what would you suggest we all do? Move in to a cave and stop using nat.gas, gasoline, propane and electricity? If we do our part in the U.S. and some other large nation chooses to build coal-fired electrical generating plants at breakneck speed, is it a matter of then "doing our part" to help the planet and it's people overall, then?
You do admit that Al Gore is prepostering a hoax here, don't you? What does AG want us all to do? Follow his carbon footprint example?
Go solar-powered? Drive all-electric drivetrain automobiles? Driving an all-electric rig does appeal to this padre, I must admit.
But outfitting my house with all the latest "green" gadgets is cost-prohibitive and what does it really do to help my neighbor in Argentina with his or her problems with finding affordable healthcare? See what I mean?
Healthcare reform might be a better place to try and grow and improve. And stop all of these silly national boundary issues that cause us to charge our people so much in Federal income tax to support, like building submarines, aircraft carriers, jet warplanes, etc.
Some serious tax credits might help in going all-out green with our housing, huh?
Clean air, clean water, more stable global weather, ice at the polar caps, all those things are important for EVERYONE, not just for Vegans.
Nice try at deflection. So how did clean air and water become part of AGW? And there is NO SUCH THING AS STABLE WEATHER. This winter should have shown you that. And it is your OPINION that less Arctic ice is a bad thing. There is untold amounts of stored fossil energy in the Arctic that will and can be used if access is easier. Sadly it will be Canada, Russia and Norway reaping the benefits, while we debate issues like ANWR. The environmentalists are a BIG part of the destruction of our economy. The housing bubble is just that. It did not destroy whole segments of our manufacturing as has the AGW cult. Companies faced with regulations that CANNOT be complied with, will and have moved to other countries. Think CFL bulbs. Think NiCad and NiMH batteries. And your favorite Solar PV cells.
I like clean water and air as much as the next guy. I could not breath in LA during the 1960s. It is a little better now. The problem is too many people in too small an area. Cities are a big part of pollution.
iluvmysephia1 says, "what would you suggest we all do? "
My suggestion has always been to pollute less, recycle more, and keep funding VALID STUDY of global climate to determine (if any) the affects man's activities are having (or not) on the planet.
If the planet is just sucking up all our pollution and not being negatively affected, then that's great.
If there are things we can identify as things we need to curtail or do differently, then it would be great to have THAT information also.
I have never been a fan of any "global warming taxes" or Cap N Trade or carbon credits or any of that nonsense.
I guess so, since you are stuck on the "blah blah blah this part proves my point" part:
But the ENTIRE SENTENCE is this: "He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend."
More stuff that differs from your viewpoint in that story:
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
And this:
Professor Jones criticized those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.
If your guy said there has been no warming over the last 15 years why do you claim there is? I am talking about the quote you put on the board that there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 15 years. Yes he believes (OPINION) that this a blip, but none the less he states that there has been no warming over that time period...
that whole statement is a CIRCLE - "Uh there has been no warming over the last 15 years, but I do belive that is a blip and even though there has bee no warming it is largly man made???? So temps have not changed due to man?"
Professor Jones criticized those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.
If the curve is now going down "...cooled until recently" how is that an upward trend?
I wonder if professor Jones is a product of that new math they talk about :P
Any greenhouse warming had been masked by chance fluctuations in solar activity, by pulses of volcanic aerosols, and by the rising pollution from human agriculture and industry. So long as global pollution from smoke, smog and dust was increasing, its cooling effects would hold back some of the temperature rise. Furthermore, as a few scientists pointed out, the upper layer of the oceans must have been absorbing heat. This too was concealing the buildup of heat energy trapped by greenhouse gases. However, Hansen's group and others calculated that these effects could delay atmospheric warming by no more than a few decades. His group boldly predicted that considering how fast CO2 was accumulating, by the end of the 20th century "carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climatic variability." An increasing number of other scientists using different calculations were coming to the same conclusion — the warming would show itself clearly sometime around 2000. (A few scientists had already said as much as far back as the 1950s.)
