Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

EPA Amending Operations For Global Warming

February 11, 2013 by  

EPA Amending Operations For Global Warming
PHOTOS.COM

Whether you are a critic or a believer in the global warming, it’s time to have your say; the Environmental Protection agency is formally moving forward with its “Climate Change Adaptation Plan.”

On Friday, the EPA began accepting public comment on its 55-page draft plan to amend its operations and implement new regulation in the name of fighting rising sea levels, melting ice and extreme weather the agency believes are the result of higher global temperatures.

From the EPA plan:

It is in this rapidly changing world that EPA is working to fulfill its mission to protect human health and the environment. Many of the outcomes EPA is working to attain (e.g., clean air, safe drinking water) are sensitive to changes in weather and climate. Until now, EPA has been able to assume that climate is relatively stable and future climate will mirror past climate. However, with climate changing more rapidly than society has experienced in the past, the past is no longer a good predictor of the future. Climate change is posing new challenges to EPA’s ability to fulfill its mission.

It is essential that EPA adapt to anticipate and plan for future changes in climate. It must integrate, or mainstream, considerations of climate change into its programs, policies, rules and operations to ensure they are effective under future climatic conditions. Through climate adaptation planning, EPA will continue to protect human health and the environment, but in a way that accounts for the effects of climate change.

The EPA report says the agency plans to integrate “climate change science trend and scenario information” into its rule-making processes by 2015. The move results from a 2009 government-wide directive from President Obama’s Council on Environmental Quality, which requires agencies to plan now for future climate change.

A 60-day public comment period on the EPA’s upcoming changes began Friday. You can read the full 55-page plan here.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “EPA Amending Operations For Global Warming”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Doc Sarvis

    Lowering our carbon emissions is the right way to go on a variety of fronts; it begins to move us off our dependence on the dwindling oil resource and onto more renewables, it begins to get us building more efficiencies into our lives, it begins to soften our impact on the human caused portion of global warming, and it guides us on a more sustainable path of existence.

    • FreedomFighter

      Bravo Sierra, nothing we do will impact anything. Man made global warming is a lie.

      Even if it was true, if we shut down America entirely, went back to the stone age, no cars, no factory, no nothing, China would continue to pollute and china is the biggest of them all, it would make no significant differance in levels.

      Its all just a farce to take your money, kill the economy and complete the takeover.

      Sad thing is fools just like you believe it

      Laus Deo
      Semper FI

      • http://airconditioningmarianna.org david howard

        I agree 100% . the only thing that will change our weather conditions is if our leaders turn back to GOD the one true GOD the GOD of Abraham , Jacob , and Isaac. you see no matter how many regulations they put on us to cost us more and more money everything seems to get worse and worse even though the E.P.A. has been shoving their views and ideas down our throat for years the weather conditions haven’t gotten any better only worse . that alone tells me they know nothing . there main goal is to take our hard earned money by causing inflation to rise because they over regulate everyone who does business in America not called tax but actually cost us more !!!

      • JJM123

        But EPA Regulations can change things, when they can stop Wildfires, Volcanoes and other Natural occurances of the Highest releases of gases. Of course they would need the participation, investment and cooperation of the entire world.

      • Vicki

        EPA will need the participation of Nature (and Natures God) since the effect of natural (I.E. not AGW) climate change is MUCH larger than the effect of man made climate change.
        http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    • Steph

      What a bunch of BS. Ok I am all for reducing our trash we just dump in the ground. But global warming?? Don’t spout that crap when I am freezing my @$$ of in 0F temperatures.

      And reduce our carbon emissions? All our emissions for the last 10 YEARS doesn’t equal the amount of carbon dioxide and other gasses that are spewed into our atmosphere in 1 day by 1 volcano. Volcanoes have been around since the dawn of time and the planet has survived. Our little amount of emissions doesn’t make a squat of difference.

      • eddie47d

        There is no lie Freedom Fighter and its not BS Steph. There may be degrees of differences(opinions) in what is happening and how these changes are effecting our climate but none the less they are occurring. We all better hope there are still glaciers and cold areas of the world considering so many of those glaciers melted within the last 20 years. The world still has time but there will be a tipping point and some say it will be soon. The best bet is to make positive changes in our lifestyles without sacrificing comfort,encourage wise family planning and to continue working with businesses in reducing carbon and other pollutants. The US should be at the forefront on this issue in setting the standards no matter how hard it is in dealing with China. Since they have 5 times as many people they will always be a hard sell. They would also have a tougher time complying with some environmental changes because of their shear number of people.

      • Gary L

        Steph, They say it is the WARMING that is causing the COLD.
        I guess it is this same broken logic that tell them we should SPEND MORE to get OUT OF DEBT.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Only a “willfully ignorant, functional illiterate” would say that Gary.

        So who is they…….any name source or link will do……..

        This will then determine who is what……..sure you want to go there?

      • Vicki

        GALT says:
        “Only a “willfully ignorant, functional illiterate” would say that Gary.

        So who is they…….any name source or link will do……..”

        Here you go.
        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120112193430.htm

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Not news to me Vicki, nor does it appear to be the “broken logic” that
        Gary claims it is? ( and what follows from it……. )

        Were you seeking to demonstrate another example of “functional illiteracy”,
        or simply in your uncontrollable “pavlovian GALT” response mode?

    • http://jmach11.wordpress.com jmach11

      You sir are an idiot for believing in such nonsense. Why do you think Al Gore refuses to debate anyone from the opposite viewpoint? He knows that facts do not support his assertions.

      • eddie47d

        Doc is not an idiot and Al Gore has debated this issue for decades and with facts. Lately he has taken a different path in life and is not stuck on the climate change issue. Is he just another fat cat out there making money? That could be but maybe he became tired of fighting Capitalism and decided to join them. I don’t care much for any Capitalist who favors greed and if he has joined the dark side then you can have at him on that issue. There are still other activists and scientists out there continuing to work with the global warming changes.

    • meeha

      Incredibly stupid remark for someone who claims to be a “doc” can i ask of what? Perhaps music, maybe television repair? An advertisement appeared in the height of the global warming mentality, a butterfly in the amazon fluttered and that would affect the economy and have an impact on the global temperatures. [expletive deleted] no affect simply because all over the world man is making it rain, this changes the jet streams, and impacts us all. China just yesterday asked its citizens not to celebrate with fireworks, their holiday, because it had already declared emergency’s in beijing concerning air pollution and air quality. We have more oil and gas then any country in the world, so instead of using that and letting the emergence of alternative energy by independent investors take hold we are forcing this alternative bull crap on America to the tune of making most people balk at something they are chocking on knowing that gas and oil is available for hundreds of years to Americans. But using our energy has an affect on the world, it does dry up the economy of our enemies. In years not to far into the future by using our own gas and oil, they go broke and back to riding camels instead of Mercedes. Americans would be driving those Mercedes. Until we stop countries from cloud seeding and our dependency on foreign oil we are doomed to read articles from “doc” and his cohorts.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Meeha, who appears to be incredibly ignorant of things scientific, is foolish enough to call someone “incredibly stupid”? That’s incredible.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Thank You for sharing all that irrelevant nonsense.

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/

        When you have something scientific let us know.

        BTW if they were planning on keeping the oil here, they would be
        building “refineries” not “pipelines to shipping ports.

      • eddie47d

        Apparently Meeha wants us all to be chocking on pollution because China does it. If Meeha’s neighbor is a drunk she better get plastered too!? We are developing our resources yet the need for alternatives are even greater. Think ahead for your grandchildren for I believe they will thank us for saving a little for them.

      • http://airconditioningmarianna.org david howard

        you keep telling them meeha I agree with you anyone who actually believes in global warming because a scientist says its true is stupid they call people stupid because they are stupid and they believe the opposite about us but we are not the ones who are brain washed. they cant prove their theories that’s why their so bitter towards people like us who don’t allow some government scientist think for us like galt and eddie they are probably under 35 and are getting everything they can from their fine government . one day they will wake up and this government will be gone then who will tell them how to think .

      • eddie47d

        What’s the matter David did your oil stocks go down again and your all pissed off? Don’t cash in yet big boy there is plenty of drilling yet to be done. There is also plenty of non government scientists who are proving its all a fact. We’ll leave the hookahs pookas to your side!

    • Doc Sarvis

      FreedomFighter, Steph, jmach11, & Gary L
      All of you convieniently avoided the very first reason I gave for making changes in our energy policy. I am not at all surprised.

      • Steph

        Ok so we reduce our use of nonrenewable resources. What do we replace them with? Nuclear? That was tried and all the EPA bozos screamed bloody murder.
        Wind? Again towers were built and the naturalist tree huggers screamed you are ruining our countryside and the SPCA said it was killing birds.
        Water? Again here the animal rights groups came out and said you can’t put a dam there it will damage the environment and impact all these different species.
        Solar? Here the tree huggers came out again shouting these huge sprawling solar plants are and eyesore. We don’t want them in our backyard.

        So whats left. Geothermal? Guess what, the best concentration is in national parks and government protected lands so, no go, can’t damage them now can we.

        Hmm. I am running out of renewable sources. So until someone can come up with a renewable source that the environmental wackos can agree on it just ain’t gonna happen.

      • eddie47d

        We need a combination of all resources Steph. Nobodies ever happy yet I have heard very few environmentalists complain about solar. Most complaints about wind I have heard right here from Conservatives or from wealthy homeowners who don’t want the towers in their backyards ( the view). I feel lucky living in Colorado where all resources are used except nuclear. We have solar,wind geothermal,hydro, oil and lots of natural gas fields.

    • Hedgehog

      Dear Doc; global warming is a FRAUD. Climate change is a natural process that has been going on for millions, if not billions of years. Our carbon footprint has nothing to do with it! Get used to climate change. Like it says in the living on Earth users manual, ADAPT OR DIE!

      P.S. Global Warming has about as much basis in scientific fact as the theory that the dinosaurs became “exstink” due to excess farting by herbivore dinosaurs, changing the CO2 methane balance, causing global cooling, etc.etc….BS!

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        The skeptic argument…
        Climate’s changed before
        Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)
        What the science says…
        Select a level… Basic Intermediate
        Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

        A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now. Interestingly, the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion. To understand this, first you have to ask why climate has changed in the past. It doesn’t happen by magic. Climate changes when it’s forced to change. When our planet suffers an energy imbalance and gains or loses heat, global temperature changes.

        There are a number of different forces which can influence the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. These effects are referred to as external forcings because by changing the planet’s energy balance, they force climate to change.

        It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.
        Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to external forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out the degree of past temperature change, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. From this, we can determine how temperature has changed due to past energy imbalances. What we have found, looking at many different periods and timescales in Earth’s history, is that when the Earth gains heat, positive feedbacks amplify the warming. This is why we’ve experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past. Our climate is highly sensitive to changes in heat. We can even quantify this: when you include positive feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 causes a warming of around 3°C.

        What does that mean for today? Rising greenhouse gas levels are an external forcing, which has caused climate changes many times in Earth’s history. They’re causing an energy imbalance and the planet is building up heat. From Earth’s history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify the greenhouse warming. So past climate change doesn’t tell us that humans can’t influence climate; on the contrary, it tells us that climate is highly sensitive to the greenhouse warming we’re now causing.

        Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate’s sensitivity to CO2.

        If there’s one thing that all sides of the climate debate can agree on, it’s that climate has changed naturally in the past. Long before industrial times, the planet underwent many warming and cooling periods. This has led some to conclude that if global temperatures changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and plasma TVs, nature must be the cause of current global warming. This conclusion is the opposite of what the peer-reviewed science has found.

        Our climate is governed by the following principle: when you add more heat to our climate, global temperatures rise. Conversely, when the climate loses heat, temperatures fall. Say the planet is in positive energy imbalance. More energy is coming in than radiating back out to space. This is known as radiative forcing, the change in net energy flow at the top of the atmosphere. When the Earth experiences positive radiative forcing, our climate accumulates heat and global temperature rises (not monotonically, of course, internal variability will add noise to the signal).

        How much does temperature change for a given radiative forcing? This is determined by the planet’s climate sensitivity. The more sensitive our climate, the greater the change in temperature. The most common way of describing climate sensitivity is the change in global temperature if atmospheric CO2 is doubled. What does this mean? The amount of energy absorbed by CO2 can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. These results have been experimentally confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 Watts per square metre (W/m2) (IPCC AR4 Section 2.3.1).

        So when we talk about climate sensitivity to doubled CO2, we’re talking about the change in global temperatures from a radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2. This forcing doesn’t necessarily have to come from CO2. It can come from any factor that causes an energy imbalance.

        How much does it warm if CO2 is doubled? If we lived in a climate with no feedbacks, global temperatures would rise 1.2°C (Lorius 1990). However, our climate has feedbacks, both positive and negative. The strongest positive feedback is water vapour. As temperature rises, so too does the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. However, water vapour is a greenhouse gas which causes more warming which leads to more water vapour and so on. There are also negative feedbacks – more water vapour causes more clouds which can have both a cooling and warming effect.

        What is the net feedback? Climate sensitivity can be calculated from empirical observations. One needs to find a period where we have temperature records and measurements of the various forcings that drove the climate change. Once you have the change in temperature and radiative forcing, climate sensitivity can be calculated. Figure 1 shows a summary of the peer-reviewed studies that have determined climate sensitivity from past periods (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).

        Figure 1: Distributions and ranges for climate sensitivity from different lines of evidence. The circle indicates the most likely value. The thick coloured bars indicate likely value (more than 66% probability). The thin coloured bars indicate most likely values (more than 90% probability). Dashed lines indicate no robust constraint on an upper bound. The IPCC likely range (2 to 4.5°C) and most likely value (3°C) are indicated by the vertical grey bar and black line, respectively.

        There have been many estimates of climate sensitivity based on the instrumental record (the past 150 years). Several studies used the observed surface and ocean warming over the twentieth century and an estimate of the radiative forcing. A variety of methods have been employed – simple or intermediate-complexity models, statistical models or energy balance calculations. Satellite data for the radiation budget have also been analyzed to infer climate sensitivity.

        Some recent analyses used the well-observed forcing and response to major volcanic eruptions during the twentieth century. A few studies examined palaeoclimate reconstructions from the past millennium or the period around 12,000 years ago when the planet came out of a global ice age (Last Glacial Maximum).

        What can we conclude from this? We have a number of independent studies covering a range of periods, studying different aspects of climate and employing various methods of analysis. They all yield a broadly consistent range of climate sensitivity with a most likely value of 3°C for a doubling of CO2.

        The combined evidence indicates that the net feedback to radiative forcing is significantly positive. There is no credible line of evidence that yields very high or very low climate sensitivity as a best estimate.

        CO2 has caused an accumulation of heat in our climate. The radiative forcing from CO2 is known with high understanding and confirmed by empirical observations. The climate response to this heat build-up is determined by climate sensitivity.

        Ironically, when skeptics cite past climate change, they’re in fact invoking evidence for strong climate sensitivity and net positive feedback. Higher climate sensitivity means a larger climate response to CO2 forcing. Past climate change actually provides evidence that humans can affect climate now.

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

      • Hedgehog

        GALT; that was a wasted reply. I am well aware of everything you mentioned. I have an Honours BA in Geography and my thesis was on Climate Classification.

        Thank you.

      • Pat

        I agree with you Hedgehog:
        If you find yourself without facts and concepts to discuss and refute man-caused global warming or “climate change” as nonsense read the following:

        Water vapor is a better absorber of heat energy, IR, than CO2 by a factor of seven and has 30 to 100 times as many molecules in air that generate 210 to 700 times as much atmospheric heat as CO2. Water vapor does 99.96% to 99.99% of all atmospheric heating. Why should we stop using our best, most convenient, abundant, lowest cost form of energy to quell 0.01% to 0.04% of atmospheric heating? The Medieval Warming period was the happiest in history. 500 years of peace and prosperity. Why is this nonsense happening?

        The control and taxing of carbon and carbon dioxide would give the elected ruling class more money and power than anything in history. For them and the 40% of our people wanting more government so they get “benefits” by “taxing the rich” and “spreading the wealth around,” could make it happen!

        Man makes so little CO2 compared to nature cutting our portion would net nothing even if it were a good absorber of IR. Earth produces 166 billion tons (gigatons) of CO2 every year. 160 gigatons come from the decomposition of limestone and dead stuff. Of the six gigatons made by man America makes 20% or 1.2 gigatons, but with it we make 50% of the world’s fuel, fiber, food and manufactured goods. The Green-a-zoids want us to cut our production of CO2 by 80% or by 0.96 gigatons, but of the 166 gigaton total that is only 0.57%, a statistically insignificant portion of the total of which 96% is produced naturally and CO2 is the vapor tiger.

      • Vicki

        Pat. It helps if you provide a link to cites as GALT did above. I did find a cite that backs up your assertion on the amount of CO2

        http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263

      • cawmun cents

        Gee,
        I wish I was a cut and pasty,like many of you and had to use someone else’s words to make my arguments.
        Was my own thought at fault?
        Probably….
        -CC.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        I agree Hedgehog, you need to sue whomever it is that claims to have
        educated you.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Dear naive realistic (cawman) you need facts to reason with, and since
        the facts and reasoning are all available together…..duplication of effort is stupid.

        Didn’t stop you from making a “stupid” original argument…….with no facts,
        and having posted the facts……..we can point out just how stupid
        you are…..for attempting it, anyway.

        Still claiming “artistic license”, to justify ignorance…..is “creatively stupid”……

        Do you feel better now?

    • Bruce

      15,000 years ago north America was covered by a sheet of ice 1.5 miles thick. Where did it go? do you think cave man caused the ice to melt? The world is warming based on what is happening under our feet. Humans have a very small impact on climate, volcanoes on the other hand….
      JUNK SCIENCE should be ignored.
      We know scientists lie to us about climate change, why do they lie?
      Who do they work for?

      • eddie47d

        Where’s your proof that they are lying? Man didn’t exist back then yet now we have a multitude of different problems that could be exacerbating a warming trend. I’ll be open to whatever knowledge you have Bruce.

