Changing climate alters the Southeast

Stop it already… with your charts and facts… You big smarty pants…

I mean so what if a lot of what they predicted to happen (predictions made 20 years ago) is happening now… I mean, really…

You know darn good and well that anything we do to mitigate climate change or try to slow our participation in such is simply a burden on the “job creators”… however raising taxes on small businesses (like the GA legislature did this past week) will help small businesses and the “creation” of more jobs here in Georgia…

Where are those jobs, by the way?

Obama’s a kenyan, marxist, socialist.

• Link
• Report this comment

For a minute I thought Cynthia Tucker was back

• Link
• Report this comment

But, it appears this winter’s weather was due, in part, to the natural el nino/la nina cycles.

“Because atmospheric impacts often lag the demise of an ENSO episode, aspects of La Niña are reflected in the coming season. Over the U.S. during April – June 2012, La Niña has the following weak influences on the climate outlook: There is an increased chance of above-average temperatures in the south-central U.S., and below-average temperatures in the Northwest. Also, drier-than-average conditions are more likely across Utah and Colorado, and along the western Gulf of Mexico ”

Then there’s the whole solar activity impact which is predicted to fall, leading climatologists to predict a coming mini ice-age. In other words, there ain’t much we can do about it except adapt. The climate is always changing from day to day.

• Link
• Report this comment

cockroaches can take over the planet and stop all this global warming

I do love me some false wingnut dichotomies in the morning.

• Link
• Report this comment

Because I’m a long time farmer with a large vegetable garden I have watched the climate changing for the past fifty years. This is certainly the warmest spring that I can remember in North Ga.

• Link
• Report this comment

For all you Chicken Little’s please explain the relationship between the Maunder Minimum and the little Ice age. Then maybe you can enlighten us on how human impact caused the little ice age. Remember Al Gore didn’t invent the internet but he did invent global cooling circa 1970’s before he invented global warming

• Link
• Report this comment

Odds that a ref to Teh Petisshun Project appears within the first hundred comments?

• Link
• Report this comment

This was the warmest March on record for the contiguous US.

• Link
• Report this comment

All I can report is that any type of winter has been non-existent down here in paradise, with temps in the 90’s the past two weeks, summer is on…

• Link
• Report this comment

Just finished a good book on the Seminole Wars.
One good nugget of info was during the year of 1830, the temperature in Jacksonville Florida was over 100 degrees for 4 straight days…………………….during Christmas.
.
Must have been them dang coal/wood-burning locomotives.

• Link
• Report this comment

A. I read the headline and felt for sure it was going to be another column about women and Augusta

B. I believe in global warming, but using annual weather to discuss it isn’t scientific

C. So good thing jay at least made a passing reference to more scientific data than: the azaleas didn’t bloom and look at this southeast weather report

• Link
• Report this comment

Mike wallace gets the scoop…the times they are a changin..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/hello-goodbye-why-the-gre_b_1411495.html

• Link
• Report this comment

The hardest thing to see is often that which is right under your own nose.

It’s directly connected to the Climate Change Denier’s belief that their excrement has no aroma.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yay! Georgia is only Category Three! There are *12* states that are actually *less* prepared than Georgia is, for water-related impacts of climate change!

• Link
• Report this comment

What a joke..yes it’s climate change Jay but it’s cyclical as opposed to one-time end of the world as we know it phenomenon. How arrogant you liberals are to think that our miniscule existence can have an impact on the atmosphere surrounding a PLANET is plain ignorant.

Jay, you sound like a school child popping off on this topic. I don’t deny climate change, it changes every year, decade et al….just cause our science can now (in the past 200 years maybe) accurately chart actual temperatures, means nothing…

• Link
• Report this comment

I look forward to growing Quercus virginiana in the ATL

• Link
• Report this comment

BTW, all you climate change zealots, where has all the climate change battle cry’s from the spineless wonder and his posse gone? Why is this topic getting a fraction of the media play compared to years gone by????

• Link
• Report this comment

Lyman

Shameless?

You bet you are.

The guilt is not our childrens it is ours.

• Link
• Report this comment

“There’s a coming energy revolution, similar to the technology revolution of the 1990’s, that will make us energy independent without worrying about hydrocarbon byproducts.”

That would be the Obama energy policy where everyone walks because we can’t afford gasoline, engineers have not beeen able to effectively strap a windmill on the roof of cars, and solar panels only illumiate the interior light.

• Link
• Report this comment

That would be the Obama energy policy where everyone walks because we can’t afford gasoline, engineers have not beeen able to effectively strap a windmill on the roof of cars, and solar panels only illumiate the interior light.

JohnnyReb attempts humor.

#FAIL

• Link
• Report this comment

Gawd, I do love this topic.

The Republicans have nothing but their emotionalism and fear. They have no credible data and they have no verifiable facts that begin to remotely countermand these highly analyzed theories accepted worldwide.

The best they have?

The ludicrously laughable Heartland Institute!

White the real world has to it’s credit an endless list of who’s who of mankind’s greatest scientific organizations.

In other words, the neocons COMPLETELY ALONE and arrogantly uninformed against an educated, highly informed, enlightened body and vast array of world science.

As for shamelessness, they do not care that the ENTIRE scientific world has countermanded every single false, contrived and BS construct that have desperately tried to create.

Republican science is a farcical non-sequitur.

• Link
• Report this comment

You say you want a revolution, well we all want to see the plan…

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s why you can’t get everyone in the USA on-board with climate change. It will sound familiar.

The climate change group are mostly Democrats.

Democrats love to take your money and give it to someone else.

The Democrats answer to climate change is to stiffle economic growth in the USA not only through regulations but by taking your money and giving it to developing countries so they can build environmentally friendly energy sources.

When Dems come up with a solution that does not put eveyone here out of a job while alos draining their pocketbook giving money to someone else, you may achieve a solution. Until then, forgetabout.

• Link
• Report this comment

we win (choke)..
cough …cough…( choke) cough.. we win

• Link
• Report this comment

Well with 7 billion people, that means there are
700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Bacteria living alongside / inside those humans too

Don’t forget them

• Link
• Report this comment

I see JohnnyReb is ill prepared to discuss climate change either.

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t doubt the climate is changing. Pretty obvious. The question is why. I definitely lean towards natural cycles. There have been many in the past and there’s no reason we are going to be immune to them in the future.

It’s all definitely open to debate but in the back of my mind I do worry about those scientists who were being secretive about all their data. I don’t like stuff like that and it makes me more likely not to trust them. They may be right but if they are then what are they worried about?

Either way, warmth seems on the uptrend. I doubt Canada will complain.

• Link
• Report this comment

Better to get to building some reservoirs (tree huggers be damned, or is it dammed) or N. Georgia is are going to be in a world of hurt for water.

Yes, that will help regardless of who wins the argument.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay: by now you should know they’s no such thang as climate change. It’s something them Democrats made up so’s our gas for our SUVs and monster pick ‘em up trucks is gonna cost more.

I’m glad you posted this, though, it will give us a chance to see how the Fright-Wing have fine-tuned their talking points, er, I mean, lies on this issue.

Not only that, but what better way to start a Monday morning than by kicking over that climate change anthill.

• Link
• Report this comment

There are natual cycles and there are not so natural events. Are the deniers posting here unwilling to actually discuss the science?

• Link
• Report this comment

Are the deniers posting here unwilling to actually discuss the science?

Science is only for Democrats, according to JohnnyReb.

• Link
• Report this comment

Either way, warmth seems on the uptrend. I doubt Canada will complain.

um… just plucked at random

http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=714D9AAE-1&news=B37E3BE6-5D04-4566-B674-677A20213456

“Canada came to Durban to make a real contribution toward a global solution to this global issue; this signals that,” said Minister Kent. “We are hoping for an agreement that covers all emitters and providing supports for developing countries that can most use the help.”

“I’m pleased that Canada is following through on their commitment to fast-start financing,” said Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). “This financing is a key to moving forward with global action on climate change, and Canada’s contribution will go a long way in helping developing countries with their mitigation and adaptation efforts.”

That’d be the Conservative Party of Canada, led by Stephen Harper since 2006. Those cray-zee environmental whackos!

• Link
• Report this comment

Enter your comments here

• Link
• Report this comment

stands, Republicans, as a group, have drive down scientific intellect in this country.

WAY down.

They are, arguably the primary reason that American has fallen so far behind the rest of the civilized world in that arena.

It is one thing that these uninformed, highly emotional bloggers promote these sophist ideas, that have already been discounted by thousands and thousands of experiments, readings, measurements and models, by thousands and thousands of scientists, independently of each other, around the world, but when the very leaders of their organization, promote this cultish anti-science nonsense as well???

What could possibly have been more embarrassing than in 2008 when those three goofs raised their hands to this question?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E

• Link
• Report this comment

TaxPayer

April 9th, 2012
8:11 am

I see JohnnyReb is ill prepared to discuss climate change either.
______________

I’m not a scientist, don’t pretend to be, and don’t play one on this blog. However, it does not take a scientist to recognize they don’t have a consensus, don’t have a solution a majority of citizens will accept, and have fumbled the ball so many times, no credibility.

• Link
• Report this comment

TAXPAYER,

Who on this blog is qualified to opine on this alleged science…which unlike most science, has not withstood the level of scientific scrutiny that say…a vaccine would endure…Many of us, despite political persuasion, remain from Missouri on the motives and immature science behind this crap..