AND
Around 2008 contrarians began to popularize a new claim: the world had supposedly gotten no warmer in the decade since 1998. Indeed that had been an extraordinarily warm year, for a "super El Niño" event, the strongest of the century, had pumped some extra heat from the Pacific Ocean into the atmosphere. No year since had been noticeably hotter (although 2005 and 2008 roughly matched it). While the claim excited comment among internet blogs and a few politicians, the actual scientific literature gave scant attention to such short-term fluctuations. Anyone who looked at the ten-year average of air temperatures near the surface — which was what the weather statistics measured — would see that the decade 1999-2008 was substantially hotter than the decade before, which was in turn hotter than the preceding decade, and so forth back to the 1970s. Indeed all of the ten warmest years on record had come since 1997. The natural variability of climate could make for a still longer pause in surface warming, like the two decades of fluctuations in the mid-20th century. If that happened again it would give comfort only to those who ignored all the other data on changes in the climate system.
so we have some number that cover the last 30 to 50 years - and we are claiming the sky is falling?
WE KNOW that long before man was here that there were warm and cool periods - yet somehow now the view point is that the sky is falling?
I don't disagree that cleaner is better - but I do disagree that the HYSTERIA that is being used to transfer wealth is kind of scary...I mean didn't Hugo stand up and flatly state that the world owes him?
And didn't the saudi's state that if the world moves from oil to some thing else we should save them
Those are completely crazy points of view and should have been shouted down, but the cult of global warming opens the door to that kind of extreme transfer of wealth
So I guess in a nutshell everytime I hear that the end is near and nothing but doom and gloom I automatically discount EVERYTHING they say as they are a nut case
When further investigation reveals that some numbers were faked what little credibility they may have had is GONE.
we all exhale CO2 - is the EPA going to one day limit how may breathes you can take in a day?
Who is it that is making money from all the hysteria, besides AlGore and his henchmen?
You won't hear "doom and gloom" from any reasonable person.
You might hear "pollute less, recycle more, and be concerned about your imprint on pollution" from me. Nothing costly or hard to do there.
For every big social issue, there will be "sky is falling!" group and a "get over it" group.
It's the people in the middle who matter the most.
We all know that CO2 at certain levels, with 6.7 billion people and growing, will always be around. But if it in fact proves to be a contributing factor to a larger problem, why should efforts not be taken to curtail it?
What's wrong with reducing CO2 like building cleaner or fewer dirty coal plants and replacing them with solar or wind plants or even nuclear plants?
Nothing.
What's wrong with building and driving cleaner cars and buses?
Nothing.
What's wrong with capturing methane from garbage and using it for power?
Yet you keep stubbornly defending the A$$es and you keep trying to talk about everything but the global warming hoax.
We have told you countless times that we all are for a cleaner environment but you keep substituting "cleaner environment" for "global warming". They are not the same thing.
in the time before man when the climate was changing should something have been done then?
And it term of wealth transfer did you not hear what Hugo stated at Copenhagen?
And while you may consider youself to be middle of the pack you keep looking at sources that are viewed as being pretty extreme
Here is a real world example where the fear is driving bad policy.
In Seattle we have floating bridge that is OLD and out of date - does not handle the current (or future) traffic volumes and likely will sink in the next big wind storm or earthquake. The region has spent 10 years talking about it and final has a plan for replacement. Current bridge is 2 lanes each direction and the replacement will be 3 each way with one of the new lanes being HOV.
However a vocal minority group lead by our new Mayor want to make the changes including restricting the HOV lane to busses only and build a light rail link as well. Why do they want to do this? Because Cars are evil? Why are cars evil, cuz Al Gore told us so. Never mind that traffic moving at speed polutes less than bumper to bumper traffic, never mind that electric alternatives (such as the volt) are coming to market in greater numbers, never mind when you factor in the entire trip from door step to door step mass transit is not more effiecient for everbody all the time.
