Not everyone thinks global warming would be bad
Greenlanders stand to gain a great deal if their climate warms. From Popular Mechanics:
When the 748-foot Stena Forth plows into the deep waters of Greenland’s Disko West zone next summer, the advanced drillship will be taking the first crack at what could be the world’s biggest untapped reservoir of oil and gas….The United States Geologic Survey estimates [Greenland's] offshore reserves could hold 50 billion barrels of oil and gas, or nearly one-third of the arctic total.
(snip)
While hunters, who make up a sizable proportion of Greenland’s population, are suffering as a result of climate change, government officials quietly confirm that warming temperatures should bring new riches to the country. In addition to oil and gas, the retreat of ice is prompting new onshore mining ventures, and in coming decades Greenland could benefit from shipping as the Northwest Passage become a viable alternative to the Suez and Panama Canals.
One aspect of the climate-change debate which we ignore too often is the potential benefits — and whether they might outweigh the potential consequences.
(H/t: Instapundit)
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
98 comments Add your comment
Davo
January 5th, 2010
11:13 am
Now if we can just convince the people of Bangladesh to move there…then we’ll have it all tied up; those greenies will have nothin to screech about. Sounds like a job for the United Nations.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 5th, 2010
11:22 am
It’s a little cool even down here in the swamp this morning, just now reaching 50 degrees. I favor doing everything we can to accelerate global warming.
jconservative
January 5th, 2010
11:41 am
So, sell your US beachfront property and buy a condo in Julianehab!
Americans need a more long range view of issues.
Chris Broe
January 5th, 2010
12:42 pm
“One aspect of the climate-change debate which we ignore too often is the potential benefits — and whether they might outweigh the potential consequences.”
Potential Benefits are: the Iditarod gets a route correction.
Potential Consequences are: the end of all forms of life in the solar system (and the nearby globular clusters).
DAVID
January 5th, 2010
12:44 pm
YEAH…………GIVE ME SOME MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING this week.
Kent Johnson
January 5th, 2010
12:55 pm
The “benefits” of global warming? You have GOT to be joking. Your lack of knowledge regarding the catastrophic impact of long-term warming is not something to be proud of these days. Actual conservative values should not be confused with the political machinations of the current GOP. Conservatism by definition naturally extends to the environment in relation to the values of preservation and stewardship of the earth, but instead we hear the opposite: a din of blathering ignorance from mindless sycophants extolling the virtues of overheating the earth’s rather fragile atmosphere for short term gain, i.e. Drill Baby Drill!
Since when did genuine concern for the state of the environment become a “liberal agenda” to be opposed at all cost and to the extent of paranoia and downright rejection of scientific consensus?
neo-Carlinist
January 5th, 2010
12:56 pm
Chris Broe, thanks for not editorializing or opining that the end of all life forms is a “negative” consequence. truth be told, I think it is the nature of Nature (the universe) that every couple a billion years the “science project” gets dumped into some cosmic sink. humans are arrogant and self-absorbed to think they have ANY influence on the “health” of the planet. as stated, it’s kind of a given that we care little about our health, so we are sleeping in the environmental bed we’ve made for ourselves.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 5th, 2010
1:01 pm
Modern men have lived through 20 sudden global warmings. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704905704574622643206570348.html
The cult of death has a strong preference for seeing people freeze to death, but I think most of us would prefer a world that is 2-3 degrees warmer.
dewstarpath
January 5th, 2010
1:04 pm
- Thank you, Kent Johnson (at 12:55 pm).
– I think somewhere along the line of history,
the terms “liberal” and “conservative” were flipped around,
similar to the transposition of “Democrat” and “Republican”
Parties in the mid – 20th century.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 5th, 2010
1:07 pm
Dear Kent @ 12:55, that the leftist concern is “genuine” does not mean that it is “legitimate.” For the same reasons, you would surely approve of the genuine conservative concern that all of the leftist cures for the “evil of global warming” would destroy our economies?
Kent Johnson
January 5th, 2010
1:10 pm
And BTW ask the Pentagon what they think of the “benefits” of continuing to pollute our planet. They released a report assessing the impact of “climate change” a few years ago outlining the potential for adverse political and social upheaval as a result of man’s impact on the environment. Not a pretty picture, but what do they know at the Pentagon. There job is merely to protect and preserve our nation. But hey, if we can get MORE fossil fuels out of the ocean floor along the coast of Greenland to throw into the atmosphere, one day maybe Bangor, Maine will be the new Miami! woo hoo…
Kent Johnson
January 5th, 2010
1:13 pm
Not taking action will destroy our economies in the long run. Conservatives, by definition, should be thinking long-term about the impact of unabated pollution on the preservation our society and its institutions. That’s why the environment matters.
Smashsmeesha Bobeesha
January 5th, 2010
1:22 pm
I could use some good ole global warming up here in Chicago right about now.
Smashsmeesha Bobeesha
January 5th, 2010
1:22 pm
Kent Johnson is polluting this blog.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 5th, 2010
1:30 pm
Dear Kent @ 1:13, given the choice between certainly destroying the economy short term vs possibly destroying it long term, I’ll chose the latter potential poison over the certain one. In the meantime, it makes a lot of sense to me to try to increase our CO2 production, to heat up this place.
Jim
January 5th, 2010
1:37 pm
Kyle, I thought, according to you and the other republicans out there, global warming is just some democratic ploy to take over the government and turn our country towards communism. What’s it gonna be, do you believe in global warming or not? Based on this post you seem to agree that it does exist.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 5th, 2010
1:41 pm
By the way, if anyone ever hears of a global warming believer who advocates for non-polluting nuclear energy plants, let me know. Until we see them drawing rational solutions, I continue to assume environmentalism is just a weird religion, with mystical beliefs about an apocalyptic future due to the manifold sins of weak humans.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 5th, 2010
1:42 pm
Dear Jim @ 1:37, as the most conservative conservative in the eastern US, I will confirm my hope that global warming is real. I will also confess my doubt.