• Link
• Report this comment

stevie ray,

do you wish to discuss the works of scientists or do you wish to continue your non-scientific rant? Pick.

• Link
• Report this comment

they don’t have a consensus

Lie #2.

So pathetically ludicrous, it does not warrant any kind of detailed rebuttal. (For the seventy fourth time.)

have fumbled the ball so many times, no credibility.

Lie #3.

I presume this absurdity is actually meant for the Heartland Institute gang…

• Link
• Report this comment

Talking point revisions 1. and 2.:

1. Since press has declined and scientists having to with climate change are fighting for relevance, then therefore, climate change no longer exists.

2. Since we — humanity — occupy such a relatively small area of the Earth, then therefore, climate cannot possibly exist.

See how that works?

• Link
• Report this comment

R.E.P., R.I.P.: Republicans For Environmental Protection Drops ‘Republican’ From Its Name

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/04/05/457955/republican-for-environmental-protection-drops-039republican039-from-its-name/

• Link
• Report this comment

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it: If we do nothing about man-made pollutants and the climate change deniers are wrong, the planet is in serious trouble. If legislation requires huge cutbacks in man-made pollutants and the believers in climate change are wrong, the consequences are…….cleaner air!

• Link
• Report this comment

stevie tries desperately to frame this discussion as a “voting democrat” one when I already sunk that weak argument at 8:14.

And worse have made a very, very strong case that is the American Republicans ALONE who oppose the science.

• Link
• Report this comment

What could possibly have been more embarrassing than in 2008 when those three goofs raised their hands to this question?

To be fair, the guy the GOP actually nominated, wasn’t among those evolution deniers.

I want to believe there’s still hope for that party, that a rational conservative opposition might exist there, but I think they’ll have to experience some serious electoral defeats before such enlightenment occurs.

• Link
• Report this comment

What I really don’t like is how he’s like “We can’t discuss this because of bloggers, BUT….”

I mean, the only reason to deny climate change at this point is because you are anti-evidence, and just maybe anti-science. Evidence based thinking is BETTER than feeling based thinking folks!

http://climate.nasa.gov/ for more detailed global metrics.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lyman would laugh at progressives.
.
I would too…….if it wasn’t for the chil;dren.
.

• Link
• Report this comment

Private Property rights. Do tell us. How far do your private property rights extend beyond the bounds of your very own piece of private property, Lyman.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gotta put some Carlin out there:

the planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE!

We’re going away. Pack your shi$, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet’s doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet’s doing. You wanna know if the planet’s all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?” Plastic…assho$@.”

• Link
• Report this comment

Jm, a nitwit in everybody else’s.

To demonstrate the absolute lack of support the anti-science Republicans get worldwide…

April 12, 2010

It said that the OIC needed to promote climate change policies, including recommendations on lifestyle changes which would suit Islamic values.

Way to go necons.

You stand almost utterly by yourselves with your heads………… I’m not sure where…

• Link
• Report this comment

JM, No, but I have done my part to not add to the problem. My family has a zero sum, only because my niece took the family from negative growth this year.

• Link
• Report this comment

Are you suggesting that we change the weather?

There are lots of Americans who are still around, who are old enough to remember the Dust Bowl.

Why don’t you ask them.

• Link
• Report this comment

The group’s new name, ConservAmerica, is designed to “explain the connection between conservatism and conservation” and underscore the group’s ethic of stewardship.

Zig Zieglar would have a hard time trying to sell that connection these days.

The last great environmental friendly GOP President, Richard Nixon seems like a couple of hundred years ago now…

• Link
• Report this comment

“It said that the OIC needed to promote climate change policies, including recommendations on lifestyle changes which would suit Islamic values.”

What’s that, colder temps so the ladies will be more comfortable in their Burkas?

• Link
• Report this comment

Gale

Those less concerned are going to outbreed you

You must shrink your family if you want to keep it to 0

• Link
• Report this comment

ByteMe: 2) There’s a coming energy revolution, similar to the technology revolution of the 1990’s, that will make us energy independent without worrying about hydrocarbon byproducts.

The problem is you’re only thinking in U.S. terms. Countries that haven’t quite caught up to us are contributing more to the problem even as we are contributing less.

• Link
• Report this comment

stevie ray: What a joke..yes it’s climate change Jay but it’s cyclical as opposed to one-time end of the world as we know it phenomenon

Do you have any kids? Grandkids? Would you like them to live?

Just asking….

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay: This argument is repeatedly offered up when the topic is climate change, and it is nonsensical. We humans now number seven billion — 7,000,000,000 — and our presence has dramatically altered the planet on which we live. We have driven hundreds of other species into extinction, we have obliterated entire forests, we have replumbed the flow of water over its surface. The notion that we are too small to alter its atmosphere is ludicrous.

But the fact that it’s ludicrous doesn’t disqualify it from inclusion in the “Top Ten Things You Can Say To Rebut Climate Science” pamphlet.

Quoted for truth and the zing-factor

• Link
• Report this comment

It doesn’t cost a person a damn extra penny to inflate the tires on his or her car to the proper pressure yet kayaker just cannot control his urge to pick on someone for ofering up a simple little thing thaat anyone with a car can afford to do in order to help just a little bit. Bravo, kayaker, for continuing to toe the party lie.

• Link
• Report this comment

TaxPayer: Are the deniers posting here unwilling to actually discuss the science?

Evidence is not something that will help them make their point, so not really.

• Link
• Report this comment

From what I see, most people don’t really care. As long as they can get gas out of the pump and go about their business, one hundred years in the future or more is not something to worry about. People will party on up until the last drop of oil is gone and the last plastic toy produced. They they will look around for something else.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oscar: You’re probably right. Something has to happen to make them care. Of course, that something also cannot happen as the backlash to it voting wise would cause them to not care again. It’s a double edged sword.

Perhaps it’s best that other countries are outpacing us in alternative energy innovation.

• Link
• Report this comment

ByteMe: If true, good news.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The great thing about Science, is that it’s true whether or not
you believe in it.” – Dr Neil Degrasse Tyson

There’s a big post out where the water used to be 30 years ago, and
a post where it is now. Cmon, all you big con talkers, let’s see how
much you believe what you regurgitate off the radio. Lets tie all you
deniers to the pole you believe in, and wait for high tide. Get some “skin
in yo game” Ain’t that what they say on the AM radio? Cmon bock bock
Yeah, that’s what I thought.

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxpayer, 8:55,

No, it doesn’t hurt anything and might help, if you inflate your tires and get a tuneup. And for those who can afford it, the Chevy Volt might be just what you need. Algae fuels? Not, what you would say, just around the corner. Most of America wants our president to offer some other kinds of solutions to this fuel crisis other than band aids on a tumor. He won’t let us drill in ANWAR, he has effectively closed most federal lands to drilling, he sends money to Brazil to enhance their drilling capabilities, he won’t allow Keystone to proceed….. You figure it out. As we get closer to November, this gas thing, along with continued unemployment (where over 8% is now considered the norm) will raise it’s ugly head to a new level. And that’s not “continuing to toe the party lie”, my friend……. that’s reality.

• Link
• Report this comment

CLUCK CLUCK says Henny Penny!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

If true, good news.

The oil-based internal combustion engine is 19th century technology. It’ll die soon enough.

The future is solar, but not in the way people think now.

• Link
• Report this comment

As a firm believer in evolution, as that explained by Darwin, S. Jay Gould, and the rest, I welcome climate change as inevitable in the great scheme of things. The apostates are those who claim to be true believers but live their lives quite differently from what they preach to the masses.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lyman

If you are still around in 2050, there is an excellent chance you’ll look back on this time period as the “good old days”. Further, you’ll roundly curse the Big Business sociopaths who poisoned the atmosphere for greed and profit and made your life a living hell.

• Link
• Report this comment

JamVet and kayaker
agree on metestephy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Some folks don’t think it will affect them and care little about others.

• Link
• Report this comment

No worries. That esteemed scholar Rush Limbaugh has assured his many listeners it’s all a put up job. There’s a reason they call them sheep, uh, ditto heads.

• Link
• Report this comment

make a big dent in oil
consumption by stopping
the use of asphalt for
roads.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, “we have obliterated entire forests, “.

You do know there are more trees growing in this country today than there were 100 years ago, don’t you?

• Link
• Report this comment

You do know there are more trees growing in this country today than there were 100 years ago, don’t you?

for the slower among us…

Quantity over quality?

The average age of forests in the United States is younger than it was before European settlement. The greatest diversity is found in the oldest forests, so there may be more forest now, but because it is so young, it is home for fewer animals, plants, insects and other organisms than a fully developed, mature forest ecosystem. It also means that protecting old growth forests is imperative.

Got what he meant by “obliterate” now, or do we need to use smaller words?

• Link
• Report this comment

You statists are obviously confusing a smart person with the R&D Washington Statist party.
.
There is a term for that, (one that thinks that if a person isn’t on THEIR rowing side of a stupid little canoe club..then he HAS to be on the other rowing side).
I would state the term……..but………the only argument would be my spelling.
Tooo funny.
.
The Ron Paul Revolution transcends….stupid little canoe clubs.