So because the sky is falling we are going to have a bad and expensive decision that likely will not serve the majority of the people in this area, because a few extremeists think the end is near.
We all ready built a light rail line that is under served cuz they PROHIBITED any park and ride lots because cars are evil - yes its true, you cannot drive a station, park you car and take the train into town - there was a cease and disist order sent to a local supermarket that was letting people do this very thing.
maybe in Phoenix people are having reasonable discussions around recycling and such, but here in Seattle that is not the case - why is that? Cuz as al gore said the debate is over, we are all doooooooommmmmmeed
The "GW movement" also contains people like me who think "maybe we are an influence" but maybe we also are NOT an influence, so better to stay cleaner just in case. We have done no ills in the name of GW.
The AlGores and his ilk are the other group, the extremists. They are the ones who have done ills in the name of GW.
but that is the rub - whatever changes are happening now are no different from the changes that have been going on forever. Only now there is the half blind crazy man is proclaiming we are warming we are warming - everybody is going to die we all have to do something now to save ourselves - and unfortunately too many people are believing that.
Larsb - climate changes - it goes up it goes down - yet this time we are told to freak the hell out.
Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to why global warming is bad. I seem to recall that historically some of the happiest times on the planet for humans (and some animals) occurred when the planet was experiencing one of its warmer cycles.
Clean air, clean water, using the earth's resources in a responsible and efficient manner are all excellent goals and we continue to make great strides in these areas.. Wasting scarce resources and capital on dubious hypotheses is just not smart. In any event, as long as China and India are building coal fired power plants and cars by the dozens and millions, spending our money to achieve the last hundreth of a percent of any kind of reduction in any hypothetical pollutant (read: C02) at this time in our fiscal lives is just plain dumb.
And by the way, cars are not a major cause of global warming and nobody can prove that they are.
because, as the GW-ists would have it, large chunks of ice will fall in to the Australia side of Antactica and fill up the oceans with too much water. Then, if this should continue, and Al Gore will tell you with a straight face that it will, the oceans will rise.
And, if the oceans indeed do keep rising, there's all these people living in cities like San Francisco and L.A. and New York and Boston that will be inundated with water. And you know what that means. Everyone will have to put their swimming skills to the test.
So what could happen? If Earth gets hotter, some of the important changes could happen: * Water expands when it's heated and oceans absorb more heat than land, so sea levels would rise. * Sea levels would also rise due to the melting of the glaciers and sea ice. * Over-heated oceans would destroy many ocean species and give the coral reefs a much harder time of survival. * Cities on coasts would flood. * Places that usually get lots of rain and snowfall might get hotter and drier. * Lakes and rivers could dry up. * Electricity would become far more expensive because demand would go up dramatically - both in areas which use a lot of A/C now and areas which traditionally have not needed air conditioning. This would lead to even more pollution from more and more power plants being built. * There would be more droughts making hard to grow crops. * Less water would be available for drinking, showers and swimming pools. * Some plants and animals might become extinct because of the heat - animals and plants which might contribute to a cure for cancer or aids or diabetes. * Hurricanes, tornadoes and other storms which are caused by changes in heat and water evaporation may get more common. * More water vapor in the warmer air from the melting ice means more severe snowstorms and ice storms and more floods in some typically rain-prone areas. * A new study by scientists with the USGS, US Forest Service, and six universities in Canada and the US has shown that warming is the primary reason for an increase in tree mortality in the Western US and British Columbia. * Most places will continue to get warmer, especially at night and in winter. The temperature change will benefit some regions while harming others — for example, patterns of tourism will shift. The warmer winters will improve health and agriculture in some areas, but globally, mortality will rise and food supplies will be endangered due to more frequent and extreme