      • http://airconditioningmarianna.org david howard

        how do you know ? who told you that ? how do they know ? after all where they or you there ?

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “I’ll be open to whatever knowledge you have Bruce”

        Are you also open to other sources of knowledge? If so start here
        http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

      • eddie47d

        Yes Vicki it does show that temperatures are now higher than during the Medieval warming period. That could easily make that difference a man made phenomenon. That fact also show that the waters started rises about 8-15,000 years ago. That 300 ft was alot of fresh water melt in that time period. Since the temperatures are warmer now totally explains our melting Arctic ice caps and glaciers. It doesn’t take much movement in temperature to accomplish that either.

    • momo

      Try convincing China and India.

    • ed

      Your exhaling emits CO and is banned by the EPA. Humans will be outlawed for their harm to the enviroment

      • Vicki

        Just keep in mind that CO2 suppression is PLANT oppression.

      • eddie47d

        Can be but like steroids in humans they can be beneficial and also dangerous if over consumption occurs.

    • Shawn

      And what happens when we come up with sustainable energy and the government is dependent on the revenue stream from carbon credits? I guess they’ll have to tax the energy that is clean too. If you give them an inch, they take a mile.

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

      Doc the only dwindling is your lack of brains, have you been to the east coast lately? have you seen the cold in the west and other places lately. Your a sick person and need a real doctor, one who would put you in a padded cell with the rest of your nut job friends. We have more oil then the middle east and Israel has just found the biggest national gas find in the world, we have enough oil to last thousands of years but, it’s people like you inventing what isn’t real as the main problem. You leftist are a bunch of sheeple who need to graze on the nazi plantations awaiting you, you would have voted for Hitler today, opps you already did. Need to put all of you on a island and make you live off the land and leave us with common sense alone. Doc, LOL.

    • Ultimately

      Another “kool aid” drinker is amongst us. You people forgot to read the part that the scientists that initially claimed global warming and carbon credits were the way to save our planet, came forward after it was uncovered that Al Gore and his buds created a ponzi scheme on the backs of these scientists. Maybe you should read past the “send your money to” line. Pitiful that you call yourself a Doctor.

    • dnm

      what a complete liberal koolaid drinking moron! global warming is a complete hoax cooked up by the liberal left and their ilk with the single goal of enslaving people and controlling their lives..it will not be tolerated and EPA regs will NOT be obeyed..

    • TIME

      Dear People,

      The only Carbon Emission’s that the NWO’s specail mind control program on
      { ” Man Made Global Warming” } have in mind is the reduction of Carbon Units, that means ~ “HUMANS.”

      Will some of you thick headed dingbats wake up, or is it that your working for the NWO gang?

      If so please explain how a tax will reduce any form of Carbon Emission’s?

      Peace and Love, Shalom, Ask for the Holy Sprit to enter your SOUL.

    • http://pweiters9.wordpress.com pweiters9

      2/12/13, This is the next con: “ObamaAir.” The welfare state having chased most of it’s tax base elsewhere will leave the rest of us “clean & tapped out.” Don’t invest too much faith in political parties. Remember Nixon created, what was to protect a dozen or so plants & animals, c. 1972, a monster: the EPA.

  • Warrior

    I wonder if the “retailers” confer with the epa? Should we plan to offer more bathing suits or jackets this year? All these tough choices. Over the weekend, I did learn from queen nan that we do not have a spending problem though. Not sure if the “retailers” believe that. I also learned that the “sequester” was passed because it would be sooooooo painful that no one in their “right mind” would allow it to “actually” take affect. So now, around 80 billion, no 80 milllion, err 800,000 DOD defense “contractors” are going to be let go OR was it they have to take “furlough days”?. Funny thing is, didn’t the prez just approve raises for everyone? Anyway, back to climate. If you happen to live in the midwest, there are some great deals right now on snowblowers, bathing suits and jackets.

  • Charlie

    There was an ice age once, the ice was a mile& a half thick in the lower Ohio valley.There are bolders of granite in the Ohio valley that came from Canada. The great lakes were formed and filled by this ice. The ice has long been gone, did man make this warming that caused this ice melt? If you have a glass of ice does the ice melt faster at first or after some has melted into water that covers the ice? How can we let such a small group (EPA) ruin our nation because they lied and now don’t want to admit their lie so they proceed to lie to cover their orginal lie.

    • eddie47d

      How is the EPA lying? That seems to be a convenient word (lie) for those Conservatives who are always in denial.Would you like to go back to the days of the brown clouds in our cities (they are returning so that should make you ecstatic). Would you like to be choking on soot and drinking chemically polluted water as in the past. Are you enjoying the increasing acidification of our oceans? How about the dwindling fish species? Maybe the forests turning brown from beetle kill because of longer warming periods is your cup of tea.Is the EPA ruining our nation! Hardly and they just may be saving it!

      • Hedgehog

        Eddie, the EPA is a government agency, therefore they lie to protect their budget! There is no honesty in any government agency, it’s total CYA! Man is part of the environment, any changes we inadvertently make to the climate is part of the game plan! Check your copy of the living on Earth users manual. Right on the frontispiece it says” The perversity of the universe tends toward a maximum.” and underneath in capitals it says:’ADAPT OR DIE!. What part of this manual don’t you understand?

      • eddie47d

        Apparently you didn’t read Galt’s response to you or else you wouldn’t have printed such drivel. In a nutshell …everything in the past is still with us yet now we have billions of more people sending an even greater amount of chemicals into the atmosphere which is adding to what was already there. That’s the coming change.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        So which is it going to be……

        You volunteering to adapt??????

      • dnm

        lol another pathetic koolaid drinker without a clue…your kind needs to be defeated asap

  • DaveH234

    As bad as China is they are making strides to turn things around. THey are the largest manufacturer and with their resources will make efforts.
    That’s all we should be doing, too.
    Make some effort.
    Solar panels are cheap, WVO diesel vehicles, electric vehicles.
    Don’t need new fancy cars. Convert(recycle) older smaller vehicles with electric motors for daily use. Like the golf carts. My uncle converted a corvair in the 60′s and drove it for decades. Added solar cells after he figured out he could make them, too.
    Popular Science magazine helped. That’s ingenuity. American style.

    • RivahMitch

      Ah,,, but we made a number of “easier ” changes in previous decades which improved out environment whereas the Chinese (if we’re to believe your statement) are just “making strides to turn things around (whatever that means). I’d also note that the Chinese live in a tightly controlled society and are accustomed to a much lower standard of living that are Americans. Perhaps, to you, those things are virtue. However, Many/most Amercians would find them unappealing. If you want to triple your electric bills, only drive an unairconditioned vehicle which requires 5 trips to move what I can move in one, turn off your air conditioning in the summer and your heat in the winter, go right ahead. However, when you try to coerce me do the same I’m locked and loaded.

      • RivahMitch

        Oh, btw, I forget to mention that current science shows that “Global Warming” stopped ceased a decade and a half ago.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        RM says “current science shows global warming stopped ceased a decade and a half ago” ??

        Another ignorant non-scientist spouting nonsense. Tell us about this “current science”, RM? Give us a source for that horsepucky.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        The skeptic argument…
        It’s cooling
        “In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth – quite the contrary. And this means that the projections of future climate are unreliable.” (source: Henrik Svensmark)
        What the science says…
        Select a level… Basic Intermediate
        All the indicators show that global warming is still happening.
        When looking for evidence of global warming, there are many different indicators that we should look for. Whilst it’s natural to start with air temperatures, a more thorough examination should be as inclusive as possible; snow cover, ice melt, air temperatures over land and sea, even the sea temperatures themselves. A 2010 study included 10 key indicators, and as shown below, every one of them is moving in the direction expected of a warming globe.

        The question of global warming stopping is often raised in the light of a recent weather event – a big snowfall or drought breaking rain. Global warming is entirely compatible with these events; after all they are just weather. For climate change, it is the long term trends that are important; measured over decades or more, and those long term trends show that the globe is still, unfortunately, warming.

        Empirical measurements of the Earth’s heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.

        To say we’re currently experiencing global cooling overlooks one simple physical reality – the land and atmosphere are only one small fraction of the Earth’s climate (albeit the part we inhabit). Global warming is by definition global. The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth’s entire heat content.

        Church et al 2011 extends the analysis of Murphy 2009 which calculated the Earth’s total heat content through to 2003. This new research combines measurements of ocean heat, land and atmosphere warming and ice melting to find that our climate system continued to accumulate heat through to 2008.

        Figure 1: Total Earth Heat Content from 1962 to 2008 (Church et al 2011).

        A look at the Earth’s total heat content clearly shows global warming has continued past 1998. So why do surface temperature records show 1998 as the hottest year on record? Figure 1 shows the heat capacity of the land and atmosphere are small compared to the ocean (the tiny brown sliver of “land + atmosphere” also includes the heat absorbed to melt ice). Hence, relatively small exchanges of heat between the atmosphere and ocean can cause significant changes in surface temperature.

        In 1998, an abnormally strong El Nino caused heat transfer from the Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere. Consequently, we experienced above-average surface temperatures. Conversely, the last few years have seen moderate La Nina conditions which had a cooling effect on global temperatures. And the last few months have swung back to warmer El Nino conditions. This has coincided with the warmest June-August sea surface temperatures on record. This internal variation where heat is shuffled around our climate is the reason why surface temperature is such a noisy signal.

        Figure 1 also underscores just how much global warming the planet is experiencing. Since 1970, the Earth’s heat content has been rising at a rate of 6 x 1021 Joules per year. In more meaningful terms, the planet has been accumulating energy at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. Our climate is still accumulating heat. Global warming is still happening.

        Moreover, even if we focus exclusively on surface and lower atmosphere temperatures, the warming continues. Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to filter out the effects of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and solar and volcanic activity (Figure 2), and found that the undelying global surface and lower atmosphere warming trends have remained very steady in recent years (Figure 3).

        Figure 2: Temperature data (with a 12-month running average) before and after the exogeneous factor removal

        Figure 3: Average of all five data sets (GISS, NCDC, HadCRU, UAH, and RSS) with the effects of ENSO, solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions removed (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011)

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

      • Right Brain Thinker

        I’m following GALT around here with my two cents. GALT has given us some real data to look at.

        Another interesting part of the picture is the recent info gathered via gravity measurements made by satellite. I don’t have a source offhand, but this comparatively new source of data shows that a major part of sea level rise appears to be occurring not from ice melt (although that is not insignificant), but because the water in the oceans is heating up and expanding. A new twist is that it appears the water is heating up and expanding to depths of 3000+ feet in places, whereas in the past it only heated up for the first few hundred feet. This raises the question of lag time—-if the heat from many years ago is just now reaching the depths, what does the future hold? Is there another tipping point hidden there? Will the warming of the depths interfere with the thermohaline circulation?

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Good RBT…….now it’s your turn…….go to the site…..find the argument that
        these idiots are repeating…..and post it here…..

        There are 179 myths there…….including the myth source…….these guys have about
        10 they might know……..so there’s about 3 left…….

        post the link too…….they have “pictures, charts and graphs”……

        My work is done here…..have a nice day.

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/

      • Vicki

        Something to keep GALT and RBT some job security.

        http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Aw Vicki, how sweet……..the elimination of “willfull ignorance and functional illiteracy”,
        is not a “job”……it is a necessary survival strategy.

        It would be quite secure if it were a job…….but actually solving the problems,
        seems more efficient………and pragmatic.

        If leaving were an option, I would be gone in a heartbeat…..and be very happy
        to leave you all to your own devices.

        But thanks for thinking of me……

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        BTW all of that is covered and corrected in the single link provided…..

        You do the work.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Vicki says, “Something to keep GALT and RBT some job security.” Thank you, Vicki. I always like to build my understandings of the present on things that are based on references from 15 years ago, just as I tell my doctor NOT to treat me using any of the more recent knowledge he may have acquired. (To say nothing of the bias and subtle misinformation scattered throughout the piece).

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Galt: If leaving were an option, I would be gone in a heartbeat…

        Why is leaving not an option?

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Well, I guess that depends on what your understanding of “leaving”
        is……as the destination sought, and the resources and technologies
        required to accomplish the task, which in the latter case, are not
        presently available nor expected anytime soon.

        Needless to say my choice of destination would not be confused with anything
        local…..

  • Bud

    I guess that King Obama and his pals have enough carbon credits stored up so that they will be filthy rich! This is such a scam and we are going to see our liberties, as Americans, go right down the drain. Just check and see how many carbon credits that snakes like Gore, Soros, Obama and many libs in congress own and you will understand why this is being moved on.

    • eddie47d

      How are our liberties being eroded Bud? Yes Gore does own carbon credits but Obama doesn’t. Al is not happy with Obama because he is not forceful enough on that issue and on climate change. Should we be free to pollute without taking any responsibility for how it effects the world we live in? If businesses make money by cutting corners and creating health hazards then shouldn’t they pay more someplace else to make up for that? You’ll have to show us how many credits Soros owns since you seem to be sure of yourself.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    Challenging the groupthink tendencies of mainstream society on any number of popular issues is sure to bring about plenty of mockery and ridicule, especially if you challenge the mainstream dogma of man-made global warming. But none of this phased Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) and 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, who recently resigned his membership from the American Physical Society (APS) over its errant position on global warming.

    An esteemed physicist who, besides winning his Nobel Prize, also received an Oliver E. Buckley Prize in 1965 and a Zworkin Award in 1974. Dr. Giaever is well-learned in solid state physics and biophysics, and is very well-respected in his field. However, all of his extensive knowledge has led him to the undeniable, and politically inconvenient, conclusion that man-made global warming is nothing more than pseudoscientific nonsense.

    The official position of APS is that man-made global warming is real and occurring right now, and that its existence is incontrovertible, a position that Dr. Giaever finds appalling. In an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society, Dr. Giaever questions the duplicity of the organization in its approach to global warming versus all other areas involving physics.

    “In the APS is it ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible,” he writes. “The claim is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree (sic) Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me (sic) that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this warming period.”

    The use of the word “incontrovertible” in describing any scientific assessment is faulty, says Dr. Giaever. Science, in general, is all about questioning what is assumed about the world and the things that are in it. To suggest that man-made global warming — which many other scientists and physicists besides Dr. Giaever also contend is a questionable theory, at best — is undeniable fact proves that APS is either blatantly complying with an unscientific political agenda, or the group has altogether abandoned any semblance of legitimate scientific inquiry and assessment.

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      Ivar Giaever – Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist

      Posted on 12 July 2012 by dana1981
      We often see scientists from non-climate fields who believe they have sufficient expertise to understand climate science despite having done minimal research on the subject; William Happer, Fritz Vahrenholt, and Bob Carter, for example. As he admits in his own words, Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever fits this mould perfectly:

      “I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don’t think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so – half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I’m going to try to explain to you why that was the case.”

      That quote comes from a presentation Giaever gave to the 62nd Meeting of Nobel Laureates in 2012, for some unknown reason on the subject of climate change. As Giaever notes at the beginning of his talk, he has become more famous for his contrarian views on global warming than for his Nobel Prize, which have made him something of a darling to the climate contrarian movement and climate denial enablers.

      In this post we will examine the claims made by Giaever in his talk, and show that his contrarian climate opinions come from a position of extreme ignorance on the subject, as Giaever admits. Giaever personifies the classic stereotype of the physicist who thinks he understands all scientific fields of study:

      Cartoon from xkcd which describes the behavior of Ivar Giaever to a ‘T’

      Accuracy of the Surface Temperature Record
      In his talk, Giaever spent a lot of time criticizing Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC chairman) for winning the Nobel Peace Prize for – according to Giaever – ‘making the global surface temperature record famous’ (Figure 1).

      Figure 1: Various global surface and lower troposphere temperature data sets.

      Giaever proceeded to question the accuracy of the surface temperature record, ultimately asking:

      “How can you measure the average temperature of the Earth? I don’t think that’s possible.”

      Unfortunately this simply displays an ignorance regarding the surface temperature record, whose accuracy has been confirmed time and time again, and which is also consistent with lower troposphere temperature measurements, as illustrated in Figure 1.

      Glenn Tramblyn has answered Giaever’s question in great detail in his four part series Of Averages & Anomalies, and Kevin C also had an excellent and detailed post on recent temperature measurements in The GLOBAL global warming signal. The answers to these questions are out there for those who are willing to spend more than a few hours on Google searches, and it is not constructive to give presentations on subjects without first doing such basic research. We are again left wondering why Giaever was asked to give a presentation to Nobel Laureates on a subject on which he has no expertise and has not done even the most basic research.

      The Significance of the Observed Global Warming
      Giaever also disputed the significance of the measured 0.8°C average global surface warming over the past 130 years, comparing it to a human fever and the temperature at which he had to maintain tissue for cell growth during his own biophysical experiments, also showing the following slide:

      Giaever does not seem to know how to put the observed 0.8°C global surface temperature change in proper context. It may sound small in comparison to the absolute global temperature in Kelvin, or in comparison to changes in human body temperatures, but it is a very large change in global surface temperature, especially over a period as brief as 130 years (Figure 2).

      Figure 2: Eight records of local temperature variability on multi-centennial scales throughout the course of the Holocene, and an average of these (thick dark line) over the past 12,000 years, plotted with respect to the mid 20th century average temperature. The global average temperature in 2004 is also indicated. (Source)

      In addition to this rapid surface warming, the global oceans have also been accumulating heat at an incredible rate – the equivalent of more than two Hiroshima “Little Boy” atomic bomb detonations per second, every second over a the past half century. Presumably a physicist of Giaever’s stature would appreciate the magnitude of this global energy accumulation.

      As a physicist, Giaever should also understand that seemingly small objects and quantities can have large effects, but instead he seems to rely on incorrect “common sense” perceptions which are based on ignorance of the subject at hand.

      CO2 vs. Water Vapor
      As another example of this behavior, Giaever proceeds to demonstrate that he also does not understand the role of the greenhouse effect in climate change.