Ron Mexico
January 5th, 2010
1:43 pm
What about record African crops due to climate change? Or in other parts of the world?
Kyle Wingfield
January 5th, 2010
1:46 pm
Kent: Longer growing seasons, and more places where crops can be grown; fewer deaths related to cold, which generally outnumber deaths related to heat; heating homes and other buildings generally requires more energy than cooling them does.
The catastrophe scenarios aren’t necessarily the most likely scenarios. The range of projected sea-level rises due to climate change is so wide as to be meaningless. I’m not saying there aren’t risks that go along with a warmer climate change (no matter what mankind does), only that these risks may be greatly mitigated — or, under some scenarios, outweighed — by the benefits.
Kent Johnson
January 5th, 2010
1:47 pm
The fact that any use of the word “environment” among conservatives automatically conjures up images of crazy liberal weed-smoking tree-huggers or some fantastical left-wing conspiracy/hoax is a rather sad commentary on the current state of so-called conservative politics in this country. If you want to find a *legitimate” foundation for understanding global warming/climate change, who are you going to trust — a large scientifically-based consensus among climate scientists or the politically-entrenched barking of idealogues like Hannity and the other circus acts like Limbaugh and Beck.
And I find it rather humorous that the anti-intellectual pundits and politicians on the right can’t make up their minds. Either global warming is a huge hoax, or it’s real but hey, it’s a GOOD THING! Either way, one doesn’t have to lift a finger…
NeverTrustARepublican
January 5th, 2010
1:47 pm
Holy crap. Kyle continues his disservice by prodding his poorly informed base with ignorant columns. See the article.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/glodap/glodap_pdfs/Thermohaline.web.pdf
Glenn
January 5th, 2010
1:50 pm
Atleast you would be acknowledging that global warming might be a possibility & that would be a start. Unfortunately after weighing the positives vs the negatives it might be wiser just to say its voodoo science or just a political ploy to pass our wealth to developing countries . It would be much easier to get around Greenland when a big portion of Greenland is under water .
Kent Johnson
January 5th, 2010
2:10 pm
Kyle, you need to bone up on your climate science and take a look at that Pentagon report. Why do so many “conservatives” get the basic facts wrong on this issue? But instead, they look at today’s Drudge Report and see all the linked articles to how cold this winter and laugh, “See! Global Warming, my butt!”
It’s intellectually dishonest and ignorant, because global warming does NOT mean that it will be warmer everywhere.It means that the atmosphere is being polluted to the point of adverse climate change across the planet, with extremely detrimental consequences for human civilization as a whole. Global WARMING has the potential for shutting down the Gulf current in the Atlantic, which would turn northern Europe into an ice-box. That doesn’t sound so beneficial to me.
Glad to pollute this page with facts…
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 5th, 2010
2:11 pm
Dear Kent, “The fact that any use of the word “environment” among conservatives automatically conjures up images of crazy liberal weed-smoking tree-huggers or some fantastical left-wing conspiracy/hoax is a rather sad commentary on the current state of so-called conservative politics in this country. ” Why wouldn’t that be a sad commentary on the current state of “environmentalists?”
Kyle Wingfield
January 5th, 2010
2:13 pm
Kent: If the extremes you describe were accurate, you’d be right. Unfortunately for you, they’re not.
NeverTrust: Wow! The definitive article on the interaction of oceans and the climate! And it’s only 9 pages long — bonus!
Glenn: I have never said that the atmosphere didn’t warm in the late 20th century, nor have I said that the theories behind anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are definitely false or some kind of hoax. What I have said, consistently, is that the idea that the science is “settled” isn’t true. There is doubt — enough doubt that we should proceed cautiously on radical policy recommendations. Acknowledging that some — not all, but some — things would get better if the planet were warmer is part of that.
I believe we would make best use of our resources (natural, financial and otherwise) by making sure we can adapt to any changes in the climate — heat, cold, drought, monsoons, whatever.
Kent Johnson
January 5th, 2010
2:13 pm
And yes, nuclear energy is much more preferable to fossil fuels any day…
JF McNamara
January 5th, 2010
2:26 pm
I actually thought Kyle was being making a tongue in cheek joke given his stance that lying scientist concocted global warning in order to kill the American empire and punish big business. I guess I need to be more serious.
GaDawg
January 5th, 2010
2:37 pm
Dear Kent with all due respect UP YOURS, I just went outside and we need some global warming RIGHT NOW
Art@Large
January 5th, 2010
2:38 pm
Mr. Wingfield…you are the worst type of conservative there is. You claim that global warming science is not “’settled’”, but it is. You just don’t want to accept fact.
And you claim that there is enough “doubt” about global warming to justify doing little or nothing about it at all, rather than trying to minimize the damage, which WILL cost money. But doing NOTHING is going to cost a whole lot more, much more, staggeringly more.
And then you claim that drilling for gas and oil in Greenland will benefit the handful of people that live there, and benefit those who would continue to pour hydrocarbons into the atmosphere unabated. I suppose this would lead to less research for alternative energy sources, since we would be able to just keep on doing what we’re doing.
You are clearly either insane, or a republican.
Dragging our feet, continuing to rely on petroleum, and hoping that the consequences of global warming won’t be that bad is sheer lunacy.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but I know you won’t be. You have your republican-issued blinders on, and won’t see the truth, won’t listen to it, and won’t be swayed by it even when it finally bites you on the ass.
You have lost what little respect I might have had for you, which wasn’t much in the first place. I know you won’t care about that either, but the least you could do is slow down your headlong rush to ruin the planet.
You are unbelievable, but the modern republican party has made “insane” a platform for their future.
NeverTrustARepublican
January 5th, 2010
2:38 pm
Kyle, you write, what, 500 words per columns? Yeah, nine pages of actual science versus 500 words from a bobblehead; tough choice.