summer heat waves and other effects. Regions not directly harmed will suffer indirectly from higher food prices and a press of refugees from afflicted regions. * Sea levels will continue to rise for many centuries. The last time the planet was 3°C warmer than now, the sea level was roughly 5 meters higher. That submerged coastlines where many millions of people now live, including cities from New York to Shanghai. The rise will probably be so gradual that later generations can simply abandon their parents' homes, but a ruinously swift rise cannot be entirely ruled out. Meanwhile storm surges will cause emergencies. * Weather patterns will keep changing toward an intensified water cycle with stronger floods and droughts. Most regions now subject to droughts will probably get drier (because of warmth as well as less precipitation), and most wet regions will get wetter. Extreme weather events will become more frequent and worse. In particular, storms with more intense rainfall are liable to bring worse floods. Mountain glaciers and winter snowpack will shrink, jeopardizing many water supply systems. Each of these things has already begun to happen in some regions.(23) * Ecosystems will be stressed, although some managed agricultural and forestry systems will benefit, at least in the early decades of warming. Uncounted valuable species, especially in the Arctic, mountain areas, and tropical seas, must shift their ranges. Many that cannot will face extinction. A variety of pests and tropical diseases are expected to spread to warmed regions. Each of these problems has already been observed in numerous places. * Increased carbon dioxide levels will affect biological systems independent of climate change. Some crops will be fertilized, as will some invasive weeds (the balance of benefit vs. harm is uncertain). The oceans will continue to become markedly more acidic, gravely endangering coral reefs, and probably harming fisheries and other marine life. * There will be significant unforeseen impacts. Most of these will probably be harmful, since human and natural systems are well adapted to the present climate. * The climate system and ecosystems are complex and only partly understood, so there is a chance that the impacts will not be as bad as predicted. There is a similar chance of impacts grievously worse than predicted. If the CO2 level keeps rising to well beyond twice the pre-industrial level along with a rise of other greenhouse gases, as must inevitably happen if we do not take strong action soon, the results will certainly be worse. If emissions continue under a "business as usual" scenario, recent calculations give even odds that global temperature will rise 5°C or more by the end of the century — causing a radical reorganization and impoverishment of many of the ecosystems that sustain our civilization.
Interesting read: Not all board members like having Gore taint the board. He was re-elcted in spite of protests. The most interesting point of the shareholder meeting was Jobs speaking on their $40 billion in reserves.
Al Gore a lightning rod at Apple shareholder meeting
Gore was seated in the first row, along with his six fellow board members, in Apple's Town Hall auditorium as several stockholders took turns either bashing or praising his high-profile views on climate change.
At the first opportunity for audience participation just several minutes into the proceeding, a longtime and well-known Apple shareholder--some would say gadfly--who introduced himself as Sheldon, stood at the microphone and urged against Gore's re-election to the board. Gore "has become a laughingstock. The glaciers have not melted," Sheldon said, referring to Gore's views on global warming. "If his advice he gives to Apple is as faulty as his views on the environment then he doesn't need to be re-elected."
The security of cash on hand During the following Q&A session led by CEO Steve Jobs, COO Tim Cook, and CFO Peter Oppenheimer, shareholders were given the chance to speak their mind on, well, practically anything. Besides the environment, many homed in on the theme of just what Apple plans on doing with all that cash it has sitting around--approximately $40 billion in reserve, Apple reported last quarter. One shareholder asked if Apple might consider investing in electric-car maker Tesla. To that, Jobs replied he was planning on throwing "a toga party" with the money instead.
Meaning we are not wasting our cash chasing a red herring. A viable EV company in the USA is highly unlikely. The competition from China and India will bury any attempts made here.
Tee Hee Hee.....AlGore deserves all the derision he gets, but only for exaggeration.
He was right to bring the issue of warming into the limelight - he just went WAY OVERBOARD with all his "declarations of facts" which were and are not facts.
