, 2011
5:47 pm
“Actually, in many cases, for the core basis absent later embellishments, we do ”
Actually, that only applies to the letters in the New Testament…but not all of the letters attributed to Paul were actually written by him, and THOSE we don’t know who wrote them.
josef
October 24th, 2011
5:48 pm
carlos
If you want respect, you have to show it. Sad? Mindless? Pathetic? Well, just my oipinion, but, yes, you are… you are a truly closed-minded individual…
SCARLET
Well, yes, but the best commentaries on those things comes via the Maimonidean…that is the rationalization of the tradition with the modern secular world….
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
5:48 pm
Religion is OK. As a hobby.
As for the source of my morality and ethos?
No.
By the time I was 20 I already found it to be horribly lacking and absurdly hijacked…
Doggone/GA
October 24th, 2011
5:51 pm
“By the time I was 20 I already found it to be horribly lacking and absurdly hijacked”
If you don’t mind, I would reword that. It is the religious who are horribly lacking and who have hijacked their religion. Religion IS, but it’s people who DO. And some of do horrible injustice to their religion.
Adam
October 24th, 2011
5:52 pm
AmVet: By the time I was 20 I already found it to be horribly lacking and absurdly hijacked…
AMEN!
(heh)
Adam
October 24th, 2011
5:54 pm
Doggone: I would argue that religion is the construct of the people who support it. It’s kind of like a market system. Whatever the demand is, that’s what worms its way into the religion. And if the religious leaders reject what is popular, or don’t have a good enough messaging machine to hold on to their followers while correcting them about every idea they ever have, then those people leave that religion.
Doggone/GA
October 24th, 2011
5:57 pm
” I would argue that religion is the construct of the people who support it.”
and I wouldn’t argue that. But that does not neccessarily negate it as a force. Nor does it negate it as a repository of wisdom. The “wisdom” has to be judged by it’s results, but those who distort that wisdom do not change the wisdom as it SHOULD BE followed.
getalife
October 24th, 2011
5:58 pm
I pray at home.
Our President has to work around corrupt congress to try to help the economy.
That is a story because corporate media gives the gop obstructionist do nothing corrupt party a free pass.
Mr. Snarky
October 24th, 2011
5:58 pm
We know global warming is real. The question is “Is Rick Perry real?”
josef
October 24th, 2011
5:59 pm
What I find most intriguing when the conversation moves to the topic of religion, faith, belief or what have you is how often the emotional takes over with “believers” and “non believers” alike unable or unwilling too often to step back and look at the matter from a cultural paradigm free of judgments one way or the other…it soon enough takes on the air of competing tent revivalists!
josef
October 24th, 2011
6:00 pm
Mr Snarky
The Scarlet A
October 24th, 2011
6:01 pm
josef; Dammit, you ALWAYS give out homework. OK I’ll research those two. Did a brief overview. It wasn’t enough but I have to finish cooking supper. Thanks for the starting points. I’ll get back to you later for clarification if I need it.
Arx Ferrum
October 24th, 2011
6:02 pm
Here’s the thing… Global warming/Climate Change (whatever) is almost purely in the political arena. This is NOT the place for a subject that is, by definition, scientific and effecting the entire planet. Politics is itself, by its own definition, polarizing. Al Gore, the godfather of this topic, is about as divisive as anyone on this same planet.
So, here comes yet another study that this times says one thing. There have been a host of others that said the opposite. Why should we now roll over and play dead if we disagree? We know that politics can’t be trusted. We know that politicians are, in their own definition, are devout liars.
So, forgive me but… I don’t give a flying rat’s patootie what this study said. Either remove the politics, and the politicians, or expect more of people like me.
Doggone/GA
October 24th, 2011
6:02 pm
“it soon enough takes on the air of competing tent revivalists!”
It does, but I think it also points to the difference between those of positive faith and those of blind faith. I see that the more blind the faith the more shrill the judgement of others.
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
6:03 pm
Doggone, for me personally it was the set of beliefs surrounding Christianity itself that was lacking.
Farcical tales ,similar to the The Iliad and the Odyssey, where superhuman agencies dispense “justice”, by torturing people forever and ever, like some sort of enraged monster?
No thanks. It may work for some, but not this heathen…
josef
October 24th, 2011
6:03 pm
getalife
And I pray at school! “Dear L-rd, please stop me from going down to 210 Pryor Street and start slapping faces!”
Keep Up the Good Fight!