      “Water vapor is a much much stronger green[house] gas than the CO2. If you look out of the window you see the sky, you see the clouds, and you don’t see the CO2.”

      Needless to say, the second sentence above represents a very bizarre argument. Giaever is either arguing that CO2 is a visible gas (it is not) and the fact that you can’t see it means there is too little in the atmosphere to have a significant warming effect, or that only visible gases can warm the planet, or some other similarly misinformed assertion.

      That clouds are visible to the human eye and CO2 isn’t simply is not relevant to the greenhouse effect and global warming. It’s also worth noting that like CO2, water vapor is not visible – clouds are condensed water droplets, not water vapor.

      Additionally, water vapor does not drive climate change. There is a lot of it in the atmosphere, so it is the largest single contributor to the greenhouse effect. However, water vapor cannot initiate a warming event. Unlike external forcings such as CO2, which can be added to the atmosphere through various processes (like fossil fuel combustion), the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapor is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation – the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. As Lacis et al. (2010) showed, as summarized by NASA (emphasis added):

      “Because carbon dioxide accounts for 80% of the non-condensing GHG forcing in the current climate atmosphere, atmospheric carbon dioxide therefore qualifies as the principal control knob that governs the temperature of Earth.”

      Climate Myth Whack-a-Mole
      Giaever continues ticking off the most common climate myths, going from arguing that it may not even be warming, to claiming the warming is insignificant, to asserting the warming is caused by water vapor, and ultimately that the warming is indeed caused by human influences:

      “Is it possible that all the paved roads and cut down forests are the cause of “global warming”, not CO2? But nobody talks about that.”

      Climate scientists do of course investigate and discuss the effects of deforestation and urban influences. The 2007 IPCC report discusses the influences of deforestation on climate in great detail, for example here and here, and devotes a section to policies aimed at reducing deforestation here. The United Nations has also implemented the Collaborative initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) to address the effects of deforestation on climate change. In short, by claiming that nobody has considered the effects of deforestation on climate, Giaever once again demonstrates that he simply has not done his homework.

      The IPCC report also discusses the influences of urban heat islands and land use effects here and here, for example. Giaever then claims that one person has talked about these effects – US Secretary of Energy and fellow Nobel Laureate Steven Chu, who suggested paining roofs white to offset some warming, though he does not discuss Chu in a very flattering light.

      “[Chu has] been bought by the global warming people, and he’s now helping Obama trying to make green energy in the United States.”

      In the presentation in question, Chu described the potential effects of the white roof proposal as follows:

      “Making roads and roofs a paler color could have the equivalent effect of taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years”

      Chu discusses white roofs as a geoengineering possibility in response to greenhouse gas-caused climate change, as a way to offset a small portion of the global warming our fossil fuel combustion and associated carbon emissions are causing.

      Failure to do Homework Earns a Failing Grade
      At this point we’re 9 minutes into Giaever’s 32-minute presentation, and he begins comparing climate science to religion. Yet based on his arguments in those first 9 minutes, it’s clear that Giaever has not done even the most basic climate research, so how can he possibly make such a radical determination?

      While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows. He simply bounces from one climate myth to the next, demonstrating a lack of understanding of Climate Science 101, and then insults the entire scientific field by comparing it to a religion, brining life to the xkcd cartoon at the top of this post.

      Memo to climate contrarians – expertise comes from actually researching a subject. There is a reason why scientists who have researched climate change in the most depth are also the most likely to be convinced that global warming is human-caused (Figure 3).

      Figure 3: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change (green) and unconvinced by the evidence (red) with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).

      In his talk, Giaever complained that he had become famous for his climate contrarianism, which he claimed indicated that dissenting opinions on the subject are not welcome. On the contrary, Giaever has been criticized for repeating long-debunked climate myths which he could have easily learned about through a little bit of research – by perusing the Skeptical Science database, for example, where we have debunked all of his Googled climate misconceptions.

      Instead, Giaever has used his position of scientific authority as a Nobel Laureate to misinform people about a subject on which he has not even done the most basic research. That is not how a good scientist should behave, and that is why Giaever has rightfully and deservedly been criticized. Giaever finishes his talk by proclaiming

      “Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely.”

      The problem is that Giaever has not done his homework, which is why he gets the wrong answer, and his presentation deserves a failing grade. Ironically, Giaever defines “pseudoscience” as only seeking evidence to confirm one’s desired hypothesis, which is precisely how Giaever himself has behaved with respect to climate science.

      Listening to Giaever’s opinions on climate science is equivalent to giving your dentist a pamphlet on heart surgery and asking him to crack your chest open. While climate science has a basis in phyiscs (and many other scientific fields of study), it is an entirely different subject, whose basics Giaever could undoubtedly grasp if he were willing to put the time in to do his homework.

      But individual scientists (even Nobel Laureates) suffer from cognitive biases like anyone else. That’s why we don’t rely on indvidual scientists or individual papers to draw conclusions about climate change. The only way to get an accurate picture is through the work of many scientists, peer reviewed and scrutinized over decades and tested against multiple lines of evidence. Giaever demonstrates how far cognitive bias – reinforced by a few hours of Googling – can lead anyone to the wrong conclusions, and also proves that no individual’s opinion, regardless of his credentials, can replace the full body of climate science evidence.

      Note: for climate-related talks at the same conference made by Nobel Laureates who have actually researched the topics in their presentations, see these videos of Paul Crutzen and Mario Molina.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

      • Right Brain Thinker

        To second GALT’S comments, Giaever is an 80+ year old has been who made his name 40+ years ago in PHYSICS, not in climate science. He has never published a single paper on climate change/global warming, and has no expertise in the field, as GALT points out. The APS, from which he resigned, has come out strongly in favor of the need to deal with Anthropogenic Global Warming—-there are some 50,000+ members, and very few of them disagree with that position.

        Giaever IS, however, now being linked to the Cato Institute and the Heartland Institute, the second of those being a particularly notorious nest of climate change denial and LIES. Both of those groups receive significant funding from the Koch brothers and Exxon-Mobil. I would hope that Dr. Giaever is not one of those who have sold out to the fossil fuel interests and now shills for them—-an inglorious end to a career in science if he has done that.

      • cawmun cents

        A man who is a Nobel Laureate in Physics tells you that .8 degree of change over 150 years,doesnt a great change make,doesnt need a degree in climatology,or whatever sickness that is currently happening in the scientific community at large,to make a sound claim.He has the laws of Physics at his disposal,and can determine that things are as they should be from that (laws of thermodynamics) knowledge alone and not need “junk science”,to support his claims of drastic efforts needed to stop what has occured naturally since the dawn of time.
        These things happen,just like your common scientific theory of the “big bang”,which states that (expletive deleted) happens.There was this infinitessimal point of energy which appeared from nowhere,and suddenly exploded.In other words,(expletive deleted) happens!
        How can you support a whole theory that extolls the virtues of (expletive deleted) happens,and then turn and say that here on earth,mankind controls what happens,and has a direct effect on what (expletive deleted) happens?
        It doesnt make sense to anyone with an intelligent mind.
        That is why,though you argue to the contrary,some of us will necessarily ignore all of the academic knowledge you put forth,because just like the Standard Model,your math and perceived statemments of fact,just dont add up to what you think they do.
        You have to insert your dark mindmatter,into what you cannot perceive as real,in order to create a sense of intelligence that is obviously (to the cautious observer),not there.
        So when you cut and paste things which are possibly errant to begin with,and call them facts,you get incredulity from those of us who possess good male bovine scat detectors.
        I didnt cut and paste this,because I have the ability to concisely project my own opinion,be it correct or in error.
        I dont support “junk science”,because I know its “junk science”,and has nothing to do with reality,no matter what your god Algore says.
        You couldnt (expletive deleted) facts that you dont have,any more than you can explain the origins of the universe,beyond an “apparently educated guess”,which counts as nothing to anyone who can see past the tip of their nose.
        But what do I know?
        Apparently very little……
        Cheers!
        -CC.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        You have a right to share your ignorance, we have the right to identify it
        as such………as you can see it is no problem at all, since the work has
        already been done…….so it doesn’t matter how many times on this site
        you post it…….or rather the “mushroom feeders” dangle it because they
        have to feed you something……..it is easily dismantled and the fact that
        you all repeat the ignorance, every time……that you are “mushrooms”
        is quite clear……..

    • eddie47d

      Dr Giaver won his awards (1965 & 74) many years before global warming was even much of an issue.Most of our recent climate changes have occurred about 10 years later and continue to this day. So he could be the one who isn’t up to speed. Climate change could be “questionable” whether you believe it is happening or you don’t. That is why we have scientists on both sides of the issue trying to sort out the changes that are occurring.

      • eddie47d

        Galt; Thanks for that additional information.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        eddie47d and I agree on so many things that I hate to pick on him at times for being “too polite”. This is one of those times.

        Dr Giaver is willfully ignorant rather than “behind the times”. He has NO credibility and deserves no “slack”.

        Climate change is NOT “questionable”, it is merely too new an issue to be fully explored and understood. It IS occurring, and for every piece of “questionable” data that says “no”, we have ten pieces of “questionable” data that say “yes”.

        We do NOT have scientists on both sides of the issue trying to “SORT OUT” the changes that are occurring”. We have the vast majority of climate scientists saying it IS occurring and madly trying to understand it and figure out how to counteract it. We have a distinct minority of “scientists” (most are not climate scientists or even scientists), who are deniers and seek to obstruct the real “sorter outers”

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        A Gallup pole of climate scientists belonging to the American Meteorological Society and the American Physical Union showed that 49% rejected anthropogenic warming; 18% accepted it; and 33% said don’t know…

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

      Galt: We often see scientists from non-climate fields who believe they have sufficient expertise to understand climate science despite having done minimal research on the subject; William Happer, Fritz Vahrenholt, and Bob Carter, for example. As he admits in his own words, Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever fits this mould perfectly:

      “I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don’t think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so – half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I’m going to try to explain to you why that was the case.”

      That quote comes from a presentation Giaever gave to the 62nd Meeting of Nobel Laureates in 2012, for some unknown reason on the subject of climate change. As Giaever notes at the beginning of his talk, he has become more famous for his contrarian views on global warming than for his Nobel Prize, which have made him something of a darling to the climate contrarian movement and climate denial enablers.

      Why is this same criticism/scrutiny/vilification not levelled at global-warming proponents who are not experts in the field…i.e. Al Gore, politicians, corporate-lobbyists, main-stream media?

      Why are experts in the field (Tim Ball and numerous others) not allowed to voice their opinions on the national media-stage?

      Why is there a “consensus”, collusion…? on main-stream where a “closed-door-policy” is in effect with respect to any contrary-opinion?

      This is the problem, Galt. Not so much the science of global-warming, but the deliberate silencing of opinions/criticism/alternate-views by the main-stream media of any voice that dares questions the status-quo. This is most troublesome!

      Why the fear of alternative opinions/facts?

      Why are we not allowed to hear from the opposition?

      Why is there no open, public-debate on the issue?

      Why only one voice? And that, from the so-called experts and proponents in the field?

      The majority of the public suspect a “scam”. They suspect that it is a scam not because they understand the science, but because they recognize a “collusion”, a “contrived-conensus” where no other “voice” is allowed to speak! And therein lies your biggest hurdle, Galt. You can bombard the people, the skeptics, the deniers with all your science until your blue in the face, you can pound the people with all the insults and ridicule you can muster, but until you allow a free-flow of contrary ideas, facts, findings and open debates, all your scientific-facts will be for naught!

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/

        Everything you need is there……….the source of the “scam” or the one who
        claims it…..if any…….and it’s scientific refutation…….

        All in one place………both sides

        All your evidence or claimed evidence……is one point here……one point there…..
        isolated from everything else……..preaching to the choir……

        Considering all the money behind the pseudo science…….why isn’t there a site
        that is as equally comprehensive………???????

        If you think about it, that should be a rhetorical question…….is it?

      • Right Brain Thinker

        JAY is going to earn his bucks at the “Shills-n’Trolls-r-Us” dungeon this week. He is diligently propagandizing and obfuscating once again, except that he has taken off his NRA hat and put on his Koch Brothers “I Love Fossil Fuels” hat today.

        JAY asks, “Why is this same criticism/scrutiny/vilification not levelled at global-warming proponents who are not experts in the field” Al Gore is not vilified? And are there many global warming proponents who are NOT expert in the field?. That seems to be the whole point here—-those who know what they’re talking about say “worry about AGW”, those who don’t know, like the good Dr. G, say dumb things like “AGW isn’t happening” and therefore deserve to be vilified.

        JAY asks, “Why are experts in the field not allowed to voice their opinions on the national media-stage?” Horsepucky—-too many of them are allowed to do so because of the “false equivalency” and “fair and balanced” hypocrisy that exists on the national media stage. One AGW denier is picked from 500 and he is matched with one AGW believer picked from the 20,000—-they are given equal time—-if anything, the AGW deniers are the ones who are not being heard.

        JAY asks, “Why is there a “consensus”, collusion…? on main-stream where a “closed-door-policy” is in effect with respect to any contrary-opinion?” More piled higher and deeper horsepucky. There is “consensus” among climate scientists because global warming IS real. Any “collusion” that exists is among the fossil fuel interests, their bought and paid for scientists, and the corporate-owned media that has not given adequate attention to AGW.

        JAY tries to distract us with, “This is the problem—-the deliberate silencing of opinions/criticism/alternate-views by the main-stream media of any voice that dares questions the status-quo. Why the fear of alternative opinions/facts? Why are we not allowed to hear from the opposition?” More horsepucky designed to mislead and deflect.

        JAY DOES ask a good question with, “Why is there no open, public-debate on the issue?” Obviously because the fossil fuel interests don’t want it to happen, and they are trying to make THEIR “one voice” the dominant one. When “science” that points to proving that AGW is occurring piles up as overwhelmingly, asd it has, the “debate” needs to shift to “what are we going to do about it?”, and the fossil fuel interests know that will hurt their bottom line.

        “The majority of the public suspect a “scam”. They suspect that it is a scam not because they understand the science, but because they recognize a “collusion”, a “contrived-conensus” where no other “voice” is allowed to speak! And therein lies your biggest hurdle, Galt. You can bombard the people, the skeptics, the deniers with all your science until your blue in the face, you can pound the people with all the insults and ridicule you can muster, but until you allow a free-flow of contrary ideas, facts, findings and open debates, all your scientific-facts will be for naught!”

        Goebbels and the Koch brothers would be proud of JAY for this finish. A fine diatribe that is both anti-science and anti-rationality. JAY would have us believe that the AGW deniers are being silenced, when it is the other way around. JAY would have us believe that the public “suspects” that AGW is a scam when the polls show that more and more of the public “suspect” that AGW is real and that the deniers and the fossil fuel interests have been the ones “colluding” and “scamming”. JAY would have us believe that the way science works is to allow the free markets and the greedy rich to determine what is “scientific truth”, i.e., to allow the shills to inject “contrary ideas”, non-”facts”, biased “findings”, and obfuscatory “debates” into a discussion that is too important to be polluted by “politics”, which is all JAY’s comments here reflect. If it is true that the mindless will allow themselves to be misled to the extent that “all your scientific-facts will be for naught!”, there is no hope for the future of the human race.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        RBT: those who know what they’re talking about say “worry about AGW”, those who don’t know, like the good Dr. G, say dumb things like “AGW isn’t happening” and therefore deserve to be vilified.

        Do you know what you’re talking about, RBT? Are you an expert in the field? Then how would you be able to discern who knows what they’re talking about? Since you are not an expert in the field, the only thing you can do is apply “blind-faith”. Is this not so? You come across as a simpleton when you ridicule others for the very same thing you are practising; blind faith! Since you are not, an expert, have no formal education in the field, then how in the world can you determine who is lying and who is telling the truth, RBT? You don’t! Therefore, make your case with civility…and cease with the childish-tactics. Thank you!

      • eddie47d

        There are other ways to make judgements on issues also besides rejecting one side over another. Glacier melting,increased fires in US,Russia and Australia, more methane gas entering atmosphere,arctic melting, increased flooding,more ice shelf’s in Antarctica breaking off than those growing and increased tornadoes in US. Man could easily be triggering those changes

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Ooooh, looky! Jay is climbing up on his high horse of indignation—-I must have hit a nerve. (And do I detect some “dudgeon” there? another favorite word like “snark”)

        I have addressed this issue of “expertise” in a reply to another of JAY’s comments. I will just copy it here again with minor changes since it still fits, although JAY is not comparing our relative levels of “expertise” as he did before, but simply attacking me here..

        “I chuckle at JAY saying, “In all honesty, i cannot deny nor agree that we have an “global-warming” issue as I am not an expert”, and then saying “but neither are you or any one else on this forum”. For those of you who may not know, I am a former science educator with two degrees in science fields, have been involved in environmental issues since before Earth Day over 40 years ago, have read perhaps hundreds of books on environmental issues, and have far more science expertise than JAY or most others visiting this forum. Am I a climate scientist or scientist of any stripe? NO, but I am a well-educated and informed layman on many science topics, and that makes me a “one-eyed man in the land of the blind” here and therefore a minor “king”, especially when compared to JAY (who would love to drag me down to his level of science ignorance in the minds of others)”.

        Jay is even mildly vicious in this attack—-I will insert some “answers” in (CAPS) and parens among his “questions”:

        Do you know what you’re talking about, RBT? (NEARLY ALL THE TIME, JAY, AND I ACKNOWLEDGE AND RECTIFY ANY MISTAKES I MAKE—-YOU NEVER DO)

        Are you an expert in the field? (FAR MORE SO THAN YOU, JAY, AND FAR MORE THAN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION, PARTICULARLY ON THIS SITE)

        Then how would you be able to discern who knows what they’re talking about?
        (THAT’S 0NE OF THE BENEFITS OF BEING EDUCATED AND A RATIONAL THINKER)

        You come across as a simpleton when you ridicule others for the very same thing you are practicing; blind faith! (ANYONE WHO HAS READ MY POSTINGS ON THIS SITE WHO ACCUSES ME OF DOING ANYTHING ON “BLIND FAITH” IS THE SIMPLETON. LIKE YOU, JAY)

        Since you are not an expert, have no formal education in the field
        (A BA IN PHYSICS AND AN MA IN BIOLOGY ARE NOT “FORMAL” EDUCATION? HOW ABOUT ALL THOSE BOOKS AND ARTICLES I’VE READ AND THE WEB SITES I VISIT?)