• Link
• Report this comment

A few quick question for the “scientists” on board who have climatology down to an “exact” science:

What causes global cooling?? By what mechanism have previous warming trends in history been reversed?? Is there any reason to believe that these homeostatic forces are no longer at work??

• Link
• Report this comment

Sfd 8:55

I still firmly believe natural gas is cleaner than gasoline, by about 25% on CO2. Don’t buy into the arguments of radical folks who think we can live on sunshine and rice cakes today

And it’s 100% American made and owned

• Link
• Report this comment

“Changing climate alters the Southeast”

Air conditioners altered the Southeast (or most Northerners would still be up there !).

Don’t forget the blizzard of around March 12th of 1992 I think it was.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sorry stands, I thought the issue was climate change. Please share with us how fewer insects in the forest is making it warmer in Georgia. Thanks in advance.

• Link
• Report this comment

If it’s raining outside and Fox News says it’s not raining outside, Republicans would believe their TV rather than go outside and see themselves if it’s raining. Then, if one of them did go out to see for themselves and got rained on, they’d deny that they were wet.

• Link
• Report this comment

I think the tornadoes in Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia, and the hurricanes in Louisiana and Texas are more directly God’s hand…..Trying to tell those foks they need to change how they vote…!!!!!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

FOLKS…!!!! Not foks….!!! But, whatever….:-)…..

• Link
• Report this comment

To help you with your data collection, Taxpayer, you might consider this nice, colorful graph which shows temperature variations over the past 400,000 + years.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Somewhere around 130,000 years ago, we hit a big temperature spike, higher than that of today. All without man’s input. And, somehow, some way, this trend reversed itself, all without the help of Al Gore. Since you are the self-appointed resident expert on all things climatically, help my small brain understand this, Taxpayer.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno: What causes global cooling?? By what mechanism have previous warming trends in history been reversed?? Is there any reason to believe that these homeostatic forces are no longer at work??

While I cannot speak to the prevailing idea during a specific time period that global cooling was a possibility, I can say that the scientific consensus is that global warming has actual evidence to back up its existence and that humans are THE major cause of the change. You can look here for more information, if you are so inclined: http://climate.nasa.gov/

• Link
• Report this comment

Next thing you are going to try to tell me is Atlanta doesn’t have a water problem. Don’t get in my way of money, main.

• Link
• Report this comment

a bunch of immature pine trees – most to be harvested in 10 – 20 years anyway – replacing old growth forests is not much of an answer.

Also, Because tree farms are managed to enhance rapid growth, and since rapid growth more or less equals carbon sequestration, tree farms tend to sequester more carbon dioxide than unmanaged forests.[9] This is in part because younger forests absorb more carbon than older forests and managed woodlands tend to be younger.

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam–Thanks for the link. If you will go to the section entitled “Uncertainties”, you will see this nice tidbit of info:

“Clouds. Clouds have an enormous impact on Earth’s climate, reflecting back into space about one third of the total amount of sunlight that hits the Earth’s atmosphere. As the atmosphere warms, cloud patterns may change, altering the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth. Because clouds are such powerful climate actors, even small changes in average cloud amounts, locations, and type could speed warming, slow it, or even reverse it. Current climate models do not represent cloud physics well, so the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently rated clouds among its highest research priorities. NASA and its research partners in industry, academia, and other nations have a small flotilla of spacecraft and aircraft studying clouds and the closely related phenomenon of aerosols.”

So, is it possible that current climate models may be incomplete??

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay,

“For one thing, the traditional suburban housing model that Cox celebrates is itself a product of government regulation. Those tracts were created by zoning laws that mandated a minimum lot size and prohibited density, neither of which would have happened through economics.”

Yes because the governments didn’t want the blight of high density housing in their communities. They wanted lawns and flowers instead of all rooftops and asphalt. They wanted the improved quality of life that suburban living offered over in-town living.

• Link
• Report this comment

I believe there is global warming but I am still open to how much is a natural cycle and how much is from mankind.

Just curious…..do any of you science buffs know if they are able to determine temps on the moon or Mars and what those temps are doing?

• Link
• Report this comment

Tropical weather in moving north from Florida. That prediction was made before Bookman was born. No big deal.

• Link
• Report this comment

Steve – USA: Let me jump ahead of your questions a little bit and get to your point:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

• Link
• Report this comment

Mimumm building lot size is determined by sewage.

Where there are central potable water and sewer systems, high density is a possibliity that can be controlled by politicians.

Where there is no central sewer, politicanis are over-rode by the Health Department who mandates the lot size determined by the space needed for a septic tank system. It is usually 1/3 acre. With no central water system, the minimum lot size grows substantially due to the required distance between a septic tank drail field and a water well.

• Link
• Report this comment

Gee Jammie, it would appear you’ve already been provided info showing this managed forests absorb more CO2 than old growth. What other BS do you want to float today?

Also, can you provide specifics on which of our states rain forests are being decimated at those rates?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Sea level rise. In its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used new satellite data to conclude that shrinkage of ice sheets may contribute more to sea level rise than it had thought as recently as 2001. The panel concluded that it could not “provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise” over the next century due to their lack of knowledge about Earth’s ice.2 There are 5-6 meters worth of sea level in the Greenland ice sheet, and 6-7 meters in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, while the much larger East Antarctic Ice Sheet is probably not vulnerable to widespread melting in the next century. Many hundreds of millions of people live within that range of sea level increase, so our inability to predict what sea level rise is likely over the next century has substantial human and economic ramifications.”

Key phrases: “May”, “might”, “probably”. Kind of like the old “woulda, coulda, shoulda”.

• Link
• Report this comment

From Astronomy for Kids:

The temperature on the moon varies from -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius), at night, to 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius) during the day.

Because the earth’s moon obviously has no atmosphere this is the surface temperature and is irrelevant vis a vis any discussion of atmospheric temperature changes on earth.

• Link
• Report this comment

The warming is due to the La Nina cycle, which, is becoming more frequent thanks to …[drumroll]… human caused global warming.

• Link
• Report this comment

On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities have increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam@9:56

That was a good read, Thanks. I actually didn’t have a point, I was just wondering.

I actually think the $60,000 question is not if there is global warming but what are the proposed solutions to that problem.

• Link
• Report this comment

help my small brain understand this, Taxpayer.

Let me help your small brain, which apparently doesn’t understand things can have both natural and man-made causes. One does not negate the other. Avalanches, fires, and floods all happen naturally. Does that mean they can’t be caused by human intervention?

If your house is on fire and you see someone running away with a gas can and a lighter, you might suspect it wasn’t a natural cause. Or you would if you had any common sense. If it’s their child, a Republican will promptly blame a bolt of lightning from a blue sky.

• Link
• Report this comment

RB, the problem is worldwide global warming not American warming.

It is PLANETARY in scale.

Jeebus…

Bruno, by the very chart you provided the temperature spike you speak of is not one at all. It took 10,000 years to manifest itself.

• Link
• Report this comment

yaker

I haven’t flown for at least a year now, a most unpleasant experience, thanks for the heads up on baggage charges. I always shoot for the red eye or early bird flight. They took all the glamor out of flight, that’s why no attractive women are getting into it these days…

• Link
• Report this comment

Is it possible that saying it’s just a cycle is an incomplete explanation? Is it possible that explanation is even more incomplete than the rest of climate science?

Adam–I’m not the one on here claiming that climatology is a “settled” Science. That would be Jay, Taxpayer, and AmVet among others. Curiously, none of those three are able to answer direct challenges to their “certainty”.

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam@10:56 “If we can’t agree there is a problem and that humans are the major cause, then we can’t agree on solutions either.”

I disagree.

OK….that was my attempt at blog humor.

• Link
• Report this comment

So how about it, Jay, Taxpayer, and AmVet:

What causes global cooling?? By what mechanism have previous warming trends in history been reversed?? Is there any reason to believe that these homeostatic forces are no longer at work??

• Link
• Report this comment

So, Jammie, it’s not a problem we’re responsible for fixing, right? So why all the hysteria?

• Link
• Report this comment

JohnnyReb
April 9th, 2012
8:01 am

“That would be the Obama energy policy where everyone walks because we can’t afford gasoline, engineers have not beeen able to effectively strap a windmill on the roof of cars, and solar panels only illumiate the interior light.”

May I remind you that Jimmy Carter warned this nation about an upcoming energy issue…and pushed the R&D credit for alternative energy research in the late 70s. At that time, GE was the world’s leader wind wind turbine technology and the solar industry was beginning to grow. When Ronald Reagan came to the White House, Republicans eliminated the alternative energy R&D tax credits. Now, Siemens AG is the industry leader in wind turbine technology and the Chinese have overtaken us in solar tachnology!! This nation could’ve been energy independent over 25 years ago……

kayaker 71
April 9th, 2012
9:06 am

You’ve failed to note that Keystone from Oklahoma to the Gulf has been APPROVED; the Feds haven’t received the environmental impact statement on the northern half…that crosses the Ogalalla Aquifer. That aquifer is the fresh water supply for 10 Midwestern states….and how would an OIL SPILL affect the Midwest??

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno, the other major flaw in your position is using Antarctic ice core readings – as proffered by 12 year old old chart from daviesand – as proof positive of your claim. Climatologists use a vast array of widely different measurements across a wide variety of sources to build the theory that they have.