Following a number of scandals around the science of climate change, UKIP are promising to launch a Royal Commission led by a High Court judge to investigate whether global warming is man-made.
Pending the results of the commission, the party, that has no MPs at the moment, have promised to build new fossil-fuelled power stations to meet energy demands and scrap subsidies for wind farms. Global warming 'propaganda' like the Al Gore film Inconvenient Truth will be banned in schools and public authorities will not be allowed to spend money on climate change initiatives.
A recent poll found the just one in five people believe climate change is man-made, compared to one in three a year ago.
Larsb says, we should show X rated movies in our schools?
Movies are banned from schools and even some towns all the time. A movie with at least 11 debunked lies should NOT be shown to young children.
PS Watching with a child and explaining how politicians lie to instill fear in the Populace would be ok. I am not sure most parents are capable of doing that.
comparing an X-rated movie to the AlGore production? A little extreme.
Better than banning would be a teaching guide to pause the movie at each "lie" and have a question and answer session ending with the teacher explaining the real truth in that aspect of the movie.
Remember Gary - a movie made from a "denier viewpoint" would have lies too, because the science is just not settled enough for anyone to prove what they say is true.
ending with the teacher explaining the real truth in that aspect of the movie.
That would be real good with the Liberal mentality pervasive in our education system. The movie presents images designed to alarm little minds. Al Gore is an Alarmist. The idea is to generate revenue through scare tactics. Kids coming home and blaming their parents for killing polar bears is what the movie was supposed to do. And it seems as if it is effective. It should be banned from schools. It is AGW pornography.
PS Which denier movie are they showing in schools?
Gary says, "PS Which denier movie are they showing in schools?"
Did you miss my point or was that sarcasm?
My point was that if you want to "ban" AlGore, you would have to ban a similar movie with the opposite viewpoint. Then you might ban another liberal movie, then another conservative movie, etc etc., ad infinitum.
Censorship is not a good thing to get into. Just teach the kids what is right and what is wrong and let them see everything education-related and digest it as they will.
Not X-Rated movies. That's not censorship, just common sense.
wow - all doom and gloom - so what you are telling us is that warming = bad all the way around.
So lets ask it in a personal way - given that you believe that all that you post how would you react to your state banning personal automibles - based on their clear and negative impact to all the above.
No before you blow this off as extreme and unlikely and all the other excuses you give us think about how you would react if this change was forced on you - cuz you may not believe that this kind of thing is happening, but it is based on the HYSTERIA OF GW and stupid google quotes such as the one you posted here.
reduction of liberty, reduction of freedom, and transfer of wealth is being done one step at a time based on your assertions that the end is near.
My point was that if you want to "ban" AlGore, you would have to ban a similar movie with the opposite viewpoint.
I'm glad you detected my sarcasm. Getting opposing viewpoints on AGW was nearly impossible, until Climategate and the whole HOAX was brought out in the Open. Our schools are not open places of learning they are closed to many points of view not authorized by the Federally controlled school systems around the USA. How many parents want to spend every evening refuting much of what their child has been indoctrinated with in school?
all this talk about "reduction of liberty, reduction of freedom, and transfer of wealth" is kinda paranoid and misplaced.
You don't live in the People's Socialist Republic of California either. Our freedom, liberty and sustenance are all under attack by the bunch of lunatics in Sacramento. It started decades ago. And not just with AGW, though that has had a negative impact on our standard of living.
Driving home yesterday evening we noticed the adverse affect of over priced utilities. Almost every home in our area had smoke coming from the chimney. 10 years ago you would be hard pressed to see one out of 100 homes. Thanks to our Obama stove we have cut our Propane usage this winter in half. I am feeling much healthier splitting logs every other day to keep the stove going. Though I don't believe it will help the air quality down in the valley below us. Not my problem. The Wood cutters are doing very well. Almost every corner has a truck load of wood for sale.