        Then how in the world can you determine who is lying and who is telling the truth, RBT?
        (SIMPLE—THOSE WHOSE COMMENTS MATCH THE FACTS ARE TELLING THE TRUTH, THOSE WHOSE COMMENTS DON’T—-OR DISTORT TRUTH BADLY—ARE STATING UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS OR ARE FLAT OUT LYING. HOW DO YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE, JAY? ARE YOU ONE OF THE MANY THAT THINK ANYONE WHO AGREES WITH THEM IS TELLING THE TRUTH AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THEM IS LYING? DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY IN THE WORLD OF SCIENCE.)

        Therefore, make your case with civility…and cease with the childish-tactics. Thank you!
        (MY “CASES” ARE ALWAYS MADE WITH MORE CIVILITY THAN I RECEIVE FROM MANY ON THIS SITE, YOU INCLUDED. THIS ATTEMPT BY YOU TO DIMINISH AND CALL INTO QUESTION MY “EXPERTISE” IS THE ONLY “CHILDISH” BEHAVIOR IN IMMEDIATE VIEW, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR DESPERATION).

        CEASE WITH THE HORSEPUCKY AND PROPAGANDA AND MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION HERE (OR IS IT YOUR JOB TO OCCUPY ME TODAY ON THIS THREAD SO THAT THE OTHER SHILLS-N-TROLL-R-US WORKERS WILL HAVE A FREE HAND WITH THE TRUTH ON THE OTHER THREADS?)

        You’re welcome, I’m sure.l

      • Right Brain Thinker

        GALT mentions http://www.skepticalscience.com/ and asks

        Considering all the money behind the pseudo science…….why isn’t there a site
        that is as equally comprehensive………???????

        The only one I’ve seen on the denier side that even begins to approach skepticalscience is globalwarminghoax.com, and it doesn’t compare……..perhaps a lack of “truth” hampers them?

        Climate Denial Crock of the Week and the climate pages of Think Progress, as well as Climate Science Watch and desmogblog are informative as well for anyone seeking truth.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        RBT: (NEARLY ALL THE TIME, JAY, AND I ACKNOWLEDGE AND RECTIFY ANY MISTAKES I MAKE—-YOU NEVER DO)

        Are you an expert in the field? (FAR MORE SO THAN YOU, JAY, AND FAR MORE THAN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION, PARTICULARLY ON THIS SITE)

        Then how would you be able to discern who knows what they’re talking about?
        (THAT’S 0NE OF THE BENEFITS OF BEING EDUCATED AND A RATIONAL THINKER)

        You come across as a simpleton when you ridicule others for the very same thing you are practicing; blind faith! (ANYONE WHO HAS READ MY POSTINGS ON THIS SITE WHO ACCUSES ME OF DOING ANYTHING ON “BLIND FAITH” IS THE SIMPLETON. LIKE YOU, JAY)

        Since you are not an expert, have no formal education in the field
        (A BA IN PHYSICS AND AN MA IN BIOLOGY ARE NOT “FORMAL” EDUCATION? HOW ABOUT ALL THOSE BOOKS AND ARTICLES I’VE READ AND THE WEB SITES I VISIT?)

        Then how in the world can you determine who is lying and who is telling the truth, RBT?
        (SIMPLE—THOSE WHOSE COMMENTS MATCH THE FACTS ARE TELLING THE TRUTH, THOSE WHOSE COMMENTS DON’T—-OR DISTORT TRUTH BADLY—ARE STATING UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS OR ARE FLAT OUT LYING. HOW DO YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE, JAY? ARE YOU ONE OF THE MANY THAT THINK ANYONE WHO AGREES WITH THEM IS TELLING THE TRUTH AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THEM IS LYING? DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY IN THE WORLD OF SCIENCE.)

        Therefore, make your case with civility…and cease with the childish-tactics. Thank you!
        (MY “CASES” ARE ALWAYS MADE WITH MORE CIVILITY THAN I RECEIVE FROM MANY ON THIS SITE, YOU INCLUDED. THIS ATTEMPT BY YOU TO DIMINISH AND CALL INTO QUESTION MY “EXPERTISE” IS THE ONLY “CHILDISH” BEHAVIOR IN IMMEDIATE VIEW, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND YOUR DESPERATION).

        CEASE WITH THE HORSEPUCKY AND PROPAGANDA AND MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION HERE (OR IS IT YOUR JOB TO OCCUPY ME TODAY ON THIS THREAD SO THAT THE OTHER SHILLS-N-TROLL-R-US WORKERS WILL HAVE A FREE HAND WITH THE TRUTH ON THE OTHER THREADS?)

        At the risk of repeating myself, RBT, i’ll say it again; Anyone can make all sorts of claims on social forums, and describe themselves in the best possible light. Unfortunately, none of which you claim can be verified. Sorry. But i must say, i’ve yet read anyone boast about themselves quite like you just did, and all in caps. Interesting! The little mouse that roared? Napoleon complex? Who knows? And why the caps, btw? Lol!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        At the risk of repeating myself, I will restate at the end of this comment what JAY chooses to call “claims” that “can’t be verified”. I have not been visiting PLD for very long, but anyone who reads my postings knows that I have shared some of my personal life experiences, experiences from the military, experiences from 30 years in education, and knowledge from the science field. Many of you can probably form a mental picture of me based on that.

        What JAY would call “boasting”, I call sharing, and I leave it to the group at large to judge whether any of it is believable. I am sure of several things:

        1) I do have far more science understanding and knowledge than JAY. Anyone who has watched him post horsepucky that is more propaganda than science has also watched me shoot him down every time. JAY’s “knowledge” consists of wholly copied clips chosen for their inflammatory titles and content, for propaganda rather than education..
        2) Jay, unlike me, is a complete mystery and a “shadow person” on this site. He has revealed nothing of himself to us other than that he is a devious and dishonest twister of truth. I have been gathering statistics and doing comment analysis on a number of the folks I refer to as the “Shills-n-Trolls-r-Us” operation, and I become more convinced every day that JAY is abusing the trust of all who visit PLD. He is playing games with us.
        3) I will not apologize for being better educated in some areas than JAY and many others who post on this site. Folks may have noticed that I am not like many (JAY among them) who post comments on many threads and really don’t know what they’re talking about on many of them. I speak out only on things that I have some expertise in, and speak honestly and in recognition of the facts. I have had virtually no factual rebuttals (just the name-calling and insults from those who are frustrated by their inability to really debate issues with me), so there must be some general agreement that I know what I’m talking about.

        JAY falls back on the last refuge of those who have no real knowledge or understanding, no facts, no arguments—-he just attacks, and attempts smugness, dismissiveness, and condescension in this final comment.

        “i’ve yet read anyone boast about themselves quite like you just did, and all in caps. Interesting! The little mouse that roared? Napoleon complex? Who knows? And why the caps, btw? LOL!”

        To answer JAY’s questions, the caps were an attempt at clarity, making his comments and mine more clearly distinguishable, but JAY predictably tries to make something of it—rest assured, the next time I do it, HIS comments will be capitalized. I like the “little mouse that roared”—-in this case, that “mouse” is 6’1″, weighs 230, has sharp teeth, and has ripped JAY a new anal orifice every time they have met. Napoleon complex?—-doesn’t fit me—–perhaps it fits JAY the “shadow person”—-I’m forming a mental image of him being a “little” guy, one of those chip on the shoulder types that guys my size had to endure.

        To repeat, “For those of you who may not know, I am a former science educator and school administrator with two degrees in science fields, have been involved in environmental issues since before Earth Day over 40 years ago, have read perhaps hundreds of books on environmental issues, and have far more science expertise than JAY or most others visiting this forum. Am I a climate scientist or scientist of any stripe? NO, but I am a well-educated and informed layman on many science topics, especially when compared to JAY (who would love to drag me down to his level of science ignorance in the minds of others)”.

        So, JAY, who are YOU? What’s your educational background? What degrees do you hold in what fields? What did you do for a living? Were you in the mili8tary? Do you own guns and shoot? What have you ever offered us so that we could judge your credibility? Why should anyone believe a single word of what you post? Why do I waste the time responding to your comments? (other than the fact that I can’t stand watching you abuse the truth the way you do and abuse the trust and good faith of the others that visit this site). LOL indeed.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    A $14 Trillion Extortion for a Global Warming Scam.

    The latest megalomaniacal threat from the financial globalists wants to saddle the world economy with a cost of trillions of dollars that benefits favorite corporatists. The phony global warming cult has a core purpose. Their objective is to drive down the standard of living for non-elites and prevent the use of fossil fuel energy. The fallacious science used to create a disinformation scare for politically unsophisticated “True Believers” is a direct result of transnational money manipulators. The Davos crowd sponsors the educational and media institutions that trump up junk research and manufacture idealistic solutions.

    Make no mistake about it, the Davos Elites Enjoys the Global Depression, and love corporate welfare. They greatly profit from government subsidized “Green” ventures, which drive up energy costs and line the pockets of compadre companies, under the control of the financial barons. As the rest of us struggle to survive, pronouncements declare an every greater burden to bear. Note the ominous future in Davos Report Calls For Additional $14 Trillion To Restrain Global Warming.

    “The world must spend an additional $14 trillion on clean energy infrastructure, low-carbon transport and energy efficiency to meet the United Nations’ goal for capping the rise in average global temperatures, according to a World Economic Forum report released on Monday.”

    Former Mexican President Felipe Calderon states the globalist viewpoint.

    “Economic growth and sustainability are inter-dependent, you cannot have one without the other, and greening investment is the pre-requisite to realizing both goals.”

    What can be expected from these “greening investment” projects? In order to anticipate future plans, a comprehensive understanding of the past and present shady business practices is crucial.

    Examine the industrial wind and solar model in detail. The Washington Post reports in, Sting operations reveal Mafia involvement in renewable energy, is just the tip of the iceberg.

    “The still-emerging links of the mafia to the once-booming wind and solar sector here are raising fresh questions about the use of government subsidies to fuel a shift toward cleaner energies, with critics claiming that huge state incentives created excessive profits for companies and a market bubble ripe for fraud. China-based Suntech, the world’s largest solar panel maker, last month said it would need to restate more than two years of financial results because of allegedly fake capital put up to finance new plants in Italy. The discoveries here also follow “eco-corruption” cases in Spain, where a number of companies stand accused of illegally tapping state aid.

    Because it receives more sun and wind than any other part of Italy, Sicily became one of Europe’s most obvious hotbeds for renewable energies over the past decade. As the Italian government began offering billions of euros annually in subsidies for wind and solar development, the potential profitability of such projects also soared — a fact that did not go unnoticed by Sicily’s infamous crime families.

    Roughly a third of the island’s 30 wind farms — along with several solar power plants — have been seized by authorities. Officials have frozen more than $2 billion in assets and arrested a dozen alleged crime bosses, corrupt local councilors and mafia-linked entrepreneurs. Italian prosecutors are now investigating suspected mafia involvement in renewable-energy projects from Sardinia to Apulia.”

    http://mb50.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/a-14-trillion-extortion-for-a-global-warming-scam/

    • eddie47d

      Operations that are provable scams should be shut down or have subsidies withdrawn. Kind of reminds me of the Tar Sands in Canada where some folks are becoming instant millionaires yet the price of gas never went down from those pits. The environment in that region is being ruined and the air polluted yet the money keeps flowing into an awful lot of pockets. Corruption and profits seem to go hand in hand and everyone wants a piece of the latest pie!

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        eddie: Corruption and profits seem to go hand in hand and everyone wants a piece of the latest pie!

        And why would the “global-warming” issue be any different, eddie? Thanks for making my point! Again, the issue with me is not the “Science”, rather, the issue with me is with the usual-suspects involved.

      • eddie47d

        There are always “usual suspects” whether its railroad subsidies a century ago or oil subsidies. You tried to imply that alternatives are not worthy because of bad influences. Well the railroads and oil companies survived and even flourished with those early subsidies. That doesn’t make their product bad or even the subsidies to build their businesses and only the greedy speculators or enfluence peddlers should be reprimanded.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Not sure what eddie is talking about when he speaks of “the price of gas never went down from those pits”, since there is no “gas” involved in tar sands mining. Do you understand what “tar sands” are, eddie? And how they’re processed?

        JAY speaks out of both sides of his mouth when he says, “Again, the issue with me is not the “Science”, rather, the issue with me is with the usual-suspects involved”.

        If that is true, JAY, may I suggest that you stick ONLY to talking about the “usual suspects involved” and stay away from the “crap science and crap scientists” that you have regaled us with here today and on other related threads in the past. (PLEASE do not start up the “CO2 is good for you” horsepucky again).

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        RBT: (PLEASE do not start up the “CO2 is good for you” horsepucky again).

        Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a naturally occurring chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth’s atmosphere in this state, as a trace gas at a concentration of 0.039 per cent by volume.

        As part of the carbon cycle, plants, algae, and cyanobacteria use light energy to photosynthesize carbohydrate from carbon dioxide and water, with oxygen produced as a waste product. However, photosynthesis cannot occur in darkness and at night some carbon dioxide is produced by plants during respiration. Carbon dioxide is produced by combustion of coal or hydrocarbons, the fermentation of sugars in beer and winemaking and by respiration of all living organisms. It is exhaled in the breath of humans and land animals. It is emitted from volcanoes, hot springs, geysers and other places where the earth’s crust is thin and is freed from carbonate rocks by dissolution. CO2 is also found in lakes at depth under the sea, and commingled with oil and gas deposits.

        Is CO2 essential for life?

        You bet! Every living thing is made up of carbon. It is in our atmosphere, in the earth’s crust, and in the bodies of both plants and animals. When we breathe, we exhale carbon-dioxide. When plants respire, they take in carbon-dioxide. Without carbon, life would not be possible.

      • eddie47d

        Jay: Too much carbon can stress plants and acidify the oceans

      • eddie47d

        RBT; Tar Sands will be converted to oil and gasoline. Heck there is no gasoline in oil wells either but soon after it will be and prices should be affected if the supply is great enough. .

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Thank you, JAY, for a thankfully BRIEF “CO2 is good for you” piece. Nothing you said is really untrue and I detect only the tiniest attempt to “politicize”. Yes, Carbon and CO2 are very important to life on Earth, but too much Carbon in the form of CO2 is becoming a problem.

        eddie explained that he meant “gasoline” when he used the word “gas”. I interpreted “gas” to be just that, a state of matter in which molecules are spaced so far apart that they assume no definite shape or volume, as opposed to liquid gasoline, which has no shape but a definite volume. We need to be precise in our language when talking about things scientific. Tar sands will not “be converted to oil and gasoline”—-the tar sand will be left in Alberta in huge polluting and messy piles—-the hydrocarbon fossil fuel component will be extracted from the sand via a messy, energy intensive process that uses and pollutes large quantities of water. Only then will we have something that can be “converted”, and that won’t happen until the “extract” is piped to a refinery.

        .

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        RBT: If that is true, JAY, may I suggest that you stick ONLY to talking about the “usual suspects involved” and stay away from the “crap science and crap scientists” that you have regaled us with here today and on other related threads in the past.

        Why, because they don’t agree with you? What is it about an opinion that differs from yours you find so threatening? Doesn’t say much for your convictions, RBT.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        No, JAY, it says a lot for my respect for the truth and respect for the trust of the others who visit this site, because it is one of my “convictions” that truth should be respected and the others on this site should not be manipulated by you for your devious purposes. You abuse the truth and the trust of all when you continually and shamelessly post “crap science from crap sites and crap scientists”.

        We often agree on many failings of “the usual suspects”, and I have said so openly many times on many threads. You need to stick to that aspect and STOP feeding science horsepucky to everyone because the Koch brothers or others are paying you to do so. We can agree on the science of AGW and climate change—-all that is required is that you get educated on the subject and deal with FACTS. (and drop the use of the word “opinion”—-theories, findings, and tentative conclusions are more scientific)..

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Nice bit of propaganda cherry picking, JAY. FOURTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS?!!!? OMG!!!

      Jay doesn’t tell you that figure is for the entire world economy and is a pie-in-the-sky “where we’d like to be” scenario. It has no chance of happening, because the “world economy” just can’t support it. The richest countries won’t at preaent and the poorest just plain can’t.

      And of course it’s always nice to mention the MOB, particularly the MAFIA and SICILY. All those great Godfather movies and the Sopranos have shown us that we should be VERY AFRAID of the MOB.

      There is no doubt that the globalists and the plutocrats have got their greedy hands out here, but the MOB we need to fear most is the fossil fuel interests who have been raping this country and the world for their own personal gain for the last century and more.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        RBT: There is no doubt that the globalists and the plutocrats have got their greedy hands out here, but the MOB we need to fear most is the fossil fuel interests who have been raping this country and the world for their own personal gain for the last century and more.

        Then why do you criticize me for pointing out the corruption as you just did? Arguing the science of global-warming is essentially a moot-point when the “usual suspects” control the politics there of, don’t you think? It seems prudent, therefore, that before we throw our full support behind cleaning the planet, that we should first address and eradicate the “corruption”, don’t you think? In all honesty, i cannot deny nor agree that we have an “global-warming” issue, as i am not an expert in the field; but neither are you or any one else on this forum. But, on one thing we can all agree on, is the “corruption” behind all the “major-issues” we contend with! Is “global-warming” or “climate-change” due to man-made-activity? Opinions definitely differ. But even if the were true, so what? Do you think the “players” involved will do what’s best, what’s necessary? If you do, then you’re dreaming, and good luck with that!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        WTS/JAY asks, “Then why do you criticize me for pointing out the corruption as you just did?”.