Nobody yet has come within Hubble range of countermanding it with a superior theory.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yeah and them damn dinosaurs caused the ice ige. Glad THOSE rat bastiches are gone those polluting sumbiches. Look at how many species and forests THAT wiped out……..

• Link
• Report this comment

“We humans now number seven billion — 7,000,000,000 — and our presence has dramatically altered the planet on which we live.’

And we are multiplying at an exponential rate.

How many people can this planet support, and where is the tipping point where our presence actually does affect the planet?

Fossil fuels are finite, so I don’t understand the veracity that wingnuts bring to bear on things like electric cars and solar power. These are National Security issues, wouldn’t we be better off LESS dependent on Mid East Oil? And when is the right time to begin exploring alternatives? Now? Or after we’ve squeezed the last drop of oil and coal out of the ground?

• Link
• Report this comment

Climatologists use a vast array of widely different measurements across a wide variety of sources to build the theory that they have.

Am–Please take a look at Adam’s NASA link. I highlighted several paragraphs above which point to the limitations of those models. Among other things, cloud cover is not accounted for, the carbon cycle is not fully understood, nor is the effect of changing ocean circulation patterns. Can you think for yourself, or are you limited to parroting the party line??

Nobody yet has come within Hubble range of countermanding it with a superior theory.

Buddy, that’s not how Science works. We’re not forced to accept a crappy, unproven theory simply because no one has a better model to replace it yet.

• Link
• Report this comment

We can give tax credits to Wall street, but not companies seeking answers to the fossil fuels issue?

Global Warming is inevitable, it’s cyclical, it’s gonna happen. I just believe that our activities on the planet are helping to accelerate the process, and that’s something that we COULD help to remedy.

• Link
• Report this comment

he sends money to Brazil to enhance their drilling capabilities,

Kayaker, please stop lying.

• Link
• Report this comment

It is still mind numbing that you climate freaks still don’t get it. It’s freaking nature!!!!!!!! There’s absolutely nothing you can do about rising temps or dropping temps for that matter. Pushing alternative fuel is nothing more than a joke and a serious waste of money. I’ll admit that if they worked it would be wonderful but alternative energy is simply not cost efficient enough to be considered….

Now lets get on to more important things like how attrocious Obama has been as President….

• Link
• Report this comment

It is hard to outrun the truth. Plastic surgery, loose clothes, drinking in a closet and hair dye all are the tools of this mind set. Go over to Tech one day and you will see rumbled up old men with no agenda but the truth and the excitement that they can help. It is the reality TV people that won’t face reality until we have either a desert or a ocean front lot in Buckhead. I think we will find this business a bit like the oil prices, we are at the mercy of the rest of the world only more so. Our industrial expansion that brings cheap product to the US also allows for unregulated pollution to the glee of many. We are flying without maps and bound to crash somewhere.

• Link
• Report this comment

“But when it’s unusually cold it’s just weather?”

Not neccessarily. One of the predictions of global climate change is wider swings in extremes. And extremes, in case you don’t know it, exist at BOTH ends of the temperature scale.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s freaking nature!

Joseph, was it just “freaking nature” when this nation experienced its worst ever environmental disaster, aka “the Dust Bowl”?

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay @ 10:27–I have, in fact, read through the link, though the graph speaks for itself. The fact that previous warming trends have reversed themselves is “proof” that homeostatic forces are in play. Do we fully understand these homeostatic forces?? Heck no, but that shouldn’t lead us to deny the obvious.

Looking at your “objection” paragraphs, there seems to be a consistent language pattern: “scientific consensus”, “we could expect”, “we seem to be”, “another possibility”. Somehow, I don’t remember any such language in any of Newton’s formulations. Truth isn’t something that can be voted on, Jay.

• Link
• Report this comment

So, we can pump oil and gas across the country. Why can’t we establish a water pipeline so that when one area is in drought and another in flood status, water can be moved as needed?
Water would not require the oversight and cost of oil and gas.

• Link
• Report this comment

Newton’s theories of gravity were woefully incomplete. Einstein proved him to be mistaken.

Yet they still stood the test of time for nearly 200 years and are the basis of more mature and complete, but still unproven “truths” such as the Theory of General Relativity.

Until ACC is replaced by some such advanced theory, simply saying it has problems and is not correct to your satisfaction is insufficient, given the Scientific Method.

• Link
• Report this comment

I guess Bookman and his ilk are harping about this nonsense becuase of this aritcle????

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/no_global_warming_for_15_years/

• Link
• Report this comment

JamVet@10:35

Credible being the key word. Any scientist who has dared say Global Warming is not man -made is dismissed as not credible. It’s the way debate is conducted in this century. Try to destroy the person who does not agree with you.

As I said I believe there is GW but to say there is no scientists that dispute that fact is absolute BS.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sfd, I still want to know how the lack of insects in these managed forests is making it warm.

if you can point to where I claimed such a thing I’d be much obliged, RB.

• Link
• Report this comment

carlosgvv:

The problem with your theory is that we have lived with irratic weather patterns since the dawn of time. Nothing your saying is new….

• Link
• Report this comment

These posts just prove the latest evidence that the more ignorant or less educated you are, the more you discount science.

Why do people let ignorance or partisan politics ignore scientific reality?

It’s very clear that our climate is drying out and becoming more extreme here in the southeast.

• Link
• Report this comment

CNBC is actually doing a really cool feature all day on converting a vehicle to run on both Natural gas and Gasoline.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s a shame the irresponsible people use the uncertainties of climate science to obfuscate the issue. Carbon dioxide traps heat and increasing levels will trap more heat. It makes no difference if other factors are contributing to warming because increasing levels of CO2 will trap more heat.

DF–You among all people should understand feedback cycles and homeostasis. I would say that not acknowledging the uncertainties in current climate models is at least as irresponsible as using those uncertainties to “obfuscate the issue”.

At no point have I, or anyone I know of, argued in favor of polluting the planet. My personal opinion is that our current level of uncertainty shouldn’t stop us from taking positive stop to clean up the planet, which includes reducing the amount of fossil fuels being burned. But that is very different from accepting junk science as being the truth.

• Link
• Report this comment

Unchanged Bush Policy Alters GSA Spending Today…Spin at 11:00.

• Link
• Report this comment

Wow the highest temperature readings in 83 whole years. I guess that proves it with all that data we are surely going to die and be burned to crisps. Better crank up the coal fired Georgia Power plants to provide the juice to cool us down.

• Link
• Report this comment

In Middle Georgia they are cutting all the hardwood trees and shipping them to China. Since it doesn’t rain enough to grow crops anymore, they are putting in center pivots on every field until they will eventually drain the aquifers dry. They are spraying chemicals on every square inch of farmland that are killing honey bees which pollinate one-third of our food crops. Tell me humans are not altering the environment. Tell me that humans are rational beings.

• Link
• Report this comment

Of course it was becuase the cause was severe drought.

So you think it was because there were a few dry years on the plains? That humans had nothing to do with it?

It’s obvious you know nothing about the dust bowl. Educate yourself, please. Here is a good place to start.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno: To challenge faulty Science, one has to know real Science.

And yet you have presented no “real science” to support your position. Just an old idea that there are “cycles” and that somehow explains it all, and pointing out admitted uncertainties, as though those uncertainties somehow debunk the conclusions being drawn BY THE SAME SCIENTISTS.

Further, you don’t seem interested in actual debate over this. Instead, you just do the above.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Ok Jammie, since you won’t acknowledge you just had your ass handed to you for the BS you posted earlier, I’ll give you a chance to redeem yourself. What exactly are you and/ or the lefties here proposing we do about these rain forests that aren’t in our country but are causing it to be warm in Georgia in spring? That we aren’t already doing….”

There’s really not a whole lot we CAN do.

I support alternatives for when we run out of oil, it should be at the top of the list.

A byproduct can be, and hopefully will be a slow down of greenhouse gas emissions which should help some.

Fewer gas cars and more coal plants might be a better balance, especially with cleaner emissions technologies for both.

So, yeah I understand we that today if you plug in your electric car to charge, your still relying on fossil fuel fired electrical generators, and your electric car and all the others out there won’t even put a dent in single percentage point of the number of gasoline powered vehicles. But imagine a world FULL of solar panels and electric cars… There has to be a first step somewhere/sometime.

Time’s running out, not because things are getting warmer, but because oil’s getting scarcer.

Imagine our world, right here right now, running out of gas. Everything stops.

Why does that thought offend some of you so much?

• Link
• Report this comment

At no point have I, or anyone I know of, argued in favor of polluting the planet. My personal opinion is that our current level of uncertainty shouldn’t stop us from taking positive stop to clean up the planet, which includes reducing the amount of fossil fuels being burned. But that is very different from accepting junk science as being the truth.

And there ladies is the bottom line. Yet the left can’t live with THAT because it doesn’t cast blame solely on “evil man.”

And so Jay will dust off his evil global warming scare mongering article, update it and trot it back out. What’s it been 2 or 3 weeks since the last one? Maybe a month? And the rabid leftists will pounce upon anyone who doesn’t fall lockstep into their druidic views and try to rip them to pieces.