That is why it is good to live up the mountain instead of the seashore. No smog, no rising oceans to worry about. Life is good. Our breezes are generally from the desert, so it blows that smoke onto the city. People living in a city don't care if it stinks. City life stinks anyway.
dont dodge the question here Larsb. what is reasonable to you may be different to someone in power who believes the end is near.
I chose to live close to work and don't drive very far - yet I am bad for driving an SUV. My Neighbor chose to live far from work and drives a civic.
at the end of the day she burns more gas than me.
So again if you state leaders wanted to limit cars - either banning them , or limiting them to 500 miles per calendar month would you be OK with that? no exceptions
I'm not dodging, I'm just trying to talk about scenarios that MIGHT REALLY HAPPEN.
No one is going to "ban cars."
But if suitable public transportation and plenty of park-n-ride lots and etc etc were in place for COMMUTERS ONLY, then I could see allowing commuters only 500 miles per month. I personally drive far less than that for my commute.
But nothing like that is EVER gonna REALLY happen. C'mon, let's be real.
Here is seattle they want to tear down one freeway AND NOT REPLACE IT. They want to tear down another link and replace it with less capacity than it has today.
Do you really think that they would not ban cars from the city? Their motivation is that the end of the world is rapidly approaching from global warming.
So while you think that is a far fetched reality on the coasts where the politics tend to be extreme left wing it is no far fetched at all. And the more people run around saying the following are facts: Warming is worse/different from any other time Warming is universally bad for everybody and everything and that the debate is over the more we will see things we take for granted today erode.
Here is a simple ban we have all ready seen. You will no longer be able to burn incandescent light bulbs in California - period. What makes you think that they won't move up the chain and ban other types of products? I like CFLs for some applications but not all, but pretty soon I will no longer have that choice - and I really love the idea that CFLs come from China on big polluting ships and contain mercury that can be difficult to dispose of if they break. Let me pick which light bulbs to buy and use...please!
Yes that is a somewhat silly example, but that is the direction we are going
Well, lucky for you, fewer people are believing in Global Warming than ever before.
I guess its the "I'm digging my [non-permissible content removed] out of snow banks every other weekend" effect?
Anyhoo, on the tearing down a freeway and not replacing it ?
I'M ALL FOR THAT STRATEGY.
For too long in this country, we have addressed population expansion by "building more roads" and that is seriously IDIOTIC.
Think about the end game to that strategy: freeways ALL over the place. Noise. Pollution. Wrecks. Gridlock because of those wrecks. People and neighborhoods getting displaced by the need for more freeways. People relying on a critically flawed system.
A WELL-DESIGNED mass transportation system including the street bus, light rail, elevated rail, etc is a far better solution for population-impacted larger cities.
And banning of very inefficient, hot burning, short life incandescent bulbs? All for that too.
You can choose ANY bulb you want as long as it's CFL or LED. There are bulbs now for virtually EVERY usage. I've got CFLs and LEDs in my house exclusively. Have not used an incandescent bulb in any home of mine since probably around 2000.
As usual you are all for everyone else sacrificing as long as you don't have to. When are you giving up that AC out there in the desert?
Sure, AC is comfortable and convenient but people lived for years without it, so you are being very selfish and you are harming the planet to boot. If you are going to talk the talk you gotta walk the walk !
Comments
You do admit that Al Gore is prepostering a hoax here, don't you? What does AG want us all to do? Follow his carbon footprint example?
Go solar-powered? Drive all-electric drivetrain automobiles? Driving an all-electric rig does appeal to this padre, I must admit.
But outfitting my house with all the latest "green" gadgets is cost-prohibitive and what does it really do to help my neighbor in Argentina with his or her problems with finding affordable healthcare? See what I mean?
Healthcare reform might be a better place to try and grow and improve. And stop all of these silly national boundary issues that cause us to charge our people so much in Federal income tax to support, like building submarines, aircraft carriers, jet warplanes, etc.