Notice Kyle’s choice of reference material is Popular Mechanics. I guess Highlights was covering another topic this month.
‘There is doubt — enough doubt that we should proceed cautiously on radical policy recommendations. Acknowledging that some — not all, but some — things would get better if the planet were warmer is part of that.’ But that’s not what you want Kyle; you want to sow distrust in the fearful and ill-informed. Or, you’re just way out of your element. I’m guessing both.
Deny, deny, deny then, when even the most rabid can no longer deny, spout nonsense like, ‘but we can’t do anything anyway’ and ‘no, it’ll actually be benificial’. Truley pathetic and shortsighted and oh so republican.
Ray Pugh
January 5th, 2010
2:40 pm
Kyle that’s possibly the stupidest column you’ve written so far…
sam
January 5th, 2010
2:46 pm
kent, there’s no point bringing reason to this board. dont waste your breathe. these folks are long gone.
Not Going To Use My Usual Name
January 5th, 2010
2:49 pm
Greenland: 1.
Africa: -1.
It all evens out, though, right? After all, if you look at a standard map, they’re about the same size.
*cough*
GaDawg
January 5th, 2010
2:55 pm
Why don’t you Atlanta libs forget this global warming crap and go to city hall and see if you can help Reed keep Atlanta from going bankrupt, after all you each sound like you have a lot of stored internal methane gas that could be used to heat City Hall
South Georgia Republican
January 5th, 2010
3:03 pm
KENT and SAM-
The problem is that you so stereotypically assume that you are smarter and more intellectual than those of us who are cynical about the truth of man’s contribution to global warming, if it in fact exists and is not just a short-term observation of a long-term natural cycle.
It is laughable to me that you can’t see that your absolute faith in global warming caused by man is in part a religion-like faith, and the empirical evidence does NOT conclusively prove that it provides a risk worth the economic cost that you wish to be born. If it poses such a serious threat, why do the prophets of your religion (Al Gore, the Hollywood elite, etc.) not take action to reduce their own carbon footprint and make the same sacrifices that they would like to impose on the little people?
OK, now you may respond by calling me an ignorant neanderthal since I don’t share your OPINION-
South Georgia Republican
January 5th, 2010
3:05 pm
By the way, I suppose I am a “fearful and ill-informed” denier.
NeverTrustARepublican
January 5th, 2010
3:06 pm
Kyle-see GaDawg’s post. That’s your base. You must be proder than punch.
Oh, and GDawg, see, this is an online forum. I know its hard to fathom that there’s life beyond your county line but this reaches way beyond the big ol’ city of Atlanta. Welcome to the 21st century.
dewstarpath
January 5th, 2010
3:07 pm
Smashsmeesha – Up here in Chicago, huh?
Maybe you could hang out with Axelfraud and trade hot air
to warm yourselves up. What a coincidence (that you both
live in the same city – NOT). i.e., GIVE IT UP.
Hillbilly Deluxe
January 5th, 2010
3:18 pm
As the late Harry Caray used to say, it’s an ill wind that doesn’t blow somebody some good.
A while back on TV, I saw the promo for a show about this subject. It was talking about the polar ice caps melting and the ocean levels rising. Then came a nice shot of people running through the streets of Manhattan, trying to outrun a 20 foot wall of water (the ocean levels, according to them will rise 20 feet). Now assuming that their premise is right and the polar ice caps would melt and raise the ocean level by 20 feet, don’t they realize what the air temperature would have to be for this to occur in the matter of minutes or hours it would take for ocean levels to rise that fast.
I would have been a little more inclined to watch the show and give it a fair hearing, if they hadn’t felt the need to try to pull one on me like that.
Ray Pugh
January 5th, 2010
3:37 pm
South GA Republican:
I know who you are…
Daedalus
January 5th, 2010
3:38 pm
Let’s see, first we said that global climate change was all a figment of Al Gore’s imagination and the emails from the British scientists proved it was all a fraud.
Now we say: sure it’s happening. But it’s a good thing.
Whatever. So long as we can keep increasing emissions, that’s the important thing.
Earl_E
January 5th, 2010
3:53 pm
Kent,
Don’t get upset. The writer doesn’t want to engage in discussions about environment, he just wants click-stream revenue for his website and gets the biggest return when he uses words like global warming.
When we are complaining about the loss of Cod and other species, and all the oil is gone, then we can point back at the oil companies and blame them and feel good about it. But right now put the pedal to the metal and drill baby drill.
Besides, many people don’t like fish, it tastes fishy. Who cares about Somali fishermen who have switched to piracy on the high seas and eating bushmeat. I don’t like tigers and pumas either. Good riddance. Now if we can get risd of all the Arctic mammals the oil ecologic collapse can get underway in haste.
Libraryjim
January 5th, 2010
4:03 pm
@ Daedalus, no one said Climate Change was NOT happening, what was under discussion was the CAUSE — human caused/contributed or natural cycle.
Climategate proved that the human cause side misrepresented the facts and skewed the data.
Libraryjim
January 5th, 2010
4:05 pm
@ Earl … it is a fallacy of logic to assume that just because one is against the theory of human caused climate change, therefore they are also against any conservation or environmental protection measures.
Earl_E
January 5th, 2010
4:06 pm
Hillbilly,
You’re not asking for Hollywood to be realistic in a work of fiction are you? I would rather let them tease you with fancified futures, and then let you explore the science from scientists.
For instance, sea level rises at different rates based on more natural occurances than I know. Imagine you’re in a log flume at the amusement park and you and the water ride up the side going around a bend.
That comes from motion. The Earth spins and the oceans are in motion because of that motion. Some places will slide up the side based on a million variables.
You ask “Would air pressure change?”
It probably changes more where the water slides up the sides, but I can’t imagine it would be noticeable. But it is a good question.
In the movie, that was a storm surge like the one that flattened the levies in New Orleans. The storm surge was from a big storm in the movie. Seems impossible right up to the day it happens, then you get calls from people drowning in their attics. Bodies floating everywhere.