        I criticize JAY for his mixing of “apples and oranges”. He continually attempts to propagandize and divert us from science and into politics and “corruption”. What seems prudent to me is that we focus on dealing with the science of AGW right now, because of its potential for destroying human civilization if not checked soon.

        I chuckle at JAY saying, “In all honesty, i cannot deny nor agree that we have an “global-warming” issue as I am not an expert”, and then saying “but neither are you or any one else on this forum”. For those of you who may not know, I am a former science educator with two degrees in science fields, have been involved in environmental issues since before Earth Day over 40 years ago, have read perhaps hundreds of books on environmental issues, and have far more science expertise than JAY or most others visiting this forum. Am I a climate scientist or scientist of any stripe? NO, but I am a well-educated and informed layman on many science topics, and that makes me a “one-eyed man in the land of the blind” here and therefore a minor “king”, especially when compared to JAY (who would love to drag me down to his level of science ignorance).

        JAY asks, “Is “global-warming” or “climate-change” due to man-made-activity? Opinions definitely differ. It seems prudent, therefore, that before we throw our full support behind cleaning the planet, that we should first address and eradicate the “corruption”, don’t you think?”. Opinions differ because of politics but the science does not. The corruption that is endemic in our system corrodes all efforts to move the country forward in many areas and needs to be dealt with. It should NOT be a factor in lookingt at the pure science of AGW.

        JAY finally asks, “Do you think the “players” involved will do what’s best, what’s necessary? If you do, then you’re dreaming, and good luck with that!” I share some of JAY’s pessimism there, unfortunately. I can only hope that a continued emphasis on the science of AGW will drive the charlatans off the stage (and that JAY will go with them).

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        RBT: I criticize JAY for his mixing of “apples and oranges”. He continually attempts to propagandize and divert us from science and into politics and “corruption”.

        It seems logical, i would think, that we first deal with the corruption. What good are scientific-facts, true or otherwise, in the hands of the corrupt?

        RBT: What seems prudent to me is that we focus on dealing with the science of AGW right now, because of its potential for destroying human civilization if not checked soon.

        Potential for destroying human civilization if not checked soon? That’s reaching a bit, don’t you think? Are you a doomsday-prophet now?

        RBT: I chuckle at JAY saying, “In all honesty, i cannot deny nor agree that we have an “global-warming” issue as I am not an expert”, and then saying “but neither are you or any one else on this forum”. For those of you who may not know, I am a former science educator with two degrees in science fields, have been involved in environmental issues since before Earth Day over 40 years ago, have read perhaps hundreds of books on environmental issues, and have far more science expertise than JAY or most others visiting this forum. Am I a climate scientist or scientist of any stripe? NO, but I am a well-educated and informed layman on many science topics, and that makes me a “one-eyed man in the land of the blind” here and therefore a minor “king”, especially when compared to JAY (who would love to drag me down to his level of science ignorance).

        As i stated previously, RBT. Anyone can make all sorts of claims, present themselves in the best possible light on social forums. Unfortunately, none of which you claim can be verified. Sorry. But hey, if it makes you feel superior…then you are better educated; whatever that means.

        JAY asks, “Is “global-warming” or “climate-change” due to man-made-activity? Opinions definitely differ. It seems prudent, therefore, that before we throw our full support behind cleaning the planet, that we should first address and eradicate the “corruption”, don’t you think?”. Opinions differ because of politics but the science does not.

        Even if the science is correct, so what? A man falsely accused can plead his case before a corrupt, justice-system till he’s blue in the face. What good will it do him?

        RBT: The corruption that is endemic in our system corrodes all efforts to move the country forward in many areas and needs to be dealt with. It should NOT be a factor in lookingt at the pure science of AGW.

        It should not be a factor? I beg to differ! That’s like saying, if your dying of thirst you should not consider the poison in the glass of water you’re about to drink, a factor! Silly RBT.

        RBT: JAY finally asks, “Do you think the “players” involved will do what’s best, what’s necessary? If you do, then you’re dreaming, and good luck with that!” I share some of JAY’s pessimism there, unfortunately. I can only hope that a continued emphasis on the science of AGW will drive the charlatans off the stage (and that JAY will go with them).

        I wouldn’t call it pessimism, rather; excepting an un-changing reality. Its been that way since the dawn of man, it is so presently, and it will remain so for some time to come! Accept it, you’ll sleep better!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        A few comments in response to JAY. WTS/JAY asks,

        “What good are scientific-facts, true or otherwise, in the hands of the corrupt?”
        What would you suggest we use to hold the corrupt accountable if not the truth? And by definition, a scientific “fact” that is not “true” is NOT a fact, in spite of how much you would like folks to believe otherwise. .

        “Potential for destroying human civilization if not checked soon? That’s reaching a bit, don’t you think? Are you a doomsday-prophet now?”
        JAY, I did NOT say human civilization would be destroyed soon, but that we must “check” AGW soon. The time frame is still up in the air but we have mere decades at most before it may be too late. That’s not prophecy but just looking at the facts.

        “But hey, if it makes you feel superior…then you are better educated; whatever that means”.
        I’m sorry that you feel inferior if you lack education, but “better educated” in my world meant that one is held in respect for having more knowledge, more skills, and more competence than those less educated. That’s why some of us were put into positions of leadership and responsibility. I won’t apologize for the gifts I was born with and what I have done with them. Get used to it.

        “Even if the science is correct, so what?”
        So what? SO WHAT? Sometimes you surprise even me, JAY.

        “It should not be a factor? If your dying of thirst you should not consider the poison in the glass of water you’re about to drink. Silly RBT”.
        Silly RBT? ?????????? This is one of the silliest things you’ve ever said1 LOL

        “I wouldn’t call it pessimism, rather; excepting an un-changing reality. Its been that way since the dawn of man, it is so presently, and it will remain so for some time to come! Accept it, you’ll sleep better!”
        Appropriately cynical for someone who has no convictions.

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      Employing a logical fallacy does NOT change the science or the problem.

    • http://airconditioningmarianna.org david howard

      hey I believe right Brian thinker is over educated and totally brain washed 20 years ago the epa done away with Freon’s 12 and 502 . 30 years ago they started emission control on vehicles it seems to me things are getting worse if what you say is true Brian then why are the weather conditions getting worse and not better ? and what about the ozone layer how do you explain the holes the epa says its from Freon ,emissions ,etc. why don’t they tell the real cause which is rockets that burn those holes in it every time they go thru it with there engines burning at 1000′s of degree’s. maybe I don’t have your education but I feel I am a lot wiser than you.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        you seem very confused and obviously ignorant……which is quite clear
        from the facts you claim and the questions you ask.

        Consider where the ozone holes appear, when and why…….and then explain
        how rocket launches, which are directed into orbit, by going east, to add the
        earths spin to the accelleration….can be the cause of these holes?

  • Right Brain Thinker

    So much willful ignorance. As in pointing fingers at China, talking about volcanoes, WARMING “causing” the COLD, and the last ice age.

    So many parrots mindlessly repeating the denial foolishness that the fossil fuel interests have planted in their heads. You can repeat the denial mantras as many times as you want, folks, but it won’t make any difference. Climate change IS occurring, just as it has throughout the history of the Earth. AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) IS occurring too, according to the vast majority of climate scientists who have studied the issue, and the majority of the public agrees with them. Does anyone on this site even look at the news? Do Nemos and Sandys and tornadoes in January and February give you any hints? Does anyone pay any attention to what has been going on in Australia for the past ten years? Does anyone ever read BOOKS?

    Sam tells us that “The EPA report says the agency plans to integrate “climate change science trend and scenario information” into its rule-making processes by 2015. The move results from a 2009 government-wide directive from President Obama’s Council on Environmental Quality, which requires agencies to plan now for future climate change”.

    If anything, we should all be up in arms over why it took the EPA so long to come up with this “draft” plan—-over three years for 55 pages? And two more years to “integrate trend and scenario information” into its rule-making processes? What the heck are they doing with this info right now and what have they been doing with it during O’Bama’s first term? The Bush administration ignored it and tried to silence government scientists who spoke out. O’Bama isn’t moving very fast here, folks, and the Koch brothers and their lobbyists will be working overtime starting tomorrow to water down anything and everything the EPA may come up with.

    I’m going to read the report (and make public comments to the EPA). Without even having read it, I’d give odds that half a dozen well-educated laymen could have written the report in just a few months and could do the “integration” of its findings into the rules-making process in just a few weeks. Here’s an example of an agency with a good purpose being hamstrung by politics. The EPA is one part of “government” that should be bigger and less subject to interference from the bought and paid for.

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      The very first thing in that report is a disclaimer, which offers the “predictable”
      outcome of whatever happens………

      Which is what happened with Dodd Frank……….

      and illegal immigration enforcement………

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

      Unfortunately RBT, you’re pissing in the wind, and wasting your energy in brow-beating your audience with ridicule and insults. They will not listen to you; and do you know why? Because, the mere mention of the fact that a bought and paid-for-government will do something about the “problem”, if indeed it is a problem, is laughable at best! But knock yourself out, if it makes you feel any better.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        WTS/JAY attempts to turn people against me by accusing me of “brow-beating our audience with ridicule and insults” (of which I have done little here). JAY states for all his belief/hope/desire that “They will not listen to me”. He hopes that you will all mindlessly suck up that bit of propaganda footwork and be diverted from looking at the science and rational analysis that GALT and I and others will lay out before this thread collapses (as well as deal with the horsepucky that folks like JAY will try to feed you)

        Be aware of JAY’s game here, folks—-he is NOT commenting on this thread to bring clarity and understanding. His job is to obfuscate, confuse, and deflect—-that’s what he is being paid to do.

        “…..if indeed it is a problem (YES, JAY, IT IS A PROBLEM—THE VAST MAJORITY OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SAY IT IS).

        And if our bought and paid for government doesn’t “do anything” about it, we will ALL feel very bad indeed.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        RBT screams: (YES, JAY, IT IS A PROBLEM—THE VAST MAJORITY OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SAY IT IS).

        A Gallup pole of climate scientists belonging to the American Meteorological Society and the American Physical Union showed that 49% rejected anthropogenic warming; 18% accepted it; and 33% said don’t know…hmm, doesn’t sound like a “majority” to me, RBT.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        WTS/JAY says:

        “A Gallup pole of climate scientists belonging to the American Meteorological Society and the American Physical Union showed that 49% rejected anthropogenic warming; 18% accepted it; and 33% said don’t know…”

        I will be more than glad to look at that “pole” and comment on it. It actually sounds like it’s PFTA or from 40 years ago. Source, please?

      • Right Brain Thinker

        I’M STILL WAITING FOR THE SOURCE OF THIS “POLE”, JAY. THIS IS THE LITTLE MOUSE THAT ROARED SHOUTING AT YOU.

        “A Gallup pole of climate scientists belonging to the American Meteorological Society and the American Physical Union showed that 49% rejected anthropogenic warming; 18% accepted it; and 33% said don’t know…”

        I will be more than glad to look at that “pole” and comment on it. It actually sounds like it’s PFTA or from 40 years ago. Source, please?

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    UPDATE: Another ‘Top’ Global Scientist Screams “It’s A Scam!!” -Top scientist resigns from post – admits Global Warming is a SCAM!

    http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=7670

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      The link Jay posted is a malware site……..

      • eddie47d

        Maybe that’s a “scam” worth looking into or NOT.

  • Thorpe Watson, PhD

    The greatest climate threat to civilizations is, and always has been, global cooling. What is the EPA doing to prepare us to meet this inevitable climate change?

    Regretfully, the generation of CO2 will not reduce this threat. The quantity of CO2 that can be produced by burning all our coal, oil, and gas deposits is relatively small compared to the CO2 that has been used to form carbonate rocks such as limestone. In fact, the consumption of all oil and gas deposits will replace less than 1% of the CO2 lost through such decarbonization of the environment since the dinosaur era.

    Contrary to the US Supreme Court ruling (2007), CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a vital plant food. Without CO2, life is not possible.

    • eddie47d

      Yes we all know the earth revolves around the sun and different parts of our earth receives more heat or is colder than other parts. Unless the sun explodes or we have an occasionally solar flare those things will remain unchanged. Those are things we have no control over. What we put into the earths atmosphere is something we do have control over and are changing weather patterns ocean quality and the sustainability of our air and fresh water. That’s where we are the masters of our fate.

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      The skeptic argument…
      We’re heading into an ice age
      “One day you’ll wake up – or you won’t wake up, rather – buried beneath nine stories of snow. It’s all part of a dependable, predictable cycle, a natural cycle that returns like clockwork every 11,500 years. And since the last ice age ended almost exactly 11,500 years ago…” (Ice Age Now)
      What the science says…
      Select a level… Basic Intermediate
      Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.
      According to ice cores from Antarctica, the past 400,000 years have been dominated by glacials, also known as ice ages, that last about 100,000. These glacials have been punctuated by interglacials, short warm periods which typically last 11,500 years. Figure 1 below shows how temperatures in Antarctica changed over this period. Because our current interglacial (the Holocene) has already lasted approximately 12,000 years, it has led some to claim that a new ice age is imminent. Is this a valid claim?

      Figure 1: Temperature change at Vostok, Antarctica (Petit 2000). The timing of warmer interglacials is highlighted in green; our current interglacial, the Holocene, is the one on the far right of the graph.

      To answer this question, it is necessary to understand what has caused the shifts between ice ages and interglacials during this period. The cycle appears to be a response to changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt, which affect the amount of summer sunlight reaching the northern hemisphere. When this amount declines, the rate of summer melt declines and the ice sheets begin to grow. In turn, this increases the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, increasing (or amplifying) the cooling trend. Eventually a new ice age emerges and lasts for about 100,000 years.

      So what are today’s conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely:

      These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale – they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age. You have to go back 430,000 years to find an interglacial with similar conditions, and this interglacial lasted about 30,000 years.
      The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth’s orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise.
      It can therefore be concluded that with CO2 concentrations set to continue to rise, a return to ice age conditions seems very unlikely. Instead, temperatures are increasing and this increase may come at a considerable cost with few or no benefits.

      The warming effect from more CO2 greatly outstrips the influence from changes in the Earth’s orbit or solar activity, even if solar levels were to drop to Maunder Minimum levels.
      Just a few centuries ago, the planet experienced a mild ice age, quaintly dubbed the Little Ice Age. Part of the Little Ice Age coincided with a period of low solar activity termed the Maunder Minimum (named after astronomer Edward Maunder). It’s believed that a combination of lower solar output and high volcanic activity were major contributors (Free 1999, Crowley 2001), with changes in ocean circulation also having an effect on European temperatures (Mann 2002).

      Figure 1: Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Solanki. TSI from 1979 to 2009 from Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos (PMOD).

      Could we be heading into another Maunder Minimum? Solar activity is currently showing a long-term cooling trend. 2009 saw solar output at its lowest level in over a century. However, predicting future solar activity is problematic. The transition from a period of ‘grand maxima’ (the situation in the latter 20th century) to a ‘grand minima’ (Maunder Minimum conditions) is a chaotic process and difficult to predict (Usoskin 2007).

      Let’s say for the sake of argument that the sun does enter another Maunder Minimum over the 21st century. What effect would this have on Earth’s climate? Simulations of the climate response if the sun did fall to Maunder Minimum levels find that the decrease in temperature from the sun is minimal compared to the warming from man-made greenhouse gases (Feulner 2010). Cooling from the lowered solar output is estimated at around 0.1°C (with a maximum possible value of 0.3°C) while the greenhouse gas warming will be around 3.7°C to 4.5°C, depending on how much CO2 we emit throughout the 21st century (more on this study…).

      Figure 2: Global mean temperature anomalies 1900 to 2100 relative to the period 1961 to 1990 for the A1B (red lines) and A2 (magenta lines) scenarios and for three different solar forcings corresponding to a typical 11-year cycle (solid line) and to a new Grand Minimum with solar irradiance corresponding to recent reconstructions of Maunder-minimum irradiance (dashed line) and a lower irradiance (dotted line), respectively. Observed temperatures from NASA GISS until 2009 are also shown (blue line) (Feulner 2010).

      However, our climate has experienced much more dramatic change than the Little Ice Age. Over the past 400,000 years, the planet has experienced ice age conditions, punctuated every 100,000 years or so by brief warm intervals. These warm periods, called interglacials, typically last around 10,000 years. Our current interglacial began around 11,000 years ago. Could we be on the brink of the end of our interglacial?

      Figure 3: Temperature change at Vostok, Antarctica (Petit 2000). Interglacial periods are marked in green.

      How do ice ages begin? Changes in the earth’s orbit cause less sunlight (insolation) to fall on the northern hemisphere during summer. Northern ice sheets melt less during summer and gradually grow over thousands of years. This increases the Earth’s albedo which amplifies the cooling, spreading the ice sheets farther. This process lasts around 10,000 to 20,000 years, bringing the planet into an ice age.

      What effect do our CO2 emissions have on any future ice ages? This question is examined in one study that examines the glaciation “trigger” – the required drop in summer northern insolation to begin the process of growing ice sheets (Archer 2005). The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the lower insolation needs to drop to trigger glaciation.

      Figure 3 examines the climate response to various CO2 emission scenarios. The green line is the natural response without CO2 emissions. Blue represents an anthropogenic release of 300 gigatonnes of carbon – we have already passed this mark. Release of 1000 gigatonnes of carbon (orange line) would prevent an ice age for 130,000 years. If anthropogenic carbon release were 5000 gigatonnes or more, glaciation will be avoided for at least half a million years. As things stand now, the combination of relatively weak orbital forcing and the long atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide is likely to generate a longer interglacial period than has been seen in the last 2.6 million years.