Some serious tax credits might help in going all-out green with our housing, huh?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Nice try at deflection. So how did clean air and water become part of AGW? And there is NO SUCH THING AS STABLE WEATHER. This winter should have shown you that. And it is your OPINION that less Arctic ice is a bad thing. There is untold amounts of stored fossil energy in the Arctic that will and can be used if access is easier. Sadly it will be Canada, Russia and Norway reaping the benefits, while we debate issues like ANWR. The environmentalists are a BIG part of the destruction of our economy. The housing bubble is just that. It did not destroy whole segments of our manufacturing as has the AGW cult. Companies faced with regulations that CANNOT be complied with, will and have moved to other countries. Think CFL bulbs. Think NiCad and NiMH batteries. And your favorite Solar PV cells.
I like clean water and air as much as the next guy. I could not breath in LA during the 1960s. It is a little better now. The problem is too many people in too small an area. Cities are a big part of pollution.
Those guys screwed up and made a$$es of themselves.
But their MISTAKES DID NOT CAUSE THE POLAR ICE CAPS TO SHRINK.
The WARMING DID.
To me, the fight against Global Warming has ALWAYS FROM DAY ONE been about cleaner air and water and reducing pollution.
My suggestion has always been to pollute less, recycle more, and keep funding VALID STUDY of global climate to determine (if any) the affects man's activities are having (or not) on the planet.
If the planet is just sucking up all our pollution and not being negatively affected, then that's great.
If there are things we can identify as things we need to curtail or do differently, then it would be great to have THAT information also.
I have never been a fan of any "global warming taxes" or Cap N Trade or carbon credits or any of that nonsense.
I guess so, since you are stuck on the "blah blah blah this part proves my point" part:
But the ENTIRE SENTENCE is this: "He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend."
More stuff that differs from your viewpoint in that story:
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
And this:
Professor Jones criticized those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.
Simple question:
If your guy said there has been no warming over the last 15 years why do you claim there is? I am talking about the quote you put on the board that there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 15 years. Yes he believes (OPINION) that this a blip, but none the less he states that there has been no warming over that time period...
Talk about flaws in his logic....
If the curve is now going down "...cooled until recently" how is that an upward trend?
I wonder if professor Jones is a product of that new math they talk about :P
This is very educational, and you can track the history of WHY the warming trend became noticeable.
And it wasn't so AlGore could collect Carbon Credits.
Long but worth it
Any greenhouse warming had been masked by chance fluctuations in solar activity, by pulses of volcanic aerosols, and by the rising pollution from human agriculture and industry. So long as global pollution from smoke, smog and dust was increasing, its cooling effects would hold back some of the temperature rise. Furthermore, as a few scientists pointed out, the upper layer of the oceans must have been absorbing heat. This too was concealing the buildup of heat energy trapped by greenhouse gases. However, Hansen's group and others calculated that these effects could delay atmospheric warming by no more than a few decades. His group boldly predicted that considering how fast CO2 was accumulating, by the end of the 20th century "carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climatic variability." An increasing number of other scientists using different calculations were coming to the same conclusion — the warming would show itself clearly sometime around 2000. (A few scientists had already said as much as far back as the 1950s.)
AND
Around 2008 contrarians began to popularize a new claim: the world had supposedly gotten no warmer in the decade since 1998. Indeed that had been an extraordinarily warm year, for a "super El Niño" event, the strongest of the century, had pumped some extra heat from the Pacific Ocean into the atmosphere. No year since had been noticeably hotter (although 2005 and 2008 roughly matched it). While the claim excited comment among internet blogs and a few politicians, the actual scientific literature gave scant attention to such short-term fluctuations. Anyone who looked at the ten-year average of air temperatures near the surface — which was what the weather statistics measured — would see that the decade 1999-2008 was substantially hotter than the decade before, which was in turn hotter than the preceding decade, and so forth back to the 1970s. Indeed all of the ten warmest years on record had come since 1997. The natural variability of climate could make for a still longer pause in surface warming, like the two decades of fluctuations in the mid-20th century. If that happened again it would give comfort only to those who ignored all the other data on changes in the climate system.