Worship mother earth, kill the humans…………

it is amusing to watch occasionally though I will grant you that. Especially Jay’s little mantra about the 100’s of species we evil men have annihilated, the “rain forests” we have denuded (anyone else remember when they were just called jungles? But who wants to save a jungle right?), and so on.

As I posted earlier, I’m glad those evil dinosaurs who caused the ice age which denuded forests and wiped out thousands of species paid for their sins…………….

Anyone got popcorn?

• Link
• Report this comment

Funny, this shows that we had several all time highs almost 100 years ago…

http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USGA0028

• Link
• Report this comment

Worship mother earth, kill the humans…

You guys have very vivid imaginations, I’ll give you that much.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno: Truth isn’t something that can be voted on, Jay.

Adam: A third, and another completely separate point. Who said anything about voting?

Adam–The basis for accepting a Scientific Theory as being “correct” is agreement with experimental data. In the case of climatology, that’s basically not possible, since we can’t do large-scale “experiments” on Earth. As such, we have to rely on computer models which were created by humans. You, of all people, should realize that computer models are only as reliable as the programmers who create them. Our current climatology computer models have been shown to be woefully inadequate, as your own NASA link detailed. As such, we are forced to “vote” whether we believe in these models, which is what scientific “consensus” is all about.

If you wish to substitute belief for fact, that is your choice. If you choose to do so, you will have a lot of company on this blog.

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam – Realizing I’m a little late to this discussion, I’ll ask again if you’ve been able to find the actual science (data and whatnot) behind the article you continually post when the discussion turns to this topic. I read the article, and all it says is that they want me to accept that these are the conclusions I’m supposed to draw from research they don’t want to show me (for whatever reason). If I had some data to back it up, I would be more willing to accept the conclusions drawn by the article. I recently read, maybe over the weekend, maybe last week, an article saying that the increase in global temperatures throughout history caused increases in CO2 levels everywhere except at the pole(s). As it wasn’t backed up by sources for its conclusions, I didn’t bookmark it to share every time someone told me I have to accept something that hasn’t conclusively been proven to date. I hold the same standards for everything I’m told/read because I don’t like accepting other’s conclusions to complex problems if I can do the research myself, or look at what they used for research. Realizing, that this is going pretty much nowhere, I’ll end it by simply asking, do you have the source material? Or is it still just the article?

• Link
• Report this comment

99% of the worlds scientists said so

Cite please.

• Link
• Report this comment

Certainly Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will recommend we spend 4 or 5 trillion studying this since they can’t do anything about it. Something like National Weather Care for All (NWCFA) with a mandate that we must have Weather Insurance or be subjected to a fine. How about sending all these lovers of socialist big government programs to France where they will be happy? That would reduce the temperature in the U. S., by at least 3 % due to the hot air escaping (according to the Pelosi study) . The population reduction would also reduce the amount of water consumed by 1% (the socialist left don’t take many bathes) according to the Harry Reid study. According to the 50 billion dollar 3 year study initiated under the Oblama regime removing the socialists would reduce toxins from the air and our ozone index would improve by 2 %. Oh, I forgot, these studies have been classified as top secret due to the fact that all socialists vote for Oblama.

• Link
• Report this comment

sfd – Most everybody in Europe said so at that time. Whether that was because there was a high likely hood they would be killed as a heretic for saying otherwise, or they didn’t have data suggesting otherwise is a different matter.

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam – The one you’ve been posting for months, saying that it is real and it is my fault (using the collective “my” there, I deny all blame for anything I haven’t actually done).

• Link
• Report this comment

Funny comment……Certainly Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will recommend we spend 4 or 5 trillion studying this since they can’t do anything about it.

Of course spending 3 Trillion on a made up War works for the GOP.

Ethics.. another word the GOP can’t spell or stand…..Georgia absolutely LAST in the US Ethically… but those gifts keep piling up for those running the state.

Of course Georgia is bad in unemployment, because the GOP KNOWS HOW TO CREATE JOBS !

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno: Do you understand the difference between scientific consensus and a layperson’s idea of what consensus means?

Adam: I was first in my class:

http://www.hmc.edu/

What is your background??

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam – You had posted an article, I want to say the first time was in January, from NASA stating that global warming was proven to be man’s fault. Yet, nowhere in the article did it list their references, source material or provide a link to the study they were writing about. Going to a government propaganda website (no matter how you try to spin it, that is essentially what the previous link is, and I say that realizing the crap I’m likely to catch from those on here who can’t see that) isn’t what I was looking for. I’m looking for the hard data. That website, at least at first, casual glance isn’t providing what I’m looking for.

• Link
• Report this comment

Just as Mitt Romney was making the case that the so-called Republican war on women is entirely concocted by Democrats, Republican Scott Walker was quietly signing a law that repealed Wisconsin’s Equal Pay Enforcement law, which made it easier for women to seek damages in discrimination cases.
salon.com

• Link
• Report this comment

“Didn’t they use a similar “argument” to “prove” the world was flat? 99% of the worlds scientists said so, so it WAS so”

Maybe 99% of the population “knew” the earth was flat…quite a few scientists of that time knew it was not.

• Link
• Report this comment

oblama – “Global warming will cause an ice age? So what’s the problem? We won’t be warm anymore.”

Geebus, you folks in Atlanta barely survived 1 week of ice and below freezing temps. Can’t imagine the clown show down there if you had to live with it long term. Maybe we could sell tickets so people could visit the frozen wasteland once known as Atlanta.

• Link
• Report this comment

(ir)Rational: I could not find the data for that article either, but the site that I posted from NASA has several references and cites. I can look harder if you like but it sounds like you have had little success on that front. I may have to get back to you and actually put this on my todo list.

• Link
• Report this comment

Peter

April 9th, 2012
10:56 am

Keep cutting down all the trees…… We need new parking lots…… we need more hi rise buildings….

There is no global warming…. SURE!

___________________________________________

Guess food companies will soon be developing ways for us, suckers, to digest concrete etc!!

• Link
• Report this comment

So the Repubs (Bush) did something stupid spending billions on an unnecessary war and now it’s the Dems turn to be stupid? Good logic on your part.

• Link
• Report this comment

The gop chose profits over the planet.

What could go wrong?

• Link
• Report this comment

The last 50 years of the Earth’s climate is the equivalent of a sparrow fart in the middle of a hurricane.

Nice attempted diversion Jay…let’s discuss unemployment, the deficit, gas prices, intimidating the Supreme Court, Iran’s nukes, or something a bit more relevant.

• Link
• Report this comment

A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

• Link
• Report this comment

Several subsequent studies confirm that “…the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

• Link
• Report this comment

American GOP = where America’s “primacy of the individual” ethos comes into violent contact with the community ethos of Christianity.

No wonder there is sooooo much confusion in the GOP voter.

• Link
• Report this comment

Did someone inquire about the state of climate modeling. Here’s a little primer for ya.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay’s 11:33

Well one would hope that a model backward engineered based on the past would accurately predict the past

Forget the stupid models. CO2 is a gas. A greenhouse gas. It traps heat. More heat is bad. My AC bill is already too high.

Use natural gas and nuclear to produce less CO2, improve the economy, have cheap electricity, and to fight the crackpot Arabs.

• Link
• Report this comment

are the same climate models built like the same models that for mortgage-backed-securities?

• Link
• Report this comment

“why was it so warm back then and in other times in Earth’s history………….. in other words WHAT ARE OTHER FACTORS THAT CAUSE WARMING”

I suggest you do some self-education on the issue of prehistoric CO2 levels.

• Link
• Report this comment

PBS did a Nova episode on the fact that in times in Earth’s history, ANTARCTICA has been a warm tropical place………. without man-made CO2………………

Umm, wasn’t that during the carboniferous period?

• Link
• Report this comment

http://www.lomborg.com/

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam – Yeah, I was kinda hoping you could provide me with something I hadn’t been able to find yet. But thanks for trying.

In an attempt to end some of the ridiculous debate that continues for no reason other than people have pre-conceived notions about how others think and are going to react to certain information. I would like some people to answer a question honestly, and only answer it about YOUR OWN PERSONAL beliefs and thoughts. Not how you think others will answer, and not how you think others expect you to answer.

Who thinks that we should try and find alternatives to getting a large amount of our energy from fossil fuels for any reason at all? Be that reason economics, national security, or global warming? – My answer is that we should be exploring other methods.

• Link
• Report this comment

doggone
so you are saying that rising CO2 levels are not ALL ENTIRELY the result of MAN-MADE sources?

• Link
• Report this comment

Since the early to mid-’80s, climate experts have been warning that increased greenhouse gases were going to drive warmer temperatures. That is an “if X, then Y” statement. We have increased greenhouse gases? And what have the subsequent 25 years produced?

Nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000.

Great. And I personally hypothesized that if I ate beans and farted more over the last 10 year period my infant daughter would grow and be able to walk and talk. It happened. WOO HOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was right.

There is a little more to science than suggesting something and a possible outcome and proving the outcome was a RESULT of the hypothesis.

What YOU fail to acknowledge Jay is that the earth is warming DESPITE what we do.

Finally, if Bruno wishes to cite his Harvey Mudd degree as evidence, it seems fair to note that Harvey Mudd College has publicly committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions as part of its contribution to what its leadership clearly sees as a major challenge.