      Figure 4. Effect of fossil fuel CO2 on the future evolution of global mean temperature. Green represents natural evolution, blue represents the results of anthropogenic release of 300 Gton C, orange is 1000 Gton C, and red is 5000 Gton C (Archer 2005).

      So we can rest assured, there is no ice age around the corner. To those with lingering doubts that an ice age might be imminent, turn your eyes towards the northern ice sheets. If they’re growing, then yes, the 10,000 year process of glaciation may have begun. However, currently the Arctic permafrost is degrading, Arctic sea ice is melting and the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass at an accelerating rate. These are hardly good conditions for an imminent ice age.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Again, all the “science” isn’t going to convince anyone, Galt, not when the “usual suspects” are involved! Besides, the planet will always survive, no matter what damage it incurs…as for humanity; well, you would think that with the “over-population” fear-moungerers, extinction of the human race would be a good thing!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        WTS/JAY again appeals to emotion and irrationality when he says, “All the “science” isn’t going to convince anyone, Galt”. Why not, JAY? When we have a question of “science”, shouldn’t we rely on “science” for answers?

        And the planet WILL likely survive, even if it more closely resembles Venus or Mars and has not a single living thing on it.

        JAY doesn’t miss a chance to overstate things and try to “propagandize” the unwary, with his “…as for humanity; well, you would think that with the “over-population” fear mongerers, extinction of the human race would be a good thing!”.

        Of course, there are NO such folks as “over population fear mongerers”, just scientists who look at the workings of the planet and all the living things on it and try to understand it all. Jay would have you believe that discussion of the “extinction of the human race” is just politics and not something that is a worst case scenario—–and a very BAD thing for all living things on the planet, because we will take a lot of them with us if and when we go.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Not all the “usual suspects” have the same motivation…….in this case, I would
        look to those who are invested in the “status quo”…….since that would keep things the
        same and decrease population…..without affecting the rate of wealth transfer or
        decreasing the employment pool of wage and debt slaves…..correctly defined as
        peonage.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        RBT: WTS/JAY again appeals to emotion and irrationality when he says, “All the “science” isn’t going to convince anyone, Galt”. Why not, JAY? When we have a question of “science”, shouldn’t we rely on “science” for answers?

        It is not the purpose of science to provide answers, RBT, but data only. Humans, provide answers guided by science. Science is flawless, pure and undefiled. Science is a system through which we acquire knowledge about our physical world. Through science we make observations and engage in experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. We use the system of science to produce useful models of reality…? As i stated, in and of itself, science is flawless and perfect. Unfortunately, science, is in the hands of human nature, special interests, politics, greed and corruption. Naturally, as Galt stated, not all grind their axes for personal gain; however, too little to make any difference. The sad fact is, the scientific-system is held captive/prisoner by the ruling elite, and for that reason, and that reason alone, i will remain forever a sceptic!

        • Bruce

          Science is flawless, pure and undefiled.
          No, God is flawless pure and undefiled, despite sciences attempts to discredit the notion.
          Man has harnessed science to do his lying for him. So now we don’t trust every thing that comes from the mouth of someone claiming to be a scientist. Or anyone who’s living comes from government adjacency of any form. So since we don’t trust the government scientists anymore lets “let them go” and save a lot of tax money. What you say? What would private industry do?wwjd wwpid?

      • Right Brain Thinker

        JAY embarks on another of his twisted logic journeys. Short and sweet, HUMAN scientists provide the only kind of science we have, and we must rely on them to do the best job they can to resist the blandishments of the “ruling elite”. So far the scientists who think AGW is occurring are doing a far better job at that than the sellout scientists among the deniers and skeptics, who time and again have been shown to have monetary ties to fossil fuel interests and/or foundations and think tanks who do have such ties.

        JAY says, “i will remain forever a skeptic!” Why is that, JAY? I know you don’t have the science background to really understand AGW and climate change, but you are so illogical and unremitting in your mindset that I can’t help but think you have sold out too. Fess up—-are the Koch brothers or one of their many “arms” paying you? Many others on this thread are just ignorant, but you just seem to be willfully devious and deceptive.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        RBT: but you(Jay) just seem to be willfully devious and deceptive.

        Why, because i’m of the opinion that the current administration will do didly-squat in addressing the global-warming issue? Wilfully devious and deceptive…huh? I’m surprised you didn’t call me a racist to boot! Lol!

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Ah, Bruce science has done nothing, nor seeks to do anything to discredit
        the idea of god as a “cause” of the existence of the universe.

        Science is the attempt to quantify and determine relationships between the
        phenomena that comprise the reality you occupy.

        If science has demonstrated anything that discredits the “idea” of god or
        any other metaphysical explanation for the existence of the universe, it
        is because, these particular claims are inconsistent with the structure of
        the universe as it is empirically known.

        This not the fault of science, but rather those descriptions of god which
        have been shown to be in conflict with the reality that does exist, and an
        unnecessary resistance to altering those descriptions to a more accurate
        understanding, regarding these specific claims, which places the blame
        directly on the metaphysical source of those claims…….where the only
        understanding that is needed to resolve this imagined ‘conflict”, is the
        admission that such claims were beyond the understanding of those
        making them…….and that they should not have been made…..in god’s
        name.

        You may, depending on your religion, recognize this as the sin of PRIDE
        which seems to be a central theme in many religions regarding the
        relationship that exists between man and his creator.

        It would seem, however, that this lesson has still not quite been understood
        as to its significance or as a source of persistent temptation even after all
        this time. By way of consolation, it should be noted that when Einstein declared
        that god does not play dice with the universe, Neils Bohr, replied by suggesting
        that Albert should stop telling god what to do.

        Might it not be time, Bruce for you to consider this, or do you not recognize
        the implications of what it is, that you are actually doing?

  • Jamie

    The Earth has been changing every since it started to become a planet never stay’s the same ever changing cold or hot wet or dry, Just deal with it or find a way off it.

  • ibcamn

    Al Gore is a lying sack of sheet!he’s been caught fudging numbers,doing his fuzzy math off the fudged numbers,and it’s all a load of crap,you think if it was real him and Obama and Soroes wouldn’t have been busted with CCX!?!!hello,it’s a lie and you fell for it..
    If it were true,at all,in the least,the EPA would never have had been caught with fake e-mail addresses telling each other to shut up,don’t let the cat out of the bag type thing!CCX was a lie and they shut that thing down as fast as they could,then all of a sudden Gore comes up with this global warming thing!?!(after CCX was caught in fraud and scandele)and he talks about the exact same thing as CCX,but GLOBAL WARMING sounds better i guess,then his partner in crime(Obama)comes up with green ineciative programs!WOW,you guys who believe are as golible as they come,if all this were true,every country on earth would have to follow EPA standards!!HELLO!!!

    Check into CCX,it was a scam!!has everybody forgot what the Chicago bunch tried to do?!!
    The EPA is Obama’s henchmen and they will all screw us,and no dinner or a kiss!!

    • eddie47d

      Your getting into the usual anti-Obama ,etc propaganda… nothing more! Would that be like the Koch Brothers who wanted the University of Texas to fudge the numbers on Climate Change and paid them millions to do so. (Koch’s are the number one polluters in US so this was for their agenda). When the facts came out the Koch’s were disproven and the University was not going to back down on their findings.

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
      “[T]he 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory – a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. […] emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.” (Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun)
      What the science says…
      Select a level… Intermediate Advanced
      A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.

      In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails between climate scientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:

      In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any ‘Climategate’ emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State’s Department of Meteorology. They found that “there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data”. On “Mike’s Nature trick”, they concluded “The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.”

      In March 2010, the UK government’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s “Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community”.

      In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit”.

      In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining “there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann”.

      In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt”.

      In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and “found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets.”

      In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found “In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data”. On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found “The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers”.

      In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found “no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data”.

      In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded “Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed”.

      Just as there are many independent lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming, similarly a number of independent investigations have found no evidence of falsification or conspiracy by climate scientists.

      “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline”
      The most quoted email is from Phil Jones discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures (emphasis mine):

      “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
      “Mike’s Nature trick” refers to a technique (aka “trick of the trade”) used in a paper published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann (Mann 1998). The “trick” is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

      The most common misconception regarding this email is the assumption that “decline” refers to declining temperatures. It actually refers to a decline in the reliability of tree rings to reflect temperatures after 1960. This is known as the “divergence problem” where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed in the peer reviewed literature as early as 1995, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone’s email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature. More on the hockey stick divergence problem…

      Trenberth’s “travesty we can’t account for the lack of warming”
      The second most cited email is from climate scientist and IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth. The highlighted quote is this: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Trenberth is actually discussing a paper he’d recently published that discusses the planet’s energy budget – how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it’s going (Trenberth 2009).

      In Trenberth’s paper, he discusses how we know the planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, surface temperature sometimes shows short term cooling periods. This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can’t comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system. More on Trenberth’s travesty…

      The full body of evidence for man-made global warming
      An important point to realise is that the emails involve a handful of scientists discussing a few pieces of climate data. Even without this data, there is still an overwhelming and consistent body of evidence, painstakingly compiled by independent scientific teams from institutions across the world.

      What do they find? The planet is steadily accumulating heat. When you add up all the heat building in the oceans, land and atmosphere plus the energy required to melt glaciers and ice sheets, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 Gigawatts over the past 40 years (Murphy 2009). Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 Gigawatt, imagine over 190,000 power plants pouring their energy output directly into heating our land and oceans, melting ice and warming the air.

      This build-up of heat is causing ice loss across the globe, from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice at an accelerated rate (Velicogna 2009, ). Even East Antarctica, previously thought to be too cold and stable, is now losing ice mass (Chen 2009). Glacier shrinkage is accelerating. Arctic sea ice has fallen so sharply, observations exceed even the IPCC worst case scenario. The combination of warming oceans and melting ice has resulted in sea level rise tracking the upper limit of IPCC predictions.

      Rising temperatures have impacted animal and plant species worldwide. The distribution of tree lines, plants and many species of animals are moving into cooler regions towards the poles. As the onset of spring is happening earlier each year, animal and plant species are responding to the shift in seasons. Scientists observe that frog breeding, bird nesting, flowering and migration patterns are all occurring earlier in the year (Parmeson 2003). There are many other physical signs of widespread warming. The height of the tropopause, a layer in our atmosphere, is rising (Santer 2003). Arctic permafrost, covering about 25% of Northern Hemisphere land, is warming and degrading (Walsh 2009). The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007). These results are all consistent with global warming.

      What’s causing this heat build-up? Humans are emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – 29 billion tonnes in 2009 (CDIAC). Greenhouse theory predicts that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will trap heat energy as it escapes out to space. What do we observe? Carbon dioxide absorbs heat at certain wavelengths. Satellites over the past 40 years find less heat escaping to space at these wavelengths (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007). Where does the heat go? Surface measurements find more heat returning back to the Earth’s surface (Philipona 2004). Tellingly, the increase occurs at those same carbon dioxide absorption wavelengths (Evans 2006). This is the human fingerprint in global warming.

      There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that global warming is happening and human activity is the cause. A few suggestive emails may serve as a useful distraction for those wishing to avoid the physical realities of climate change. But they change nothing about our scientific understanding of humanity’s role in global warming.

      Last updated on 18 March 2012 by dana1981. View Archives

      Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists’ rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC’s conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.
      Exhibit No. 1 of the climate conspiracy theory is a collection of emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA), which appeared on the internet in November 2009.

      Founded in 1972, CRU is only a small research unit with around 16 staff. CRU is best known for its work, since 1978, on a global record of instrumental temperature measurements from 1850 to the present, or CRUTEM. CRU’s land surface temperatures are combined with the UK Met Office Hadley Centre’s sea surface temperatures to form the global land-ocean record HadCRUT. CRU has also published reconstructions of pre-1850 temperatures based on tree rings, and CRU scientists have been involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

      The 1,073 emails span 13 years of correspondence between colleagues at CRU. Much of it is mundane, but in this digital age it took only a matter of hours for contrarians to do some quote-mining. Contrarians alleged that the CRU scientists had manipulated temperature and tree ring data to support predetermined conclusions, that they had stonewalled Freedom of Information (FoI) requests for data, and that they had corrupted the peer review and IPCC processes.

      The story was quickly dubbed “Climategate”, and it spread rapidly from arcane contrarian blogs through conservative columnists to the mainstream media. The hyperbole was turned up to eleven. Conspiracy theorists had a field day, claiming that anyone even mentioned in the emails, or remotely connected to CRU, must also be part of a conspiracy. In this way, the Climategate conspiracy theory snowballed to include the entire field of climate science. The Climategate emails were held up as “the final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming”, and the media were only too happy to play up the controversy.

      The CRU scientists have been cleared
      In the months that followed, there were several inquiries into the allegations resulting from the emails. When a few of the more suggestive email quotes are reeled off by pundits without much context, they can sound pretty damning. But each and every one of these inquiries has found no fraud and no conspiracy.

      The most comprehensive inquiry was the Independent Climate Change Email Review led by Sir Muir Russell, commissioned by UEA to examine the behaviour of the CRU scientists (but not the scientific validity of their work). It published its final report in July 2010. This inquiry was no whitewash: it examined the main allegations arising from the emails and their implications in meticulous detail. It focused on what the CRU scientists did, not what they said, investigating the evidence for and against each allegation. It interviewed CRU and UEA staff, and took 111 submissions including one from CRU itself. And it also did something the media completely failed to do: it attempted to put the actions of CRU scientists into context.

      The Review went back to primary sources to see if CRU really was hiding or falsifying their data. It considered how much CRU’s actions influenced the IPCC’s conclusions about temperatures during the past millennium. It commissioned a paper by Dr Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, on the context of scientific peer review. It asked IPCC Review Editors how much influence individuals could wield on writing groups. And it reviewed the university’s FoI processes and CRU’s compliance with them. Many of these are things any journalist could have done relatively easily, but few ever bothered to do.

      The Review also commented on the broader context of science in the 21st century. To paraphrase from Chapter 5: the emergence of the blogosphere requires significantly more openness from scientists. However, providing the details necessary to validate large datasets can be difficult and time-consuming, and how FoI laws apply to research is still an evolving area. Meanwhile, the public needs to understand that science cannot and does not produce absolutely precise answers. Though the uncertainties may become smaller and better constrained over time, uncertainty in science is a fact of life which policymakers have to deal with. The chapter concludes: “the Review would urge all scientists to learn to communicate their work in ways that the public can access and understand”.

      The Review points out the well-known psychological phenomenon that email is less formal than other forms of communication: “Extreme forms of language are frequently applied to quite normal situations by people who would never use it in other communication channels.” The CRU scientists assumed their emails to be private, so they used “slang, jargon and acronyms” which would have been more fully explained had they been talking to the public. And although some emails suggest CRU went out of their way to make life difficult for their critics, there are others which suggest they were bending over backwards to be honest. Therefore the Review found “the e-mails cannot always be relied upon as evidence of what actually occurred, nor indicative of actual behaviour that is extreme, exceptional or unprofessional.” [section 4.3]

      So when put into the proper context, what do these emails actually reveal about the behaviour of the CRU scientists? The report concluded (its emphasis):

      Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour, and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

      In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.

      But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognize not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science. [1.3]

      These general findings are more or less consistent across the various allegations the Review investigated. Its specific findings are summarized in the following rebuttals: “Did CRU tamper with temperature data?”, “What does Mike’s Nature trick to ‘hide the decline’ mean?”, “Climategate and the peer-review process”, “Were skeptic scientists kept out of the IPCC?”, and “Climategate and the Freedom of Information (FOI) requests”.

      The science is unchanged by Climategate
      The argument that Climategate reveals an international climate science conspiracy is not really a very skeptical one. It is skeptical in the weak sense of questioning authority, but it stops there. Unlike true skepticism, it doesn’t go on to objectively examine all the evidence and draw a conclusion based on that evidence. Instead, it cherry-picks suggestive emails, seeing everything as incontrovertible evidence of a conspiracy, and concludes all of mainstream climate science is guilty by association. This is not skepticism; this is conspiracy theory.

      In reality, Climategate has not thrown any legitimate doubt on CRU’s results, let alone the conclusions of the entire climate science community. The entire work of CRU comprises only a small part of the evidence for AGW. There are all sorts of lines of evidence for global warming, and for a human influence on climate, which in no way depend on the behaviour of the CRU scientists. Global warming has been observed not just on land but also over the oceans and in the troposphere, as well as being confirmed by many other indicators such as ocean heat content, humidity, sea level, glaciers, and Arctic sea ice. And while the hockey stick tells us that humans have caused a profound disturbance to our climate system, we don’t need it to know that humans are causing global warming. The pattern of warming we observe is the same as that long predicted for greenhouse warming: the stratosphere is cooling, nights have warmed faster than days, and winters faster than summers.

      But this reality doesn’t fit into the narrative that the contrarians would like to tell: that AGW is a house of cards that is falling down. It is very difficult to attack all of these diverse lines of evidence for global warming. Instead they tend to focus on some of the better publicized ones and try to associate them with a few individuals, making a much easier target. Yet while contrarians have been nosing around in scientists’ emails, the actual science has, if anything, become more concerning. Many major studies during 2009 and 2010 found things may be worse than previously thought.

      Far from exposing a global warming fraud, “Climategate” merely exposed the depths to which contrarians are willing to sink in their attempts to manufacture doubt about AGW. They cannot win the argument on scientific grounds, so now they are trying to discredit researchers themselves. Climategate was a fake scandal from beginning to end, and the media swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. The real scandal is the attacks on climate science which have done untold damage to the reputation of the scientists involved, public trust in science, and the prospects of mitigating future warming.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm

      • Right Brain Thinker

        PS VA Attorney General Cuccinelli (KookyNelly to his admirers) filed suit to obtain Dr. Mann’s private papers and emails from the time he was at UVA. Kooky, who is a tea Party favorite and is likely to be the GOP candidate in the VA governor’s race this year, was hoping to prove that Dr. Mann had somehow misused state money when he was at UVA. After wasting many tens of thousands of dollars, the court threw it out.