October 24th, 2011
6:05 pm
[B]efore climbing the 2012 ladder, GOP presidential front runner Herman Cain served as the spokesman for the right-wing America’s PAC. The group spent millions during the 2004 and 2006 election to run political ads on black radio stations — one of which suggested that Democrats wanted to kill “black babies.” Another ad links Democrats to the “Ku Klux Klan cracker” David Duke. Not only did Cain serve as spokesman, he also performed voice-over work in several ads. One such ad features a man telling another, “If you make a little mistake with one of your ‘hos,’ you will want to dispose of the problem tout suite, no questions asked.” But, as Right Wing Watch reports, Cain went further then lending his voice. He lent his own money — $1 million worth — to persuade African Americans to vote Republican in the 2006 election with these racially-charged ads. The Bush administration called the ads “inappropriate” and the RNC called them “racist or race-baiting in intent.”
You can listen to Cain in one of the ads too…… so remind me, Cain is proof that the Tea Party is not racist (”I can’t be racist, I have a black friend”) and yet Bush and the RNC is calling the ads Cain participated in as racist and inappropriate.
9-9-9 becomes 9-0-9 and soon we’ll see it become 9-1-1.
Paul
October 24th, 2011
6:06 pm
Mr. Snarky
“The question is “Is Rick Perry real?””
I keep hoping it’s a bad dream and when I wake up the governor is Barbara Eden.
josef
October 24th, 2011
6:07 pm
Doggone
And I wholeheartedly agree on that “blind faith” thing, and blind faith besets the believers and non believers alike…
Doggone/GA
October 24th, 2011
6:09 pm
“Doggone, for me personally it was the set of beliefs surrounding Christianity itself that was lacking”
and I would argue that that is an indictment of the beliefs, but not of the religion itself.
Just as an example, take the injuction “Judge not, lest ye be judged”
What I was taught about that command is not what I NOW believe it to mean. My understanding of it has change radically from what I was taught about it. I now believe it to mean we are not to judge the PERSON, but it does not absolve us from judging the deeds of a person.
To take it to an extreme example: *I* no longer judge Hitler to be an evil person. I see him as a man driven by his own demons to DO evil things, but it is not for me – as a Christian – to judge him as a person.
Doggone/GA
October 24th, 2011
6:11 pm
“and blind faith besets the believers and non believers alike…”
It does indeed
The Scarlet A
October 24th, 2011
6:11 pm
josef@ 5:59: I agree. I NEVER try to “change” someone’s mind, nor belittle their beliefs (and lack of a belief is a belief). If asked, I will sometimes say what I believe with no apologies or excuses. I respect others “beliefs” and vainly expect others to respect my “beliefs.” In the end, we will never know until we are DEAD so why do we waste so much time on it. Why do some have to beat others over the head with a bible, torah, koran, ect., to feel good about themselves? Why do others have to say that those who believe are idiots with no capacity for rational thought? In the end, there is no “proof” one way or the other. You just have to believe what you believe and life your life accordingly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXnDbOpxU4
Kamchak
October 24th, 2011
6:14 pm
Including my own sister who keeps telling me how “accurate” Fox is in all its reporting.
I got one of those too.
Mom forgot to tell me I had a brother named Keep Up the Good Fight!
josef
October 24th, 2011
6:15 pm
Doggone
I won’t go as extreme as you here, but…
My own is the role of Judas…the whole Jesus Christ Superstar interpretation fascinates me…
josef
October 24th, 2011
6:17 pm
SCARLET
@ 6:11
And I am in your corner on that…well put…and love that link!
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
6:18 pm
I see, Doggone. I think.
Two irreverent thoughts.
One, a line from a Dire Straights song – Religion is useless, philosophy worse.
And the second is a paraphrase of a line from Monty Python – “Farcical crucifixion ceremonies are no basis for a system of beliefs!”
I’m into the Oblivion/Looney Tunes School of Thought.
Dig this ride, cuz when it ends…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hZrXdJ-ibo
F. Sinkwich
October 24th, 2011
6:18 pm
“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 19% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove…”
Since this topic has evolved into a discussion of religion, just thought I’d add this about the lib ilk’s messiah.
Doggone/GA
October 24th, 2011
6:18 pm
“the whole Jesus Christ Superstar interpretation fascinates me…”
It did me too, but I have come to see Judas as a supremely “demon” driven man. What is interesting to me is Christian writings that were excluded from the Bible because they were not crucifixion or resurrection driven. They were based on living a Christian life as Jesus lived his life, not as he died.
I haven’t read much of them, but just the concept alone I find fascinating. We’ve talke of John Dominic Crossan’s writings before. It was from him I learned of the existence of those writings. I wish I had access to them.