BFD. What’s your damn point? BRUNO by his own statement is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Your whole chicken little the sky os falling leftist routine is pretty stupid. You attempt to use science with no knowledge apparently of how it is used, ESPECIALLY in meteorology. We are talking trends that last not just 100’s or 1,000’s of years, but 10’s of thousand and longer. We as humans have had the ability to understand it for what? a mere couple of 100 years?

The only “argument” here is between you idiots who pretend you know everything and us smart people who understand that we DON’T know much of anything but are willing to learn and understand. Progress with open minds.

The difference is those of us who look at Global warming as a scientific phenomenon to try to understand and adapt to and those of you who look at it as some sort of political issue that you can “fix” with some wild ass regressive policies. China is laughing at you and thanking you all at the same time.

• Link
• Report this comment

(ir)Rational: We should be exploring other methods way more than we are, and subsidies should be provided. The economic benefits are pretty good, seeing as any “unproven” technology that is developed into a “proven” technology ends up being the underpinning of our entire economic structure, based on past history. As for national security, it would help with that too, allowing us to “beat” the Chinese to this. Then there’s global warming – if the U.S. proves that solar and other technologies that drastically reduce fossil fuel dependency can and do work, and end up being cheaper over the long haul, it won’t take long for governments that don’t take as much time to quibble as we do to pick up on this and change their own economic structures. And suddenly oil is no longer the driving commodity.

That’s my take, anyway, and it’s all 100% opinion, for anyone looking at my posts specifically to jump on me not having data or something.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fred: There is a little more to science than suggesting something and a possible outcome and proving the outcome was a RESULT of the hypothesis.

That is not even close to true dude. Shame on you.

• Link
• Report this comment

Some polluters say it’s
o.k.
Some polluters say
it’s not o.k.
Both continue
polluting.

• Link
• Report this comment

global warming= giving the federal gov’t more of it’s citizens’ money to the federal gov’t can spend it as it pleases to buy votes….

global warming is a complete and total fraud if you ask me!

• Link
• Report this comment

” intimidating the Supreme Court”

This is an excuse to blame Obama when the SC rules to uphold Obamacare.

• Link
• Report this comment

Most everybody in Europe said so at that time.

AFAIK, the prevailing assumption about the planet by the ancient Greeks from 4-5th century BCE-onward was that the planet was spherical.

As for this “heresy” business you bring up, I think you’re confusing “flat earth” with earth- vs. helio-centric views which could, indeed, cause one to get into trouble with the theocrats in charge; see also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Religious_attitudes_to_heliocentrism

• Link
• Report this comment

This could be the reason behind the polar bears losing their fur. But on second thought, it’s George Bush’s fault.

• Link
• Report this comment

And corn will not reproduce at a temperature over 95º.

• Link
• Report this comment

besides, if the gov’t was really concerned they wouldn’t come up with such a stupid solution as cap and trade to resolve this “global warming” crisis. the taxes that are placed on manufacturer’s and energy producers will price those who make 30,000 or less as a family unit practically into poverty! what kind of solution is that?

besides the gov’t just could raise emission standards and say to energy providers and manufacturers to lower carbon emissions….

but instead, they want to place a tax on carbon use and scalp it’s citizens.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno, how can you maintain that the carbon cycle is maintaining homeostasis when the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have been increasing for decades?

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

• Link
• Report this comment

besides, the gov’ts plan to tax carbon use will only hurt family’s that earn less than 30,000 a year driving them to poverty!

if the gov’t was that concerned with driving down carbon emissions they could just regulate how much carbon is emmitted.

instead they would rather scalp it’s citizens with a carbon tax.

• Link
• Report this comment

285 should become a
parking lot.

• Link
• Report this comment

There’s no use in arguing with a liberal about climate change. It’s their religion.

• Link
• Report this comment

Smart move Jay – a little Bait and Switch. Let’s see – should today’s topic be $4 gas going to $10 or climate change? Which would be better fort the Dems and Oblama. Certainly not $4 gas. It’s NO surprise that Jay never goes in to a subject that would be a disaster for the Dems. His job is to disparage the OTHER side. The fact is that this election is about #1) the economy #2) jobs and #3) the reduction of the Fed debt. It’s not about class warfare, sex warfare or race warfare – the true OblamaNation plan to get Oblama reelected. The economy effects everyone regardless of race, sex or class. The lack of true job growth (not gov-t created temp jobs) effects all races, sexes. etc. This alarming Fed debt, increasing every second, effects all of us. Oblama and the socialist left may have fooled some of the people in the last election but he won’t bait and switch his way out of this one. Wake Up America.

• Link
• Report this comment

Show me their data and experiments there sport. Otherwise, hush

A lot of it is right there on their website.

And what is NASA doing wasting my tax money on global warming? They are supposed to be getting into SPACE.

Much of the instruments used by NASA are instruments that help aid in the discovery of the scientific data we need to determine climate science. And, as it happens, many of those instruments are in space. Also, NASA is not JUST about being in or going to space. They are Research AND development.

How about you quote some studies by people who are actually trained in this stuff?

Some of them would be the aforementioned NASA. They have climate scientists. I’m not lying about that.

Just damn. Far leftists and their “logic”

This would be an example of NOT being scientific. You have come to a conclusion, based on mostly nothing, that I am “far left,” as well as a conclusion that anything someone from the “far left” says must not be accurate at any time. If this is what is passing for logic for you lately, first I would like to say I am surprised. And second, I suggest a second look at your “hypothesis,” if you want to call it that, about me and about what you have concluded wholesale as a result.

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam — “What actually happens is what is that a hypothesis is presented, and then the scientists set out to DISPROVE it. They use many methods to do so, and if it is disproven it is no longer considered a valid hypothesis. Then, available data and other factors go into creating a new hypothesis, which is then tested too.”

Well said, Adam. This is absolutely true, and it’s something that many people just don’t understand. Scientists don’t go into research with an *agenda* that they hope to support with their study — they approach research with a working hypothesis (e.g. ‘based on the data I have and others in my field have, this is what I think is happening) and they try to develop and execute experiments that will *refute* the hypothesis. If scientists can refute a hypothesis, then they go back, consider their experimental results, reformulate a hypothesis (taking into consideration the new findings they have) and do the same thing all over again.

I grew up with a scientist for a father, and I’ve been around laboratories since I was in short pants. Scientists aren’t big into agendas, but they get real excited over new findings that can impact their research.

• Link
• Report this comment

doggone
how can you claim that a collection of centuries of data can be formulated into a CORRECT model of millions of years of climate with only 100 years of MAN-MADE CO2?

there is not enough data to make that point

• Link
• Report this comment

As I’ve said countless times before, there is no debate regarding climate change. The wingnuts just think there is because they can write on a blog.

• Link
• Report this comment

There’s no use in irrationally arguing with a liberal non-Republican about climate change. It’s their religion peer reviewed, universally accepted science.

Juan Mo Time.

There is NO group outside of the Republican Party -excluding some equally uninformed, liberal hating “libertarians” – that pitches such a juvenile hissy fit over this topic.

Not even the Moozlims.

That is how out of touch with the scientific world that the Heartland Institute gang is.

• Link
• Report this comment

global warming alarmists would be much better served to make arguement for alternative energy sources on a more financial security stand

all americans would agree that it makes more sense for america to generate 100% of our own energy needs and to stop sending our money to other parts of the world that we end up spending more money to ensure security of the energy we are importing

• Link
• Report this comment

Fred: If I have a free weekend, and I can avoid Atlanta traffic jams, I am so there! OOOOO!

• Link
• Report this comment

That NASA has taken such a leadership position on this topic is testament to how the best of the best of the best of the scientific community is promoting education and knowledge of this subject.

Obviously because of their unique talent and resources they are in a VERY advantageous position to study global phenomena. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (groan) to see that they are helping find answers to these questions.

That that pisses off the neocons is just icing on the cake…

• Link
• Report this comment

joe hussein

scientists aren’t big into agenda’s…….. give me a break
there is a CLIMATE CHANGE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX that is telling us its the end of the world and that we need to send them money to help save it because only they can do it

just like the OIL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX says we cant switch off oil because the economy would collapse and it would be the end of the world

every group has an agenda

• Link
• Report this comment

jm,
I want all those parkers
to get out of their cars
and walk to work.

• Link
• Report this comment

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (groan) to see that they are helping find answers to these questions.

• Link
• Report this comment

godless – I grew up with a great cook too, but it rubbed off on me. I just have problems making sure my fingers aren’t in the way of the knife on occasion. I blame the lighting in my kitchen, but the Mrs. thinks that is just an excuse to get her to help.

• Link
• Report this comment

CLIMATE CHANGE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

Too funny.

This bizarre science-averse intransigence is humorous, only because the anti-environmentalists and fake conservatives in the GOP are impotent to stop the truth from steamrolling them, like Darwin did…

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam – I’m not positive that they’re on display somewhere, but I would imagine they are. Depending on when the last time the schools participated in the event, they could still be on campus. Ours stayed at Tech for a year I think after the competition.

• Link
• Report this comment

something can be 100% logical and 100% false at the same time”

and that is the entire basis for what is know today as evidenced based medicine.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’ll second that motion Adam. Y’all have fun arguing something that you’re not going to agree on.

• Link
• Report this comment

If this debate were a Georgia Tech football score, it would be Science – 222, Republicans – 0.