      • Steve E

        Courts are wrong all the time. People who worry about climate change are nothing but pagans who worship the earth.

      • eddie47d

        People who aren’t concerned about climate change are atheists and working hard to destroy God’s earth. That could very well make them the “pagans” of deceit.

  • Truman Banton

    The EPA has become a left wing organization that support the radical agenda of the Democratic party and should be dissolved. Global warming is a myth and is nothing but an attempt by the so-called elite for self enrichment and control of the populace. The last thing we need is more restriction to inhibit the growth and expansion of our economy.

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      If you want growth it isn’t going to be a carbon based fuel economy that will provide
      it……..or a nuclear one……..

      Suicidal growth, on the other hand?

      see Economics Unmasked

      Fundamentally, the problem is Economics itself……….a fraudulent con game, and equal to the one which pretends that the constitution still matters………..yet, for some reason, these cons are working very well………despite the fact that they are quite visible….people never seem to be able to grasp the fundamental issue’s or ask the right questions?

      Enter Economics Unmasked:The Amazon Book Description

      The economic system under which we live not only forces the great majority of humankind to live their lives in indignity and poverty; it also threatens all forms of life – indeed life itself. Economics Unmasked presents a cogent critique of the dominant economic system in order to help transform our society into one in which all forms of life will be protected. The first part of this book is devoted to showing that the theoretical constructions that have been selected, work mainly to bring about injustice. The second part is concerned with what should be the foundations of a new economics where justice, human dignity, compassion and reverence for life must be the guiding values.

      “As is clear from the title, the book argues that modern neoclassical economics is a mask for power and greed, a construct designed to justify the status quo. Its claim to serve the common good is specious, and its claim to scientific status is fraudulent. The latter is sought mainly by excessive mathematical formalism to the neglect of concrete facts and real values. The mathematical formalism is in imitation of nineteenth century physics (economics viewed as the mechanics of utility and self-interest), but without any empirical basis remotely comparable to physics. Pareto is identified a villain here, and to a lesser extent Jevons.

      The hallmark of a real science is a basic consensus about fundamentals. There is no real consensus in economics, so how can it claim to be a mature science? Easy, by forcing a false “consensus” through the simple expedient of declaring heterodox views to be “not really economics,” eliminating history of economic thought from the curriculum, instigating a pseudo-Nobel Prize in Economics, and attaining a monopoly on faculty positions in economics departments at elite universities.” Herman Daly

      “They identify what they consider to be the foundations of a new economics, which are articulations of the very core of our work here at nef:
      The economy should serve the people, not the people the economy;
      Development is about people, not objects;
      Growth is not the same as development, and development does not necessarily require growth;
      No economy is possible in the absence of eco-system services;
      The economy is a sub-system of a larger and finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible.” Nic Marks

      Now this subject is a bit more complicated regarding the simple question that explains what happened to the constitution ( and which people ignore and have yet to ask any of these so called “patriot” office holders and aspirants ) but really, is there anyone out there that can say that the “economy” is serving them?

      From what I can see on this site, the people who managed to escape being victims are blaming those who were the victims, mostly because they are concerned about joining them, and for some reason fail to see that the present victims, before they became victims, were just like them……….

      “To conquer, first DIVIDE!” ( and then HANG, separately.)

    • eddie47d

      The EPA still has an high approval rating in what they have accomplished. I’ll give credit to President Nixon in being aware of the harm being done to our environment,air and water. Its the lack of restrictions that brought the EPA to fruition in the first place. The environmental damages weren’t caused in a void and businesses refused to heed the early warning in those damages that they were causing. Naturally those same businesses would like the EPA to be dissolved for their own agenda and self enrichment. We deserve a much better balance than what they are willing to take us back to.

      • Ultimately

        Your mom didn’t raise any dummies, huh, Eddie?

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    The Global Warming Cult and the Death of Science
    February 20, 2012 By Daniel Greenfield

    At the end of last year, the media widely trumpeted the “recantation” by Richard Muller, a physics professor at Berkeley. Muller’s confession of faith was met with the unreserved glee of fanatics who believe that conversion equals validation of the True Faith. Now Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a prominent German chemistry professor and green activist, announced that he is coming out with a book breaking with the Warmist view. Naturally, this recantation wouldn’t receive nearly the same prominence, except when the inevitable stories kick in about Vahrenholt being a tool of the oil companies.

    But set aside the partisan bickering, and one professor accepting a view he had formerly rejected, while another rejects a view he had formerly accepted, is all part of the normal scientific debate. The journey from hypothesis to rock solid consensus is a long one, and it doesn’t end just because Al Gore makes a documentary or a few ads that show crying polar bears. Positions are argued, minds change and then a century later the graduate students have fun mocking the ignorance of both sides. That’s science.

    Unfortunately, the Cult of Warm doesn’t accept that there is a debate. As far as they are concerned, the debate never happened because it never needed to happen because they were always right. They can’t intelligently address dissent, because their science is not based on discovering the evidence needed to lead to a consensus, but on insisting that there is a consensus and that accordingly there is no need to debate the evidence.

    In an ordinary scientific debate, a professor leaving one side and joining another might occasion some recriminations and name calling, but it wouldn’t make him anathema. But like being gay or Muslim, hopping on board the Warm Train makes you a permanent member, and there is no room for changing your mind. Once a Warmist, always a Warmist. That’s not a rational position, but then the Cult of Warm is not a rational faith.

    Scientific debates have often had big stakes for human philosophy, but Global Warming is one of the few whose real world implications are as big as its philosophical consequences. At stake is nothing less than the question of whether the human presence on earth is a blight or a blessing, and whether every person must be tightly regulated by a global governance mechanism for the sake of saving the planet.

    The Warmists have pushed their agenda through with alarmist claims and hysteria. They have flown jets around the world to argue that everyone must be taxed for their carbon footprint. They have smeared and intimidated anyone who stood up to them. That is not the behavior of people arguing over numbers. It’s a battle of much larger ideas.

    If you believe that freedom is at the core of what it means to be human, then the Warmists and what they stand for are instinctively repulsive to you.

    On the other hand, if you believe that human society must be organized into a moral collective for the betterment of all, then the Warmist idea provides a wake up call compelling us to form into ranks and goose step in recycled rubber boots into the green future.

    It’s an exaggeration, but that’s what debates over the proper role of man tend to become. We don’t fight wars over temperature gradients. The passions on both sides are motivated by much larger issues. This isn’t science, it’s the continuing battle over industrialization, the modern society and the rights of the individual dressed up in the garb of theory. And just as a debate over the IQs of minorities will never be a dispassionate inquiry, neither will a debate over whether the world would be better off if we never existed– which is the theme of the environmentalist movement.

    The place of man in the university is not a question that science can answer, but like so many other controversial issues in the past, it can be aided by manufacturing a scientific consensus that supports one position or another. Nor would this be the first time that science was used in this fashion. It takes a great deal of humility to look outward without prejudging what is out there. When that humility is lacking, then instead of seeing what is out there, the learned doctors and professors come away seeing what is inside them instead.

    That unfortunately is what the debate is actually about. The world is not in any danger, but human beings are, as usual, wrangling over their theories of how the world should be.

    The debate is not a purely philosophical one. As with all debates about the nature of man, there’s a creed and money at stake.

    If the Warmists win, then the environmentalist movement takes another step forward to creating a post-religious spiritual crisis for which they have the solution, and a mandate for virtually unlimited power over mankind, over every nation and every individual. That power translates into concrete wealth, which many of the “experts” are already experiencing. But their investments are on the ground floor of what is supposed to be a “green” revolution which will see everyone taxed to save us from ourselves.

    It’s hard to be dispassionate when the success or failure of your theory has tremendous implications for your career, your wealth, the status of your field and the triumph of your worldview over all mankind. People have murdered for less. Forging a few graphs and demonizing the opposition is small potatoes by comparison.

    A creed needs a crisis. An “If This Goes On” warning that ends in doom, Armageddon and cats and dogs living together in sin. Without an actual deity, the only curses available to environmentalists are those of science. And so they pronounce their curses in science’s name, which is an inconvenience when they fail to come true. An inconvenience that damages the credibility of actual research. But having cast aside reasoned inquiry, the Cult of Warm has no use for science except as a totem to wave over the crowd. They don’t want to be the seekers for knowledge, but the exclusive possessors of absolute truths. And that isn’t how science works.

    Like Wall Street, Global Warming has gotten too big to fail. Too many prominent names have committed to it. Too many serious people have nodded their heads and accepted it as an obvious truth, who would be unacceptably embarrassed if it were proven that the whole thing was nothing more than a giant prank. Too many business leaders and governments have invested serious money into it to just shake it off. And much of American and European policy-making is now routed through Global Warming.

    No matter what research emerges, the edifice of the lie cannot be allowed to come down. It might be reshaped a little, chiseled on the side, painted over in places, but it can never be toppled, because too much else would come down with it. Global Warming has become the Berlin Wall not only of the left, but of the entire establishment.

    If the Cult of Warm were to come tumbling down, then the first victim of it would be the technocratic society built on an unreasonable confidence in experts and Harvard men who always know what they’re doing and know how to do it better than we do. Suddenly all those smart people would no longer seem so smart at all and our Republic of the New Deal and New Frontier would be revealed for a cluster of corrupt gullible idiots who are no better at running things than anyone else would be in their place.

    The worst thing you can call a presidential candidate is stupid, not because they aren’t — most of them are — but because the present regime is built on convincing us that we have surrendered our freedom to a meritocracy of the best and the brightest. People who don’t make mistakes because they have gone to all the right schools, read all the right books and nod in all the right places. If people were to realize that their only actual skill is convincingly arguing positions based on talking points with no ability to think outside the box or evaluate the merits of the system, rather than the argument, then the regime would never be the same again.

    The way the system actually works is that experts tell leaders what to think, the leaders tell the lobbyists what to think, the lobbyists tell the advisers, who tell the politicians, and then the politicians get up on stage, beam their brightest smile, and tell us what to think. Compared to the absurdity of this pipeline foisting a disastrous philosophy on the world in the name of saving the planet from humanity, discovering that all the banks were playing with imaginary money is positively benign.

    Global Warming is not just a failure of a sizable chunk of the scientific establishment to put theory before ideology, it represents a failure of the entire process by which the West has been governed for a frightening number of years.

    It is a demonstration of how a handful of people in prominent positions can push through otherwise unacceptable measures by manufacturing a crisis and pipelining it through business and government. It’s a hack of our entire system of government.

    If you understand the implications of that, then you begin to understand the consequences of it for the progressive technocracy and its mindless elitism that uses opinion leaders to drive actual leaders and has entire agencies dedicated to influencing opinion leaders. If Warmism fails, then it all fails. There will be no mobs in the street or squares filled with protesters, instead the entire infrastructure whose entire purpose is not to look stupid, will suddenly look very stupid.

    Stupid leaders might not be too much of a problem in a democracy where people are entitled to elect any idiot they want, but it’s unacceptable in a technocracy where the leaders may win elections, but mostly they win the consensus of the elites. If the elites and their technocracy no longer amount to anything, then the emperor is naked, and suddenly elections might start mattering again.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      JAY now launches into his pattern of long-winded copying of diatribes from not a scientist, but a journalist, and not an “independent” journalist, but a house shill from the Freedom Center, one of the most biased right wing sites around. Once again, JAY hopes to distract you from any science here by injecting politics into the thread. Nice job, JAY—-those who only want to be reinforced in their mindlessness will suck it up—-those who recognize your game will ignore it..

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        RBT: JAY now launches into his pattern of long-winded copying of diatribes from not a scientist, but a journalist, and not an “independent” journalist, but a house shill from the Freedom Center.

        So let me guess; because he’s a sceptic, therefore, his opinion matters not? Got ya!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        JAY must be developing reading comprehension problems. He asks, “So let me guess; because he’s a skeptic, therefore, his opinion matters not? Got ya!”

        Not quite, JAY. Because he is a rather biased journalist without much apparent science background, who works for a rather biased political website, his opinions are rather biased, and should not be taken as anything other than that. Have you read any more of his stuff, JAY? You would realize that he is not a “best source” if you had looked at more of his stuff. Or did you just snatch this one piece because it had an appealing title, as you typically do?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        RBT: Not quite, JAY. Because he is a rather biased journalist without much apparent science background, who works for a rather biased political website, his opinions are rather biased, and should not be taken as anything other than that. Have you read any more of his stuff, JAY?

        Of course he’s biased, he doesn’t agree with the “contrived-consensus”. Therefore, he’s biased. Got ya!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        You sound more like a wing-nut conspiracist all the time, JAY. At least you put quotation
        marks around “contrived-consensus”, so you perhaps DO recognize that there is no such thing on the side of those who believe in AGW. The AGW deniers and skeptics are so few in number and so fragmented that they can do little but snipe at the ever accumulating evidence that AGW is real. The only “consensus” that the deniers seem to have is that they DO like being sellouts to the fossil fuel interests, and that’s not “contrived”, but simple intellectual whoring..

  • http://Gregsays Greg

    What caused the last change too many cave man fires???

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    Is belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming a cult? Apply this 100 point Cult Test and you tell us. Read each one, adding one point for each statement that rings as true.

    Total up the score and tell us, on a scale of 0 to 100, what you come up with. Well, it really should be a score between 1 to 100, as there can be no person alive, even if a member of the cult, that could not agree with point #1.

    Cult leader Al Gore, is so “always right” that his devotees don’t even question the fact that he will debate no one. Ever! Anywhere! They laugh at this absurd notion, for He is The One. Others are unworthy to even stand in his presence.

    In a comment here on our site, Gord alerted us to the test when he posted the first 10 points of “The Cult Test.” It describes the Cult of Anthropogenic Climate Change near perfectly. Following are the first ten points, with a bit of description from the extensively documented list.

    1. The Guru is always right.

    “The Guru, his church, and his teachings are always right, and above criticism, and beyond reproach.”

    2. You are always wrong.

    “Cult members are also told that they are in no way qualified to judge the Guru or his church. Should you disagree with the leader or his cult about anything, see Cult Rule Number One. Having negative emotions about the cult or its leader is a “defect” that needs to be fixed.”

    3. No Exit.

    “There is simply no proper or honorable way to leave the cult. Period. To leave is to fail, to die, to be defeated by evil. To leave is to invite divine retribution.”

    4. No Graduates.

    “No one ever learns as much as the Guru knows; no one ever rises to the level of the Guru’s wisdom, so no one ever finishes his or her training, and nobody ever graduates.”

    5. Cult-speak.

    “The cult has its own language. The cult invents new terminology or euphemisms for many things. The cult may also redefine many common words to mean something quite different. Cult-speak is also called “bombastic redefinition of the familiar”, or “loading the language”.”

    6. Group-think, Suppression of Dissent, and Enforced Conformity in Thinking

    “The cult has standard answers for almost everything, and members are expected to parrot those answers. Willfulness or independence or skeptical thinking is seen as bad. Members accept the leader’s reality as their own.”

    7. Irrationality.

    “The beliefs of the cult are irrational, illogical, or superstitious, and fly in the face of evidence to the contrary.”

    8. Suspension of disbelief.

    “The cult member is supposed to take on a childish naïveté, and simply believe whatever he is told, no matter how unlikely, unrealistic, irrational, illogical, or outrageous it may be. And he does.”

    9. Denigration of competing sects, cults, religions, groups, or organizations.

    “This is commonplace, and hardly needs any explanation.”

    10. Personal attacks on critics.

    “Anyone who criticizes the Guru, the cult or its dogma is attacked on a personal level.”

    Here are the rest of the items, 11 through 100. We do hope #100 is not right in regards to the global warming cult, since many are truly decent people that have simply been brainwashed. But we do see a mass political suicide coming, and that’s a good thing. A damn good thing.