For more on storm surge potential size check out Hurricane Katrina. Aparently when it made landfall it was only a cat 3. It’s surge was 25 feet high in places.
Democrats are Corrupt, Repukes are Lying Scum
January 5th, 2010
4:08 pm
Better git your money out of money markets soon, OBOZO has proposed this: New regulations proposed by the administration, and specifically by the ever-incompetent Securities and Exchange Commission, seek to pull one of these three core pillars from the foundation of the entire money market industry, by changing the primary assumptions of the key Money Market Rule 2a-7. A key proposal in the overhaul of money market regulation suggests that money market fund managers will have the option to “suspend redemptions to allow for the orderly liquidation of fund assets.” You read that right: this does not refer to the charter of procyclical, leveraged, risk-ridden, transsexual (allegedly) portfolio manager-infested hedge funds like SAC, Citadel, Glenview or even Bridgewater (which in light of ADIA’s latest batch of problems, may well be wishing this was in fact the case), but the heart of heretofore assumed safest and most liquid of investment options: Money Market funds, which account for nearly 40% of all investment company assets. The next time there is a market crash, and you try to withdraw what you thought was “absolutely” safe money, a back office person will get back to you saying, “Sorry – your money is now frozen. Bank runs have become illegal.” This is precisely the regulation now proposed by the administration. In essence, the entire US capital market is now a hedge fund, where even presumably the safest investment tranche can be locked out from within your control when the ubiquitous “extraordinary circumstances” arise. The second the game of constant offer-lifting ends, and money markets are exposed for the ponzi investment proxies they are, courtesy of their massive holdings of Treasury Bills, Reverse Repos, Commercial Paper, Agency Paper, CD, finance company MTNs and, of course, other money markets, and you decide to take your money out, well – sorry, you are out of luck. It’s the law.
Hillbilly Deluxe
January 5th, 2010
4:13 pm
Earl
I understand what a storm surge is. The ocean level rises ahead of the storm by the winds created as well as the low barometric pressure letting the water rise, since in effect the atmosphere isn’t pushing down on the water at its’ normal rate. (A similar principle to what makes a carburetor work). Of course, the tide also plays a part in all this.
For me to watch, a work of fiction, as you call it, it has to be plausible enough to be worth my time.
Earl_E
January 5th, 2010
4:18 pm
Hi LibraryJim,
You said you are “one is against the theory of human caused climate change”?
Why would any rational person be either for or against a theory?
If it is a theory, it hasn’t been proven, hence, why pick a side? It isn’t a political party nor an elected or media personality.
There is a theory that man impacts his environment in ways MAN doesn’t know about. To be for or against it while finding out is counter-productive.
I want more science, better science, and sometimes even bad science. Bad science is like that shoreline that is heaving up from glacial melting, not from sea level rise. Alask is popping up like a cork as it gets physically lighter with each hour.
So if you were measuring the ocean based on your shoreline, you might think sea level is going down. You might publish a paper that proves sea level is going down. And until some genius realized that massive bodies of water actually weigh as much as land, and that by draining, evaporating, or melting one away, you could measure the continental uplift, that published paper would be proven incorrect.
But saying exacly the wrong thing like sea level was going down created the new science of continental uplift.
Science is always better than opinions even when science is dead wrong.
Earl_E
January 5th, 2010
4:26 pm
Oh hey Hillbilly,
I love the Terminator fiction series, and also Lost. Moving islands with some lever really isn’t plausible, but makes for good suspence. As for the storm surge in the movie, wouldn’t a 100 foot surge almost have to make its way between the buildings like a wall of water?
See the Box Day tsunami video for actual footage of a much smaller wave and it’s effect on structures and people.
DAVID
January 5th, 2010
4:31 pm
COULD USE SOME GLOBAL WARMING in subFreezing Georgia…..Bring IT OnnnnnnnN,,,,
godless heathen
January 5th, 2010
4:36 pm
Well Earl, Kent, Nevertrust, and the rest of the chicken little alarmists: What is the perfect climate for earth? The climate of 200 years ago, the climate of 2,000 years ago, or the climate of 2,000,000 years ago? It has been different than current conditions at each point in history. However, humans have survived and are doing quite well. What the doomsayers never take into account is the adaptability of humans. The saintly prehistorics eliminated thousands of large mammal species in Eurasia. And they did it with spears. Did it doom the earth to ecologic collapse? Not hardly. Quit wringing you hands and making yourself miserable over gradual changes, you’ll be dead anyway. The kids will figure out how to deal it. Change is good. Hope and change, yea Baby!
Sam
January 5th, 2010
4:38 pm
Unfortunately for me, I live in Georgia, not Greenland.
Earl_E
January 5th, 2010
4:39 pm
South Georgian Republican wrote:
It is laughable to me that you can’t see that your absolute faith in global warming caused by man is in part a religion-like faith, and the empirical evidence does NOT conclusively prove that it provides a risk worth the economic cost that you wish to be born.
That is a great set of ideas, but I’m not sure they all belong in the same comment.
I hope you aren’t calling scientists deep into study nothing more than preachers or preists. So I’ll ignore that irrelevant dig.
The predicted economic cost can’t be based upon past performence. In the past I paid 19 cents for a gallon of gas. 100 years ago there wasn’t electricity. Could you imagine how far off predictions of economy would have been if we had stayed a horse and buggy society.
And if you want conclusive proof, see Dust Bowl, 1931 to 1936. The 28 day storm, completely caused by bad farming practices. Soil conservation solved that, but it took nearly a decade.
Unfortunately this time, over fertilization of corn is creating a myriad of problems from nitrous oxide in the air, to completely reversing the role of gulf estuaries from being carbon sinks to methane producers. That’s real bad news.