Doggone/GA
October 24th, 2011
6:20 pm
“just thought I’d add this about the lib ilk’s messiah.”
And yet, ever and always, it is NEVER a “lib” who calls him that. Only conservatives do
Keep Up the Good Fight!
October 24th, 2011
6:20 pm
Kam.
Brothers from different mothers. That would explain a lot. I am sure you got the good looks. I have a face only the dogs could love. 
Jay
October 24th, 2011
6:20 pm
Fresh sheets
F. Sinkwich
October 24th, 2011
6:22 pm
“More than two-thirds of voters say the United States is declining, and a clear majority think the next generation will be worse off than this one, according to the results of a new poll commissioned by The Hill. A resounding 69 percent of respondents said the country is “in decline,” the survey found, while 57 percent predict today’s kids won’t live better lives than their parents.”
I’m starting to get nostalgic for Jimmy Carter…….
Kamchak
October 24th, 2011
6:23 pm
Ooooh.
The daily Ragamuffin update.
josef
October 24th, 2011
6:26 pm
ZamVet
and Python on the secular?
“…a watery tart handing you a sword from a lake is the basis for a system of government…”
And since the Bruin thinks we should now leave Monday Night services…going upstairs…
Frank
October 24th, 2011
6:40 pm
Hello, they all use the same data set. Did the writer not read any of the Hadley controversy? Of course there is not difference between the three sources. Furthermore, it says nothing about how any temperature change is caused by man. The 20th Century increase is no more than that of the Middle Ages Warm Period, which Mr. Mann and company tried to diminish.
Tom Middleton
October 24th, 2011
7:08 pm
Well, maybe the Republicans will finally get on board with the Dems now in trying to save our planet for the future generations.
I mean, surely Michelle Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Romney will finally decide that there’s something more important than profit for their base, and that’s the ability of planet earth to sustain life for the many generations to come, yes?
I mean, surely Michelle Bachmann, Cain, and Perry and… you know, put on their thinking caps and… well, actually thin … oh never mind!
TGT
October 24th, 2011
7:44 pm
Just chiming in on this. The implication here (again) seems to be that “warming” (however minute) implies man-made warming. Of course, this is far from the truth. Also, Muller’s claims are being met with some serious blowback:
Climatologist Dr. Pielke Sr. On Muller’s study: ‘Unless, Muller pulls from a significantly different set of raw data, it is no surprise that his [temp] trends are the same’
Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl Rips Muller’s Temperature Study: ‘It is not true that the Berkeley group has found relevant evidence for the core questions in the AGW debate’
Meteorologist D’Aleo: ‘Muller’s results are predictable, since he appears to have worked with much of the same raw data all 3 global data centers used or started with’
Also, as early as last March the “deniers” were being warned: “This whole [Muller] project has to be a set up to screw skeptics. Who disputes warming has taken place? Why have we allowed Muller to set up a straw man argument to take cheap shots at skeptics? It appears Muller is incapable of running this project. He has allowed leaks, media distortions, allowed [warmist activist Joe] Romm to publicly hijack project and Muller remains silent.”
philosopher
October 25th, 2011
7:05 am
“Just chiming in on this. The implication here (again) seems to be that “warming” (however minute) implies man-made warming. Of course, this is far from the truth. Also, Muller’s claims are being met with some serious blowback: “…
See, there is too much at stake for some folks to admit that man has any significant impact on climate change. If one does, it means that we have responsibilities-we can and must stop practices and change practices that we are definitely not willing to even think about, economic changes…loss of income for those who monetarily benefit from practices that are adding to the problem…TOO MUCH money. And then there’s the whole thought that if I own up to it, I’ll have to realize that my actions can affect the future of my children and grandchildren ad finitum…and if I am not part of the solution, then I am part of the problem and adding to a very grim future for them…and I am definitely NOT going there.
Deniers Eat Their Own in BEST Feeding Frenzy « Climate Denial Crock of the Week
October 25th, 2011
1:26 pm
[...] Richard Muller, whose recent “study” on surface temperatures, has caused headlines like “Climate-change skeptic: ‘You should not be a skeptic.’“, the San Francisco Chroniclereported in 2006: … Muller estimates 2 in 3 odds that humans are [...]
Hiding The Decline Since 2000 | Real Science
October 26th, 2011
7:40 am
[...] (blue) below. Notice anything interesting since 2000?http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vglhttp://blogs.ajc.com/Richard Muller, a physics professor at Cal-Berkeley, has been a celebrated skeptic about the true [...]
Adam
October 30th, 2011
8:01 pm
“What if we create a better world for nothing?”