    11. Insistence that the cult is THE ONLY WAY.
    12. The cult and its members are special.
    13. Induction of guilt, and the use of guilt to manipulate cult members.
    14. Unquestionable Dogma, Sacred Science, and Infallible Ideology.
    15. Indoctrination of members.
    16. Appeals to “holy” or “wise” authorities.
    17. Instant Community.
    18. Instant Intimacy.
    19. Surrender To The Cult.
    20. Giggly wonderfulness and starry-eyed faith.
    21. Personal testimonies of earlier converts.
    22. The cult is self-absorbed.
    23. Dual Purposes, Hidden Agendas, and Ulterior Motives.
    24. Aggressive Recruiting.
    25. Deceptive Recruiting.
    26. No Humor.
    27. You Can’t Tell The Truth.
    28. Cloning — You become a clone of the cult leader or other elder cult members.
    29. You must change your beliefs to conform to the group’s beliefs.
    30. The End Justifies The Means.
    31. Dishonesty, Deceit, Denial, Falsification, and Rewriting History.
    32. Different Levels of Truth.
    33. Newcomers can’t think right.
    34. The Cult Implants Phobias.
    35. The Cult is Money-Grubbing.
    36. Confession Sessions.
    37. A System of Punishments and Rewards.
    38. An Impossible Superhuman Model of Perfection.
    39. Mentoring.
    40. Intrusiveness.
    41. Disturbed Guru, Mentally Ill Leader.
    42. Disturbed Members, Mentally Ill Followers.
    43. Create a sense of powerlessness, covert fear, guilt, and dependency.
    44. Dispensed existence
    45. Ideology Over Experience, Observation, and Logic
    46. Keep them unaware that there is an agenda to change them
    47. Thought-Stopping Language. Thought-terminating clichés and slogans.
    48. Mystical Manipulation
    49. The guru or the group demands ultra-loyalty and total committment.
    50. Demands for Total Faith and Total Trust
    51. Members Get No Respect. They Get Abused.
    52. Inconsistency. Contradictory Messages
    53. Hierarchical, Authoritarian Power Structure, and Social Castes
    54. Front groups, masquerading recruiters, hidden promoters, and disguised propagandists
    55. Belief equals truth
    56. Use of double-binds
    57. The cult leader is not held accountable for his actions.
    58. Everybody else needs the guru to boss him around, but nobody bosses the guru around.
    59. The guru criticizes everybody else, but nobody criticizes the guru.
    60. Dispensed truth and social definition of reality
    61. The Guru Is Extra-Special.
    62. Flexible, shifting morality
    63. Separatism
    64. Inability to tolerate criticism
    65. A Charismatic Leader
    66. Calls to Obliterate Self
    67. Don’t Trust Your Own Mind.
    68. Don’t Feel Your Own Feelings.
    69. The cult takes over the individual’s decision-making process.
    70. You Owe The Group.
    71. We Have The Panacea.
    72. Progressive Indoctrination and Progressive Commitments
    73. Magical, Mystical, Unexplainable Workings
    74. Trance-Inducing Practices
    75. New Identity — Redefinition of Self — Revision of Personal History
    76. Membership Rivalry
    77. True Believers
    78. Scapegoating and Excommunication
    79. Promised Powers or Knowledge
    80. It’s a con. You don’t get the promised goodies.
    81. Hypocrisy
    82. Denial of the truth. Reversal of reality. Rationalization and Denial.
    83. Seeing Through Tinted Lenses
    84. You can’t make it without the cult.
    85. Enemy-making and Devaluing the Outsider
    86. The cult wants to own you.
    87. Channelling or other occult, unchallengeable, sources of information.
    88. They Make You Dependent On The Group.
    89. Demands For Compliance With The Group
    90. Newcomers Need Fixing.
    91. Use of the Cognitive Dissonance Technique.
    92. Grandiose existence. Bombastic, Grandiose Claims.
    93. Black And White Thinking
    94. The use of heavy-duty mind control and rapid conversion techniques.
    95. Threats of bodily harm or death to someone who leaves the cult.
    96. Threats of bodily harm or death to someone who criticizes the cult.
    97. Appropriation of all of the members’ worldly wealth.
    98. Making cult members work long hours for free.
    99. Total immersion and total isolation.
    100. Mass suicide.

    http://www.climategate.com/100-reasons-why-anthropogenic-global-warming-a-cult

    • Right Brain Thinker

      JAY is busy, busy, busy today—-gathering fodder to feed the mindless from websites that have been defunct for over two years—-perhaps because they really have nothing to say and can’t attract advertisers or readers?

      Of course JAY doesn’t pay much attention to “details” when he seeks out the trash he tries to use to confuse and mislead the unwary. All it has to do is be “catchy” and something the motivated reasoners will be likely to suck up without question.

      Like this piece for instance—-JAY conveniently ignores the fact that the concept of “cult” is NOT applicable to the science of AGW by any logical analysis, and that Al Gore IS NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a “cult leader” in the eyes of anyone but the deluded and mindless and that there is no “church” of global warming”. Enuff said—once those two things are accepted, the rest of it falls to pieces. Jay should go looking for “cults” where the term has some meaning (as with Rush Limbaugh and Faux News listeners perhaps?), and stop trying to distract us from the need to deal with the science of AGW.

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      It is not possible to establish a cult based on “science” which are “empirical” facts,
      not metaphysical speculation regarding what the facts mean.

      faulty comparison = logical fallacy

      Since Mr. Brandon ( alinsky-like ) Smith is scheduled to post tomorrow,
      further education on rhetoric ( logos, ethos and pathos ) will continue….

      although almost any article here, on any given day, would serve……
      Mr Smith remains the best teaching tool, as he has not learned to shut up yet.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bradley.crenshaw1 Bradley Crenshaw

    Our planet is self repairing. As soon as enough of the northern icecap melts the N. Atlantic will be diluted by fresh water from that icecap and the Gulf Stream will stop. When that happens the northern portion of the hemisphere will become colder as it did during the “Little Iceage”, Then the icecap will return, the Gulf Stream will start again, and the cycle repeats itself.

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      If the planetary imbalance was caused by natural forcing factors, you might have a potential argument that a previous state of equilibrium might return.

      For natural CO2 cycles, the range of the previous equilibrium was between,
      180 and 280 ppm. It is now approaching or past 390 ppm.

      This is also true for other gases, natural and man made, and other conditions
      such as increased ocean acidification and warming, etc.

      What ever the new equilibrium will be, requires halting these increases, before
      any understanding can be determined, and current effects at present levels
      will not be evidenced for 50 years, at a minimum.

      • Bruce

        quote
        What ever the new equilibrium will be,

        You are assuming that the earth is is a equilibrium or should be.
        We have not even had that discussion.
        Is the earth supposed to stay the same or can it, should it, or will it change?
        And should we try to stop it?
        lets have that discussion, before we get to if we should try to stop it or not.
        Should we try to stop the 4 seasons? (make it 75 deg every day all day) just because so many people hate the cold and snow?
        Can we adapt to a world that constantly changes? because news flash, we live in a constantly changing world, every volcano, every earth quake, it changes. Can we stop these changes? can we make the wind stop blowing?

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        If you would stop talking that would be a good start……..learning to comprehend
        what you read, priceless.

        Equilibrium, as presented here is a “range”………not a balancing POINT.

        Only the ignorant or the illiterate would need to have that discussion so
        rather than spending time here among those who suffer from these deficiencies, and
        encourage them in others, you should spend some time reading say, Asimov’s Guide
        to Science, to learn for the first time, what you should have learned long
        ago…….

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

      We live within a very thin skin of gas that envelopes the Earth, called the atmosphere.
      The atmosphere weighs an astonishing 5000 trillion tonnes, but is less than a millionth the weight of the solid Earth (which is 6 billion trillion tonnes).It is this thin skin of existence that is vulnerable – not the mass of the Earth itself.

      People need to get a sense of scale into their heads: The energy output of a large Earthquake is many times greater than a nuclear blast. Same with volcanic eruption, and same with a large hurricane. And none of these come close to effecting the Earth as a whole.The impact of the Chixculub asteroid (that may have wiped-out the dinosaurs 65 m years ago) had the energy of tens of thousands of nuclear bombs. Even that did not budge the Earth, although it poisoned the atmosphere for years. The Earth itself is safe from human activity. If we ruin the environment and become extinct as a result, the environment will regenerate and life will go on happily without us. It has done that kind of thing many times before.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        JAY has wandered far afield with this one. “The Earth itself is safe from human activity. If we ruin the environment and become extinct as a result, the environment will regenerate and life will go on happily without us. It has done that kind of thing many times before”.

        Sounds like JAY has decided to write the human race off. Not too confidence inspiring, JAY, and not too likely to win you many “followers” (unless you are a doomsday cult leader planning to lead a mass suicide event).

        When he says “Earth”, Jay is obviously referring to the geosphere, the solid portion of the earth, rather than the atmosphere and hydrosphere and surface soils where most living things reside (in what is called the biosphere), and it is true that the geosphere will likely last until our sun dies and engulfs it. We have suffered just five mass extinctions in the history of the Earth (and are entering a sixth right now—-one caused primarily by man’s activities). Life has always returned after the previous extinctions, but was greatly changed after each one. So, JAY is correct that iot is likely that “life will go on”, but saying “happily” is a judgment he is not equipped to make.

        And I will again ask why this pessimism? Are you becoming depressed, JAY? Perhaps from having some “truth” about AGW sink in?

  • William Stephens

    Fake false untrue ,,, anyway you say it. Global warming does not fit science, this universe is expanding as this plant moves farther from the sun it will cool as with its elliptical orbit causes the fluctuation of the seasons. The global warming farce is a political motivated movement as proven by so called scientists own emails where they delete coldest temps to achieve their desired political out come. The EPA is a illigitimate government department that is robbing this country of its wealth. Cheap production and industry cannot exisist under the current regulations. Why the economy sucks, it is all related.

    • eddie47d

      If those industries hadn’t gotten their goods so “cheaply” and hadn’t kept so much of the wealth for themselves just maybe they wouldn’t be in the predicament they are now in. They only thought short term profits instead of long term economy.

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      Seasons are not caused by orbital shape or distance but by axial tilt.

      You probably should refrain from commenting on things you are ignorant of.

      Which means you should probably refrain from commenting.

  • http://godwin cindy

    So lets continue on this spending on worthless, unnecessary programs that have no sustainable way of recouping for its services rendered.

    When the hell are we going to stop spinning out of control. They day we get rid of useless programs like this.

  • mike

    Hey, i know I’m misinformed and that the anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis is a proven fact, supported by 98% of all qualified climate scientists currently receiving government grant money. I guess their qualifications come in the mail with the grant money. But I have a couple questions. Who are these “scientists”? Shouldn’t they have other tools besides spread sheets? Are they all academics? A college professor’s job title is not a “scientist”, he or she is a teacher by trade, Do any of these “scientists” work for the federal government, the UN or a European government? If so, calling a bureaucrat (with a vested interest in the carbon tax scheme) a scientist is a big stretch. Next Question: are there other examples of a hypothesis becoming a fact through a popular vote? Is this done by secret ballot? I don’t care either way, I just hate to see what’s left of the economy obliterated by what amounts to self righteous cult members.

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      Actually college professors are NOT teachers by trade, they do not take
      course’s in education……..those courses are taken for those who wish to
      teach K thru 12……..where subject proficiency is NOT a requirement.

  • mike

    Coercive decarbonization policies are not about climate, they are a goofy assed idea used by governments to collect revenue. But even if you buy their hypothesis, EPA regulation of greenhouse gases is irrelevant. China’s huge and increasing coal consumption is overwhelming any reduction in CO2 emissions the US might achieve.

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      you lost at…….”but even if”………as being ignorant of the “facts” does not
      any credulity for “conclusions” extended from that ignorance.

      “It doesn’t matter, but if it did, it doesn’t matter.”

      and it can be extended indefinitely.

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

      The US military is responsible for the most egregious and widespread pollution of the planet, yet this information and accompanying documentation goes almost entirely unreported. In spite of the evidence, the environmental impact of the US military goes largely unaddressed by environmental organizations and was not the focus of any discussions or proposed restrictions at the recent UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. This impact includes uninhibited use of fossil fuels, massive creation of greenhouse gases, and extensive release of radioactive and chemical contaminants into the air, water, and soil.

      The extensive global operations of the US military (wars, interventions, and secret operations on over one thousand bases around the world and six thousand facilities in the United States) are not counted against US greenhouse gas limits. Sara Flounders writes, “By every measure, the Pentagon is the largest institutional user of petroleum products and energy in general. Yet the Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements.”

      While official accounts put US military usage at 320,000 barrels of oil a day, that does not include fuel consumed by contractors, in leased or private facilities, or in the production of weapons. The US military is a major contributor of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that most scientists believe is to blame for climate change. Steve Kretzmann, director of Oil Change International, reports, “The Iraq war was responsible for at least 141 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) from March 2003 through December 2007. . . . That war emits more than 60 percent that of all countries. . . . This information is not readily available . . . because military emissions abroad are exempt from national reporting requirements under US law and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.”

      According to Barry Sanders, author of The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism, “the greatest single assault on the environment, on all of us around the globe,
      comes from one agency . . . the Armed Forces of the United States.”

      Throughout the long history of military preparations, actions, and wars, the US military has not been held responsible for the effects of its activities upon environments, peoples, or animals. During the Kyoto Accords negotiations in December 1997, the US demanded as a provision of signing that any and all of its military operations worldwide, including operations in participation with the UN and NATO, be exempted from measurement or reductions. After attaining this concession, the Bush administration then refused to sign the accords and the US Congress passed an explicit provision guaranteeing the US military exemption from any energy reduction or measurement.

      Environmental journalist Johanna Peace reports THAT MILITARY ACTIVITIES WILL CONTINUE TO BE EXEMPT BASED ON AN EXECUTIVE ORDER SIGNED BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA THAT CALLS FOR OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES TO REDUCE THEIR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY 2020. Peace states, “The military accounts for a full 80 percent of the federal government’s energy demand.”

      http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/2-us-department-of-defense-is-the-worst-polluter-on-the-planet/

      So tell us again, Galt, how we have a snowball’s chance in hell in addressing the global-warming issue…?, when even the darling president of the left, and the EPA, play the game of favouritism with exemptions. Mike is right, the scientific findings/data irrelevant; as again…the “usual-suspect” are involved. But one dream, i suppose.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        The degree of difficulty regarding the problem and its solution does not
        alter the requirement that an attempt must be made.

        All that you need concern yourself with is, what part your involvement plays
        in the outcome………for that you are involved is “self evident”, regardless of
        the degree of impact you may assign to your understanding, your communication
        of it, and the actual effects of your actions or inaction.

        Ultimately, you are either part of the problem, or part of the solution.

        Curiously, you seem to suggest that much of this is far more complex
        and interwoven with many things, and the understanding of them, yet
        you are participating in a forum, which seeks to simplify “everything” not
        by or through the actual effort of reduction, but by “declaration”……..

        Since, as noted, the “usual suspects” benefit by “inaction” regardless of
        the means by which this is accomplished and they remain the ultimate
        beneficiaries, while all other “imagined benefit”, is illusionary and simply
        a matter of a “temporary perception”, which can withstand neither
        accurate scrutiny and deliberate examination, nor produce the claimed
        result or even the illusion of it………

        That it doesn’t matter………would seem to indicate the part you have
        chosen to play, ultimately, and this would be true, if you simply chose
        to remain silent………..which does not appear to be, what you have
        chosen to do………nor does it seem to be the choice of many others
        here………..

        Such enthusiasm on the part of the victims, must be even more comforting
        to the “beneficiaries”, than the sheer enormity of the tasks required, which
        can not BEGIN…….if the impossibility of any effort, is and remains the
        perception.

      • Ted

        Termites produce more CO2 than all the armed forces on Earth
        If leaders of this country subscribed to your loony philosophy Nazis would concurred the World. After all we burned a lot of oil on number of war theaters. And don’t forget back then vehicles didn’t have catalytic converters
        Among other off the wall statements you say: “The US military is responsible for the most egregious and widespread pollution of the planet”. Have you ever seen oil fields in Soviet Union now Russia where crude oil is dumped on the ground. It looks like lakes.
        But the funniest part of your comments is when you reference who said what. You quote “scientists” who are left wackos, have interest in promoting global warming or represent UN. UN, the most corrupted institution on Earth where countries with recorded human rights abuses are in charge of …. human right programs.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    Giving money and power to the government is like giving car keys and whisky to teenage boys. When politics are used to allocate resources, the resources all end up being allocated to politics. Politics is the business of getting power and privilege without possessing merit. A politician is anyone who asks individuals to surrender part of their liberty — their power and privilege — to State, Masses, Mankind, Planet Earth, or whatever. This state, those masses, that mankind, and the planet will then be run by … politicians. God has no role to play in politics except to make sure politicians go where they belong. Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs. -Author unknown

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      Unsurprising that the author is unknown……..the troubling part is, he did not
      remain lost.

  • Ultimately

    Of for Pete’s sake Eddie, put down the bottle and re-read your posts when you are sober. You sound like a flaming moron.

  • Cliffystones

    Here’s what the CO2-caused warming folks don’t seem to get. Gasses like O2, CO2, Nitrogen, etc. are very, very poor heat absorbing mediums. Go out on an average sunny day, say 75-80 degrees. Pretty pleasant outside. Now walk up to any solid object that’s been in that same outside sunshine and place your hand on it. Pretty darn warm, eh? And a car hood will probably burn your hand.

    It IS the solid mass of our Earth that is absorbing and retaining heat. Not our incredibly thin atmosphere. The blanket of gasses covering the earth is proportional to the skin covering an apple.

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

      Yet again, another demonstration of why “common sense” should be
      constantly corrected and referenced for what it really is and the value it
      really represents………..NAIVE REALISM

      • Cliffystones

        Like believing the Earth is flat?

      • Cliffystones

        I suppose you believe that it’s “NAIVE REALISM” that I can jump in my car, drive 50 miles, step out and breathe the fresh mountain air. But traveling that same 50 miles straight up would have me sucking vacuum.

        Man-made global warming folks always point to the planet Venus as an example of a “runaway greenhouse effect”. But the differences (if you’ll take the time to look them up) are like comparing apples to road apples. The claim the the gasses evaporated from the surface and created the heat could be possible. But it’s also possible that the sun is not a static entity, and that increased solar activity could be heating the planets and evaporating more water into vapor. Water vapor holds much more heat than CO2.

        The examples I’ve put forth aren’t naivete. They are as simple as 1+1=2.

        Neither you nor I nor all of the windbags in government can provide proof that human activity is causing “climate change”. But the sure as he!! would like us to believe it. Not for the good of mankind either, but so they can make bank sellin “carbon offset credits” and related baloney.

        If you have some source that refutes my statements, please do post links to it/them. If we’re all killing ourselves off by driving gasoline powered vehicles and excessive flatulence, I’m sure we’d like to understand how.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        No, I know you can’t drive your car fifty miles straight up, that’s stupidity.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        also 1 + 1 = 10

        and 11……

      • Ted

        One of the fathers of global warming, whose name escapes me, was in the sixties in charge of Australia government program devoted to global warming. As he recently stated in his publication he believed that CO2 increases global temperature but CO2 alone couldn’t increase it as observed. So theory was created that CO2 increase temperature slightly but enough to cause ocean water to evaporate. Vapor created this way would rise to about 10 Km creating a barrier, an insulator that would cause global temperature to go even higher. It was assumed that every one degree of temperature increase caused by CO2 would cause 3 degree increase caused by vapor. This assumption has been built in every computer model ever since. Problem is that according to this scientist vapor at 10 Km theory has been defeated. As he stated, over years thousands of weather balloons have been launched and no vapor was ever found. But, this little detail hasn’t been noticed by the global worming crowd. This 1 to 3 proportion is still in the models.

    • http://pweiters9.wordpress.com pweiters9

      2/13/13, Global warming is the biggest racket ever cooked up by Man. Who says you must regulate the climate? If that were the case, make it Springtime all year-round, stay on daylight savings time & save me some $4.03/gal. fuel oil.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.