Anyone checked those canned oysters over the holidays? All small, all black, and boy I think they are just about finished with that industry.
godless heathen
January 5th, 2010
4:40 pm
The catastrophe of Katrina was caused by a bunch of people who were dependent on government living below sea level.
godless heathen
January 5th, 2010
4:42 pm
We had excellent large canned oysters over the holidays. You must be shopping in the wrong store.
Earl_E
January 5th, 2010
4:46 pm
Hello Godless heathen!
You asked:
What is the perfect climate for earth? The climate of 200 years ago, the climate of 2,000 years ago, or the climate of 2,000,000 years ago? It has been different than current conditions at each point in history.
What a great question.
I think the reason we are able to ask that question is for one simple reason, the climate hasn’t changed that much for the last 6 to 12 thousand years.
What I mean is that a general predictability is exactly what allows agriculture to come back decade after decade.
You know I seem to enjoy a good set of habits, like coffee, lunch, scraping the snow off the drive in the winter.
Over the past decade instead I’m playing golf over the New Years and covering my cherry trees from 12 inches of snow after Easter.
Instability, unpredictability and irregularity is the enemy. The chinese overnight cleaned their air before the olympics by launching 1100 rockets to seed the clouds, cause rain, like on queue.(400 people were injured by falling rocket parts)
Poof, instant clearing and blue skies. China two days ago launched 120 missiles and sparked what was a record making snow event in Beiging.
Calendar
January 5th, 2010
4:47 pm
They know that the primitive people charted the skies on the last onset of an ice age. That is what all of that end times, Mayan calendar, ect. stuff is about.
The 2012 deadline in the astronomical calendar is just that, a calendar using constellations to mark the zodiacal months of warm spells and ice ages.
Global warming is not what is about to occur. The reset of the Great Year calendar of astronomers starts with winter just like the yearly calendar.
The warm age is ending and the ice age is approaching.
Hillbilly Deluxe
January 5th, 2010
4:48 pm
I love the Terminator fiction series, and also Lost. Moving islands with some lever really isn’t plausible, but makes for good suspence.
Those aren’t the sorts of shows that interest me but I understand where you’re coming from. The shows you mentioned though, aren’t presenting themselves to be documentaries. The show that I saw the promo for was.
Earl_E
January 5th, 2010
4:54 pm
Heathen,
I have tried two different brands and the second was worse than the first. They’ve always been good in the past.
And Katrina, or the folks who drowned, were the recipients of bad city placement from a couple of centuries ago. Then they were lulled into feeling safe because evryone else felt safe. Even telling them directly that a hurricane will breach those old levies was not enough to save these people.
So alarmism doesn’t work as well as physically shutting down the city with armed guards and forcibly removing them from their homes.
I’m not so sure I would leave an animal in a cage knowing the building was on fire. You think people are as smart as you, but they really are pretty uninformed about most things. If you’re smart enough to know they are in danger, your wasting your gift if you don’t help them help themselves.
Earl_E
January 5th, 2010
4:58 pm
Calendar,
How far back are they sure that that calendar was created? And what astronomical thing is occuring? I heard we were crossing some plane of the galaxy.
I know the skies were darker back then, and maybe less humidity, so night sky viewing would have been a real treat(I wish I could see it), but how could they have figured it out so long ago?
Charles
January 5th, 2010
5:09 pm
There are only two choices. The world will warm. Or the world will cool.
Which do you prefer. Not that humans can do anything about either.
songbird
January 5th, 2010
5:28 pm
godless heathen you are truly a moron. The US Army Corp of Engineers are responsible for the levies in New Orleans and they failed due to neglect. Everyone knew they would fail eventually, but hey let’s wait until a catastrophic event occurs and costs lives and billions of dollars before we do anything about it. That’s the same philosophy that was used regarding the sewers in Atlanta and the bridge that collapsed last year. It’s called stupidity. Something you should be well acquainted with.
Mark
January 5th, 2010
5:54 pm
Is there no end to imbecile wisecracks about the current cold spell from the people who do not understand the difference between weather and climate?
Chris Broe
January 5th, 2010
6:00 pm
Work backwards to define Global Warming. Are we willing to pay for it? No.
Good. Then we aint gonna GIT it.
Read the thermometer in my lips: No new taxes.
I cant afford new taxes. I make my living off of returning all my library books early and not incurring the late fee. Things are tight.
No new taxes.
Allen
January 5th, 2010
6:08 pm
Kyle, it almost begs the question: do you think it plausible that the positive consequences of global warming could outweigh the negative? Could you cite any sources for those interested in exploring such an idea?
Earl_E
January 5th, 2010
6:08 pm
Ragnar says:
The cult of death has a strong preference for seeing people freeze to death, but I think most of us would prefer a world that is 2-3 degrees warmer.
End quote…
An interesting slant but if anyone had a preference I think it would be for death to a human enemy before they could bring death to you. But if there is no cult of death, rather dying people trying to save people from dying, that would not be a cult of death, rather a cult of lifesavers even if they don’t save anyone’s life and kill them all accidentally like we do all day long in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa, Indonesia, etc. etc. etc.
Someone who wants to stop mountaintop removal for coal is hardly a cult of death, but in a twisted kind of way, anyone who wants anything is guilty of death to someone somewhere sometime…
Fang1944
January 5th, 2010
6:21 pm
The theory of global warming has it that the temperature of the whole world will go up but not the temperature everywhere, at least not all the time. As the ice caps and glaciers–which they are doing now–the cold water is supposed to flow south, giving northern Europe and northern America some extremely cold winters.
Meanwhile, what happens to agriculture if Kansas has Florida’s climate?
godless heathen
January 5th, 2010
6:25 pm
songbird,
Nothing bolsters your credibility like name calling. Those people chose to live under the protection of the Federal Government. See what it got them.
And now we are spending billions of dollars to reset the trap.