• Link
• Report this comment

What is willard’s position on global warming?

• Link
• Report this comment

What is willard’s position on global warming?

Probably about the same as Obama’s on unemployment….doesn’t really think about it.

• Link
• Report this comment

(ir)Rational — “that was long enough ago that I can’t remember what it was about. I want to say it was something dealing with numbers about something though.”

Yes, our paths did not cross last week. I didn’t come in until late in the week, and I presume you and the wife took a couple of days off to do something for Easter.

I think you’re right about it being about numbers, but I can’t recall what specific numbers I was going to get for you. If you do remember, though, sing out and I’ll go find them.

• Link
• Report this comment

timbo

I’m do not know what the avg temp in winter is for Anchorage, however I’m sure it is below freezing. If the avg were to go up .5 degress and and the avg was still below freezing… wouldn’t it still snow even with an increased avg?

Along with that; what well known scientist that adheres to the global warming theory stated it wasn’t going to snow in Alaska?

Without getting into science that is admittedly above my brains pay grade, if I’m not mistaken, many scientists have stated that weather and climate fluctuations could even become more extreme, however there would be a gradual warming trend….

It is comical to see people avoid the overall warming issues and pick isolated areas……….

“What you say about that snow on Mt Everest, uh? you global warmers….. We wont even talk about that blizzard they had last week at the North Pole”

hahahahahaha

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife

It’s Monday, so he will be deny it – tomorrow he will say it’s real.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bernie, if I was a non-Huntsman Republican, I too would be praying that no one ever brought this topic up again. Other than Darwin, there is nothing else that exposes the massive ignorance and sheer foolishness of the GOP vis a vis the uncomfortable subject of science.

• Link
• Report this comment

One con knows their candidate’s position on global warming?

Come on cons.

What is willard’s position.?

• Link
• Report this comment

Question for those who are “on the fence” on climate change (trying to cast a wide net here).

Is it because:
1) You question the data – all those scientists got something wrong
2) You see the data, but think humans don’t do much to affect it.
3) Humans DO affect it, but we just can’t do anything about it.
4) Humans DO affect it, and we can take steps to change it, but it’s just too costly / bad for business.

Thanks for any responses to this inquiry.

• Link
• Report this comment

joe
first you are insulting me by implying i am a republican…… that shows your ignorance

second, your solutions are ignorant, solar cannot replace oil AT THIS TIME…….. you have to transition into new technologies and your lack of intelligence will not allow you to understand that transitional technologies must be used……… ligthbulbs will not solve the problem nor will energy efficiency alone, they are great PARTS of the strategy but are not TRANSITIONAL energy solutions

commercial electricity production
vehicle energy production

are the 2 main areas that have to be transitioned

• Link
• Report this comment

First of all, the main two tests of a theory are: Does it explain reality? Does anything in reality contradict it? Experimentation is merely one means of testing a theory. Observation is another.

In a word, Jay, you’re wrong. If we are limited to observation only, then the difference between correlation can never be established. There are many famous “false correlations” throughout our history:

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

“In a widely-studied example, numerous epidemiological studies showed that women who were taking combined hormone replacement therapy (HRT) also had a lower-than-average incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), leading doctors to propose that HRT was protective against CHD. But randomized controlled trials showed that HRT caused a small but statistically significant increase in risk of CHD. Re-analysis of the data from the epidemiological studies showed that women undertaking HRT were more likely to be from higher socio-economic groups (ABC1), with better than average diet and exercise regimens. The use of HRT and decreased incidence of coronary heart disease were coincident effects of a common cause (i.e. the benefits associated with a higher socioeconomic status), rather than cause and effect as had been supposed.[3]“

• Link
• Report this comment

“We wont even talk about that blizzard they had last week at the North Pole”

Niiice.

Ask our Rick Perry School of Global Coolers about the famous glaciers on Kilimanjaro.

Is Mitt Romney tweaking his position on global warming?

“I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course,” Romney said at a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire. “But I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that.”

Flip.

Flop.

• Link
• Report this comment

And of course Jay neglects to mention that while we experienced a warmer than usual year that Europe experienced an incredibly harsh winter with several towns throughout Europe reporting alltime record lows. So i guess its global warming this year in North America and global cooling over in Europe this year.

• Link
• Report this comment

Forty years ago the new age, anti-environmental foot draggers said the exact same crap about Carter’s admonitions then to start changing our ways.

We can’t afford it, there is no need, it’s a vast left wing conspiracy, blah, blah, blah…

To the point where the then King of Poison Enablers took the solar panels off of the White House roof…

They love them Saudis, they do…

• Link
• Report this comment

Sfd, if it makes you feel better to pretend Jay didn’t really mean anything with that “obliterated entire forests” comment, you go right ahead.

If it makes you feel better to think you can read minds, and that you know what Jay “really means,” you go right ahead too, RB.

• Link
• Report this comment

So, it does not matter if you believe the scientists or not.

What matters is our President has always stood with the scientists and willard flip flops on all the issues.

You don’t know what your candidate stands for cons.

• Link
• Report this comment

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.

And thus the possible explanation for record snowfalls, rain amounts, etc at the same time that other parts of the globes are setting record high temperatures, droughts, etc.

That has been known since before that 2006 National Geographic article sourced above…

• Link
• Report this comment

Willard was for it before he was against it………………. Even if you are voting for him, you have to know that was much more about the base than it was about science of any kind……..

Well maybe political science played a role in is change from believer to denier

• Link
• Report this comment

HIPPOCRIT — “joe first you are insulting me by implying i am a republican…… that shows your ignorance”

Then remedy your own ignorance by recognizing that we’ve been *making* the argument you’re advocating.

“second, your solutions are ignorant, solar cannot replace oil AT THIS TIME…”

Fail on your part. It’s not necessary to come up with *one* energy source to replace overseas petroleum; there’s no reason why multiple methods can’t do it. There’s no reason we can’t squeeze out 10% of our energy needs from solar, 10% from wind, 10% from additional nuclear and save 10% via increased efficiencies. Cutting our energy imports by 40% in ten years would be an excellent start, and there’s no reason we can’t do that even with the technology we have today.

“….. you have to transition into new technologies and your lack of intelligence will not allow you to understand that transitional technologies must be used…”

Before you deride my intelligence, you need to smarten up yourself and figure out what I’m talking about first. You’re no mindreader, and you have no idea where I stand on this.

“…… ligthbulbs will not solve the problem nor will energy efficiency alone”

And you’ll notice that I didn’t SAY “alone.”

See above where I speak of multiple methods.

“, they are great PARTS of the strategy”

Which is exactly my point. Bring the jerking of your leg under control, engage me in conversation like an adult and stop being an ignorant jackass.

“but are not TRANSITIONAL energy solutions”

They certainly are. Increased efficiency and conservation are absolutely transitional solutions, as they would permit us to *decrease* foreign energy imports as we scale up alternative generation capabilities.

“commercial electricity production”
“vehicle energy production”
“are the 2 main areas that have to be transitioned”

I agree, but IMO commercial electricity production is the low-hanging fruit; easier to achieve. Transmission lines don’t care how the power they carry gets generated, but converting — for example — to a natural-gas vehicle fleet would be a tremendous infrastructure project, requiring changing or replacing every gas station in the country. Addressing commercial electricity production first is the wisest TRANSITIONAL move IMO.

• Link
• Report this comment

really?, a warm spring!
I must be Man-made Global Climate Change!
and yet the Reps are labeled “fear mongers”…go figure

• Link
• Report this comment

Finally, if Bruno wishes to cite his Harvey Mudd degree as evidence, it seems fair to note that Harvey Mudd College has publicly committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions as its contribution to what its leadership clearly sees as a major challenge.

The only reason for the HMC citation is to satisfy Adam’s demand for qualifications. As you know, I don’t favor Appeals to Authority, and prefer for the facts to stand on their own merit. Unfortunately, there are several dense people on your site who ONLY understand Appeal to Authority. Otherwise my time wouldn’t be wasted here addressing claims that a “consensus” of Scientists believe a certain way.

As per the current state of affairs at HMC, the election of Maria Klawe signaled an unfortunate shift from the search for truth to the fulfillment of sociological goals that she set. Among them is her quest to make the HMC student body 50% female. Never mind the fact that few women are interested in a career in Science, and never mind the fact that men consistently score higher on math and science tests than women.

• Link
• Report this comment

HIPPOCRIT — “joe hussein scientists aren’t big into agenda’s…….. give me a break
there is a CLIMATE CHANGE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX that is telling us its the end of the world and that we need to send them money to help save it because only they can do it”

Yawn. And the Gnomes of Zurich are running barefoot through your bank accounts.

Sell your fever dream nonsense elsewhere.

• Link
• Report this comment

The melting of the snowcap at Kiliminjaro has to do with sublimation. It has nothing to do with global warming.

There is a huge debate on the reasons but to assert that is A and has nothing to do with B is incorrect.

This article details that debate.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1934203,00.html

• Link
• Report this comment

the ridiculous debate that continues for no reason other than people have pre-conceived notions about how others think and are going to react to certain information.

You know, Irrational, I think you’ve pretty well characterized the Lib mindset on this blog. The “preconceived notions’ meme permeates virtually every Lib post today. Rather than focusing on the (obvious) uncertainties contained in the current computer models, we’re treated to insult after insult toward anyone who dares think on their own.