We have a responsibility to inform people not to live below sea level in a coastal area. We have a responsibility to warn them when a big storm is coming. What they do with that information is not my concern.
godless heathen
January 5th, 2010
6:26 pm
>>Meanwhile, what happens to agriculture if Kansas has Florida’s climate?<<
They grow oranges.
godless heathen
January 5th, 2010
6:38 pm
And you to wring your hands over something else – when The Big One (earthquake) hits the right place in California, it’s going to make the Katrina disaster look like a Sunday picnic. It’s going to happen someday as sure as the sun keeps rising. And when 10s of thousands are dead below collapsed dams, people like songbird will blame the government for not doing something about it. Well do something now. Tell everyone that lives in a vulnerable place to move. And you know what they will do? They won’t. They will stay right where they are until they experience the disaster. Then the survivors will rebuild in the same dangerous locations. It’s what people do.
Earl_E
January 5th, 2010
6:55 pm
Heathen,
Funny you would say grow oranges because Florida is fighting a new virus that has already forced tree burning of a major portion of the crop. So growing them anywhere may no longer happen. It’s called Greening or something, read about it this morning.
You also mentioned that the victims of Katrina volunteered to live under the protection of the US Government. I would have to disagree in that they were born under the protection of the US Government. It wasn’t their choice to pick their birthplace.
And when you mention protection, I’d remind you that the protection bill for the mideast oil from the last 8 years is over a trillion dollars and several hundred thousand human deaths along with several million injured. Many US Government volunteers.
I think that US Government insurance that stimulates construction in hurricane regions is counter-productive. I also am not in favor of rescuing mountain climbers, people who ski, live in lava zones or near active faults.
And the people who stay alert will move, and those who deny science shall perish in ignorance or stubborness. See: Harry Truman, Spirit Lake, Mt. St. Helens, May 18 1980.
Chris Broe
January 5th, 2010
7:18 pm
Is it time for a game of “Name that Loon”?
F. Sinkwich
January 5th, 2010
7:29 pm
I didn’t have the patience to read every post here, but here is my opinion (as a conservative):
I may agree that global warming is occurring (although I could use some now), but the question is whether man has anything to do with it.
My vote is no, the “climate change” that the Al Gore acolytes blame on us evil humans is merely an excuse to extort billions of dollars from the economies that actually improve the standard of living in the world to tin-horn dictatorial regimes they favor as more “enlightened.”
That means socialistic, communistic, leftie utopias.
Man didn’t cause. Man can’t change it.
Live with it.
Earl_E
January 5th, 2010
7:59 pm
Hey Sinkwich,
Patience to read correlates to your level of understanding. If you have no patience to read, then of what value is your opinion?
Chris Broe, inflation is a tax that hits you with each new dollar printed. So as long as we continue to export jobs and import cars you can expect this tax to go up and up and up.
DBC
January 5th, 2010
8:28 pm
As I break the ice on my swimming pool 120 miles south of Atlanta, discussing the subject of Global Warming certainly is “inconvenient”. With the potential for snow tomorrow, I wonder if Al Gore is out looking for employment. Ten bucks to scrape my driveway, Al. No, at 55, I remember well, protesting in 1975 on the University of Illinois campus, with signs declaring the doom and gloom of Global Cooling. But all is not lost. Tomorrow, I shall pull out the old protest signs and head to the local campus. Maybe Global Cooling is making a comeback.
Chris Broe
January 5th, 2010
8:51 pm
I did not know that.
Earl_E
January 5th, 2010
9:02 pm
DBC,
You have used today’s weather to provide evidence that the Earth has turned towards a general cooling. I have noticed boats in some of the Georgian lakes that are moored to docks that are no longer near the water. Docks without water, boats sittinhg on dry parched lake bottom seems unusual to me.
Would you also think that the extended drought and water rationing is indicative of a cooling trend?
Daedalus
January 5th, 2010
10:38 pm
Uh, LibraryJim. go back and read Kyle’s earlier posts. As well as half the comments above — denying that Global Warming exists is a big part of the right-wing mantra these days.
Anything to maintain the status quo.
David Scott
January 5th, 2010
11:01 pm
I could be paddling a rowboat down Market Street in San Francisco after the poles have melted, and there will still be conservative fanatics who deny that humans are responsible for Global Warming or that it is even real. I invite you to my web-pages devoted to raising awareness on this urgent issue: http://pltcldscsn.blogspot.com/2009/12/conservatives-still-deny-global-warming.html
Brett
January 6th, 2010
2:07 am
So, if these cold temperatures continue to be a trend year after year in the south will we still say they’re caused by man? Did it ever occur to anyone that the sun doesn’t burn at a constant temperature, or that the earth does NOT maintain a constant orbit? Come on people, wake up……….”Man made global warming; what a crock!”
Brett
January 6th, 2010
2:11 am
Earl_E:
Drought is a natural phenomenon, or would you argue that every drought that has ever happened is man’s fault? Low levels in the lakes would be indicative of a population explosion that exceeds the aquifer’s ability to replenish our water supply. When was the last time that this number of people were dependent on the local reservoirs and rivers for water……….. oh, NEVER!
Kick Me
January 6th, 2010
8:50 am
This just in: Global Warming has “benefits”:
1) Rising seas mean most Americans are now closer to new beaches!
2) Collapse of America’s grain belt means those farmers can finally get on a REAL government welfare plan with better health care benefits.
3) America’s huge trade deficit resulting from reduced export capacity strengthens our negotiating position on repaying our Chineese debt in Chryslers!!
Chris Broe
January 6th, 2010
8:53 am
The failed Detroit BVD bomber had this to say about the way his burns were treated after his capture: “Based on what happened here to me, I don’t think there’s one thing wrong with the American health care system. It is working just fine, just dandy.”
Libraryjim
January 6th, 2010
9:06 am
@ Earl: I am “against the theory” because the theory is being presented as established FACT, not theory, and is being used to justify enormous changes in economic patterns all over the globe, and in fact guarantee that national sovereignty will be a thing of the past. I, too, would like for there to be a scientific debate on the subject, but so far the ‘left’ has stifled debate, and insulted and denigrated those who disagree with them on this issue (see Al Gore’s comments on debate on CNN).
Also, the temperature of the earth has not been ‘relatively constant’ over the past 6-12 Thousand years. What the Anthropogenic theorists would have us forget (and which they omitted from their studies and data) is that we had a warming period during the middle ages which resulted in temperature ranging up to 2 degrees warmer than our past few decades of warming, and which was followed by a ‘mini-ice age’, culminating on a ‘year without a winter’ (see the “Discovery Channel” special which is re-run every so often).
In fact it was the fear that earth would be returning to such an ice age that spawned the media panics of the 1910’s and 1970’s that warned the US would be covered in new glaciers as far as the Mid-West (Newsweek) if ‘we don’t act now’.
@ Daedalus: What I read is that the ‘right-wing’ mantra is against the MAN-MADE alarmists claims, not against the reality of ever changing climate. But interpret it as you will, it’s what liberal democrats do when confronted with facts they can’t refute.
Kick Me
January 6th, 2010
9:26 am
Hey, LibraryJim, for someone who presents himself as wearing the “mantle of intelligence”, you sure are misinformed about “the facts”. The data on global warming are irrefutable, which is why mainstream worldwide scientific consensus agrees that it is ocurring, and it is highly likely to be man made. But then, you know better, right. What planet are you from?
Daedalus
January 6th, 2010
10:03 am
LibraryJim — I gotta hand it to you.
Your the pot calling the kettle black. Scratch the “scientists” who continually claim that GW is not happening or is not man-made and you will find someone funded by the oil and gas industry.
The same claims were made about acid rain in the 70s. The industry claimed that it wasn’t their fault, that acid raid was a natural event and that reducing emissions would kill the economy. (Funny that carmakers said the exact same thing about catalytic converters — they’d never work, it would make cars too expensive, etc).
But Republicans and Dems got together, passed a cap and trade system and acid rain and its effects on the Northeast have been eliminated. Sherman Boehlert, a moderate Republican from New York (a species that no longer exists) was a key leader in eliminating acid rain.
I used to be a Republican when I lived on the West Coast — Mark Hatfield (and yes even Bob Packwood) were great examples of moderate Republicans who I supported then and would support now, if they had a chance.
But anything like consensus is no longer possible. Conservatives like you just vomit the Fox News talking points and then insult anyone who disagrees. Democrats are too concerned with keeping power to reach out — and the GOP — which just wants Obama to fail –would slap away any effort to do so.
Pretty sad. I don’t much care for Democrats, but the GOP is just a bit worse.
The GOP is on the wrong side of history on this one — just like its anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-anybody who isn’t a white Christian agenda.
Go back to watching Brit Hume and stay in your comfort zone.
Earl_E
January 6th, 2010
10:33 am
LibraryJim howdy there…
You said:
@ Earl: I am “against the theory” because the theory is being presented as established FACT, not theory
End Quote
Jim,
How a subject is presented unfortunately has nothing to to with the subject and everything to do with the presenter.
If you stick to scientific papers and scholarly-type sites you may find more detail than you care to learn or are capable of understanding. So reading a layman version does have it’s downfalls. Oversimplification, mistaken identity, wrong analysis, etc.
But that doesn’t impact in one way truth. We are all on a quest for truth and we have to read for ourselves if we want to know something for ourselves. Some don’t have the patience or are beholding to an old way of thinking so they reject everything by habit.
I understand those people. I am re-evaluating my positions daily. So much new information.
Brett,
Low lake levels may be in lakes that are man-made. these dammed creeks into valleys rob aquifers of feed-water. If you are suggesting there are limits to the population an aquifer can support, you are absolutely correct.
By creating artificial water zones, people are swindled into buying property and new homes in regions that will not survive normal drought situations.
If you stir up the mud on the bottom you could say man made the lake muddy. If you stir up the atmosphere, then it would be accurate to say any weather condition had been “muddied” by man.
Climate chaos is the enemy, stability and repetition the farmer’s friend. Without it, no lake full of water will matter in the long run. I couldn’t imagine what it would be like to not have water in your pipes in the morning, that would be “the wrong side of the bed” for sure.
Democrats are Corrupt, Repukes are Lying Scum
January 6th, 2010
10:34 am
What people call “climate change” is more appropriately titled “climate chaos.” CO2 levels have very little to do with climate chaos, other than to put money in Al Whgore’s fat pocket.
Earl_E
January 6th, 2010
10:47 am
Jim went on to say: “I, too, would like for there to be a scientific debate on the subject, but so far the ‘left’ has stifled debate, and insulted and denigrated those who disagree with them on this issue (see Al Gore’s comments on debate on CNN).”
End quote
Al Gore is a science populerizer. He isn’t part of ant debate.
There are only scientific measurements and analysis of the data.
Try and focus on the data, the science, the scientific analysis, and open your mind to new information. Try and avoid repeating the same comments about the 1970’s, that makes for good TV, but isn’t relevant to data analsis.
You said that it was 2 degrees warmer in the past. There was a reason for that. Can you say for sure the reason that little temperature bubble happened wasn’t some small change of biology at the time? I sure can’t.
And if the temp swing can be forced by atmospheric chemistry, what will it do when you raise CO2 by deforestation and burning?
Mimic a warming trend that occured a few centuries ago?
Can’t say for sure. But if you live in the test-tube, why run the experiment on yourself before you know the outcome?
Libraryjim
January 6th, 2010
11:38 am
“Try and focus on the data, the science, the scientific analysis, and open your mind to new information. Try and avoid repeating the same comments about the 1970’s, that makes for good TV, but isn’t relevant to data analsis.”
That’s the problem — “Climategate” proved beyond doubt that this is NOT happening on the anthropogenic side. The claims from the 70’s prove that ‘consensus’, while not accurate and not science, makes for good headlines and increased funding.