• Link
• Report this comment

To all those who deny man has anything to do with climate change — how about you go sit in a garage with your car running for a few hours and then come back and tell us how it had no impact on your ability to breathe.

• Link
• Report this comment

TD

back off the BS……

Thanks for the science class. You have no post from me stating that C02 isn’t in the air and much of it naturally……..

You love to play this larger than life persona when C02 is brought up………………

Scientists are stating all the additional C02 put into the air……..

You believe it, I know is another story…… but lets stop with the grandiose BS and kyperbole…….. You are better than that………. most of the time

• Link
• Report this comment

JamVet,

No. I don’t think there is much debate over what has caused the snow melt of kiliminjaro. And I don’t think it ever gets above freezing at 20,000 feet. So if that is true then how pray tell does all that ice melt? As I understand it it melts from rainfall mixing with mud and sediment and hence the process of sublimation then takes place where the snow turns into gas.

And I can tell you from personal experience from climbing only an 8,000 foot peak in Central America near the equator that at 8,000 feet its cold as hell. And even if it did ever get above 32 degrees it wouldn’t be for long and the lag time again between the freezing and refreezing of the cone would take thousands of years if not hundreds. The global warming melting the cone crap from Gore is utter and complete nonsense.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno, how can you maintain that the carbon cycle is maintaining homeostasis when the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have been increasing for decades?

DF–I never stated that we are in a state of homeostasis right now. And your earlier point that even homeostatic forces can be overwhelmed at some point still stands. However, (and a HUGE however), none of these homeostatic forces are built into the computer models which we’re now using by NASA’s own admission.

I don’t know all of the answers regarding Global Warming, but neither does anyone else. That’s all I’m saying. I’m also saying that we should continue all reasonable efforts to live more “naturally”. As such, I’m not recommending a radically different course of action from even the strongest of AGW supporters. My main difference is simply in applying the same standards of truth to climatology as I would to any other branch of Science. Unfortunately, it appears that politics have overcome any search for truth at this point.

• Link
• Report this comment

When even the Pentagon acknowledges the mountain of anthropogenic climate change science, you deniers are really, truly and utterly on your own.

A 2010 Defense Department review identified climate change and energy security as “prominent military vulnerabilities,” noting that climate change in particular is an “accelerant of instability and conflict.” It was the first time the Pentagon addressed climate in a comprehensive planning document.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/us-military-sees-a-threat-in-global-warming

• Link
• Report this comment

So if that is true then how pray tell does all that ice melt?

My understanding is that it is for the same reasons that the planet’s two largest ice sheets – the Antarctic and Greenland sheets – are melting at such alarming rates.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Scientists are stating all the additional C02 put into the air……..”

TBS,

Respectfully I think you need to back off on the BS. The CO2 being put into the air via man made activities is a small component of CO2 levels. That is a fact sir. And the reality is that while the majority of scientists believe that man made activities have some effect on the environment the majority admit that they don’t know how much of an effect it is. In other words while they think it has an effect they don’t know to what degree and how much.

Now I did see from Roy Spencer from NASA on CSPAN – you know the guy who actually measured atmospheric surface temps for NASA for 20 years, state that even if we adopted all of the reduced emissions today that the radical environmentalists want that at most the reduced emissions would probably affect global temps by a few hundredths of one stinking degree.

Now do you want to reduce our economic output by enormous amounts to change the climate by a few hundredths of one degree?

• Link
• Report this comment

Of course there is consensus amongst those that matter. Certainly not the deniers though. Because they have their minds made up before the discussion even begins.

• Link
• Report this comment

and Hussein proves my point again

liberal playbook #86a

when challenged revert back to #86 again and again until your opponent crawls away in defeat (i.e. you once again cannot provide intellegence so stay in the mud to equalize your disadvantage.)

• Link
• Report this comment

“Now do you want to reduce our economic output by enormous amounts to change the climate by a few hundredths of one degree?”

The republicans already reduced our output by shipping all of our jobs overseas.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thulsa: The CO2 being put into the air via man made activities is a small component of CO2 levels.

Incorrect, or at the very least, misleading.

See, the problem here is not that man puts out less CO2 than, say, a volcano. T he problem is that man’s activities cause EXTRA CO2. And that extra amount has caused the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to rise dramatically without any comparable offset. In addition, scientists have already concluded that CO2 levels have an effect on climate, of the warming variety, when there’s more of it.

• Link
• Report this comment

HIPPOCRIT — “and Hussein proves my point again”

You mean the point atop your head?

Look, HIPPO, you leapt to a bunch of unwarranted and incorrect conclusions about my position and ran with them. You *started out* by calling *me* ignorant, and now you’re bleating and playing the wounded party? Grow up, son.

Once again, our positions are a *lot* closer than you seem to want to admit, and despite your rude start with me, I’m still willing to talk things out with you. Calm down and grow up, and then we can talk like adults.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sunday 27 April 2008

William Anderson, an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, said the project aimed to calculate the overall carbon footprint of the world’s energy sources, rather than merely measure their direct emissions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/28/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange

Time to hang it up deniers, you are WAY behind the curve and falling farther and farther back every day…

• Link
• Report this comment

“And the reality is that while the majority of scientists believe that man made activities have some effect on the environment the majority admit that they don’t know how much of an effect it is. In other words while they think it has an effect they don’t know to what degree and how much. ”

Did I say different? if you quit selective reading as you are prone to do at times, you would see I mentioned to some degree or another

So we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue

No big deal

heck even your boy Romney believed in it, until he had to face the base

Newt the same

Bush held off I believe until his 2nd term (he couldn’t run again) and he too admitted there was an impact………..

So be my guest and stay with the base………. time will tell one way or another

• Link
• Report this comment

JamVet,

North American ice sheets are melting? Yes. But at the same time the ice sheet in Antarctica is growing? Likewise just as we are experiencing an unusally warm year here Europe experienced an unusally harsh winter with several towns reporting alltime low temps as I pointed out earlier.

Global temps and the global climate has been changing since the dawn of time. To say emphaticallly that mankind is dramatically changing the climate as the alarmists are claiming is simply foolish. We can’t even predict the weather accurately one week out and yet people think we can predict it 50-100 years out. It truly is nothing short of astonishing that people believe these things.

We’ve been keeping records for a couple hundred years only which is a millisecond on the geologic time scale. To insinuate that we know enough about climate change to prove its man made to a good degree of certainty with a couple of hundred years of data when the climate has been radically changing for billions of years all by itself is nothing short of mind boggling.

http://www.countercurrents.org/burbeck100108.htm

• Link
• Report this comment

MEETING

• Link
• Report this comment

media matters, valerie jarret the oval office…………anything to say leftist bookman? democrat admitting the white house/ leftist media made up war on women is just that, made up? anything…….the left is in deep doo-doo………fun

• Link
• Report this comment

Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.

• Link
• Report this comment

Unless…all of the doomsayers are a bunch of hypocrites.

One of the more stupid ad hominems and illogical fallacies posted here. And done so much too often.

The Tu quoque fallacy…

• Link
• Report this comment

But at the same time the ice sheet in Antarctica is growing?

No. It is shrinking.

Rapidly.

Recent images taken by the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Envisat satellite show that an Antarctic ice shelf is less than 15 percent of its size 17 years ago.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-06/news/31298067_1_ice-shelves-ice-shelf-antarctic-ice-sheet

• Link
• Report this comment

Jam,

You don’t think the military would overstate a threat in order for obtain additional funding do you?

• Link
• Report this comment

I was basically asking him does he know if C02 was the only thing studied or were numerous potential causes studied and C02 came out as major factor……..

TBS–Sorry I didn’t respond directly, but the answer to your question is contained in my 12:49 post. Adam put a link up earlier to a NASA website which discusses the nature of the computer models which are being used to support AGW. From my reading, there are glaring holes in these computer models, since they don’t account for many factors which affect our climate.

• Link
• Report this comment

godless

So the US military, NASA, scientist at numerous think tanks, university scientists, scientists around the world working for government, profit, non profit are in on this GW secret?

• Link
• Report this comment

Bruno @ 1:35

Thanks for your reply. Hope PB and yourself had a great weekend. Have a report I need to finish up for a client. Have to run.

Be back in a few hours

• Link
• Report this comment

From my reading, there are glaring holes in these computer models, since they don’t account for many factors which affect our climate.

Scientists prefer to deal with specifics over vagaries.

• Link
• Report this comment

Carbon Dioxide from burning of fossil fuel actually has a unique “finger print”.

• Link
• Report this comment

jaylo’.
why would a political party not want people to have to provide an ID to prove who they are when they vote?

• Link
• Report this comment

I’ve lived through scientists predicting the coming of the next ice age and now global warming. Common thread – they all thrive on grants and they all want my money. Quite frankly – I don’t care if there is global warming or not. Nothing I can do about it either way.

I’ve also lived on the New Madrid fault line and lived through scientific predictions of the next “big one”. I’ve lived through a tornado, dust stormns, record cold spells, record heat waves, droughts, and floods, extended power outages. I spent part of my youth growing up with no running water or indoor plumbing. I’ve lived through people turning in their neighbors to the “water police”. I can live with all these things. I can live without all the global warming hysteria.

• Link
• Report this comment