But if you were open minded, you would admit this if presented with the facts — such as emails and detailed memos, wouldn’t you?
Libraryjim
January 6th, 2010
11:44 am
Canada now has thrown off the pretense of the human cause hoax, and rips Obama a new one along the way:
In the midst of perhaps the most spectacular science scam of the last century exposing falsified data used to “prove” Global Warming, President Obama’s official response gave unsettling insights into his modest rigors of mind.
Presented with overwhelming evidence that the “science” of Global Warming is a hodgepodge of cherry-picked data, and pre-ordained results, Obama played opossum on the topic. Flying to the global Copenhagen Climate Summit to rep the US position, Barrack hunkered down in his weatherproofed bunker and pretended the astounding East-Anglia University email dump of climatology tricks never occurred. As the world’s best informed man, Barrack knows these messages paint a devastating picture of recklessly ambitious scientists running amok, wickedly defaming the scientific method to reach a radical preordained goal. So, what does this mean that Obama completely ignores such a shocking revelation?
watching Obama ignore horrifically bad science which utterly undoes the entire premise of Global Warming is not only predictable, but inevitable, given his world view. In fact, it would be impossible to dissuade Barack from the “science” behind Global Warming – since there never was a real theory established in a laboratory to begin with, but instead a humanist notion spawned by Marxism for the express purpose of global wealth-redistribution. In fact, if Global Warming goes away, another “scientific” doctrine will quickly arise to take its place, by necessity.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18298
Earl_E
January 6th, 2010
11:51 am
OK Jim,
You say a couple of criminals(hackers) stole some private e-mails. What makes any one of the e-mails free from editing?
Can you prove that these emails are in exactly the same condition they were in when they were written?
Have you read them yourself?
Can you please cite one line from any e-mail that discredits the pan evaporation rate study done by the two Australian scientists?
Can you site one e-mail that disproves the effect of greenhouse gases and the absortion of heat from black carbon?
I have not read the e-mails and have not seen any quotes from them that reverse a position on chemistry or physics.
A study was done after 911 on contrails while the planes were grounded. Cite an example from your e-mails that reverses the assumption that contrails impact relectivity and cloud formation.
I’ll wait.
Earl_E
January 6th, 2010
12:03 pm
Jim, since when does one article now represent a national ethic? A free press should allow all views. How come you didn’t site any relevant articles on the free press about large scale destrruction in Alberta for the oil sands?
It sounds like you have an agenda Jim. You seem stuck on disproving anything you don’t want.
I think some comedian coined the phrase “Wasn’t me.”
You could have caused it, but the thing to say is “Wasn’t me.”
Jim you just lumped every Canadian into a bucket based on a free press story.
That’s like saying climate science is a hoax because of an e-mail sent by a climate scientist.
Still waiting for those quotes from the e-mails that disprove the physics and chemistry behind climate science.
Libraryjim
January 6th, 2010
1:06 pm
Earl, I’m going to say one thing on the emails:
Under the freedom of information act, they should have been made public when requested. To have had to have them released by a hacker was the crime, not the hacking. The emails that are the most damning are the ones that admit the scientists omitted data that would have changed their conclusion. There is enough in those emails to call the entire scientific process of the human-cause theory into question. And THAT should be enough to call for a world-wide exchange of ideas and studies and debate the issue before ANY action is taken — the way a Scientific inquiry should be handled.
By the way, a similar request under the United States Freedom of Information Act has been made to NASA. It, also, is being ignored and a lawsuit has been filed to get the information released. Will it take a hacker to get these released, too?
Scientists should not be afraid to have their methods open to public scrutiny.
Bye now!
Earl_E
January 6th, 2010
2:53 pm
Jim said:
“enough to call for a world-wide exchange of ideas and studies and debate the issue before ANY action is taken ”
end quote
Well Jim, you left out the e-mails that refuted anything?
Then you went on about “The Freedom of Information Act”. I couldn’t help wonder what makes you think that a government that will invade a 3rd world nation because of some Father/Son dysfunction, would care one bit about freedom of anything?
What you failed to provide is one except from any of these supposed e-mails that proves a scientist in Greenland does the same thing that a scientist does in Australia.
In fact, it is theoretically impossible to duplicate any scientific discovery since each is unique and chance was always involved.
Now how about some substance Jim? Can you say anything relevant? Please, just one thing that is specific about something?
Don Simpson
January 10th, 2010
3:09 am
I agree there will be numerous benefits to climate change, unfortunately it looks like climate change will now be very modest if anything at all.
Theoretical global warming would open up much new frozen lands to farming to feed a growing world, increased c02 will cause increased plant growth across the globe. Warmer temperatures will decrease the risk of death and suffering sue to cold.
Increased arctic shipping lanes will mean lower costs of goods due to new shipping lanes.
increased access to new minerals and resources.
Bio diversity will thrive providing new habitat to thousands of species
The exagerated costs of global warming are pale in comparison to the enormous benefits therof. Prior to the big media scare if you asked someone if they wanted a warmer globe they would say yes.
Sohee
January 10th, 2010
12:35 pm
You know what’s ironic about conservatives who “hate taxes”? This war (which is also partly about oil/colonialism in the name of more oil) is a significant waste of tax dollars (along with TARP).
So maybe if they want to scream about pork they should think about this…
I was responding to the guy here who said “read my thermometer: no new taxes”. Oil is bad for environment and also freedom and quality of life of people even if global warming really is a myth, as they so claim. From enslaving other countries to US children who develop respiratory problems… From “rap**g” the land/water to oil spills and whales getting hit by oil tankers…and that’s the stuff that the oil companies haven’t managed to cover up. So while the whole “Climategate” may prove that at least one climatologist lied and were blacklisting opponents, maybe the shills should be saving their “Oil A$$ Ki$$ing Speeches” for now…
And for the record, I do not support any of the 2 major parties. They’re all the same, man. Don’t learn it the hard way, like I did.
Remember Saro Wiwa!