WE KNOW that long before man was here that there were warm and cool periods - yet somehow now the view point is that the sky is falling?
I don't disagree that cleaner is better - but I do disagree that the HYSTERIA that is being used to transfer wealth is kind of scary...I mean didn't Hugo stand up and flatly state that the world owes him?
And didn't the saudi's state that if the world moves from oil to some thing else we should save them
Those are completely crazy points of view and should have been shouted down, but the cult of global warming opens the door to that kind of extreme transfer of wealth
So I guess in a nutshell everytime I hear that the end is near and nothing but doom and gloom I automatically discount EVERYTHING they say as they are a nut case
When further investigation reveals that some numbers were faked what little credibility they may have had is GONE.
we all exhale CO2 - is the EPA going to one day limit how may breathes you can take in a day?
Who is it that is making money from all the hysteria, besides AlGore and his henchmen?
You won't hear "doom and gloom" from any reasonable person.
You might hear "pollute less, recycle more, and be concerned about your imprint on pollution" from me. Nothing costly or hard to do there.
For every big social issue, there will be "sky is falling!" group and a "get over it" group.
It's the people in the middle who matter the most.
We all know that CO2 at certain levels, with 6.7 billion people and growing, will always be around. But if it in fact proves to be a contributing factor to a larger problem, why should efforts not be taken to curtail it?
What's wrong with reducing CO2 like building cleaner or fewer dirty coal plants and replacing them with solar or wind plants or even nuclear plants?
Nothing.
What's wrong with building and driving cleaner cars and buses?
Nothing.
What's wrong with capturing methane from garbage and using it for power?
Nothing.
We have told you countless times that we all are for a cleaner environment but you keep substituting "cleaner environment" for "global warming". They are not the same thing.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The cause?
WE.
DON'T.
KNOW.
Somewhere in the "we don't know" REMAINS the possibility that man's activities are contributing.
That is inescapable.
Now, there are many disagreements and to "What To Do About That" and right now there is not really a good answer.
MY PERSONAL ANSWER is pollute less, recycle more.
Even outside the realm of Global Warming, those are good ideas.
I'm not on any particular side. I'm on the side of "don't dismiss it and don't declare it true" until all the facts are in.
But the evidence of the warming did not evaporate when those few scientists were lying and cheating to keep their jobs.
The ice did not magically re-appear on the ice caps when ClimateGate happened.
Some of you here seem to think that the whole idea of Global Warming crashed and burned when those guys were found to be lying about a few things.
That is very far from the case.
And it term of wealth transfer did you not hear what Hugo stated at Copenhagen?
And while you may consider youself to be middle of the pack you keep looking at sources that are viewed as being pretty extreme
Here is a real world example where the fear is driving bad policy.
In Seattle we have floating bridge that is OLD and out of date - does not handle the current (or future) traffic volumes and likely will sink in the next big wind storm or earthquake. The region has spent 10 years talking about it and final has a plan for replacement. Current bridge is 2 lanes each direction and the replacement will be 3 each way with one of the new lanes being HOV.
However a vocal minority group lead by our new Mayor want to make the changes including restricting the HOV lane to busses only and build a light rail link as well. Why do they want to do this? Because Cars are evil? Why are cars evil, cuz Al Gore told us so. Never mind that traffic moving at speed polutes less than bumper to bumper traffic, never mind that electric alternatives (such as the volt) are coming to market in greater numbers, never mind when you factor in the entire trip from door step to door step mass transit is not more effiecient for everbody all the time.
So because the sky is falling we are going to have a bad and expensive decision that likely will not serve the majority of the people in this area, because a few extremeists think the end is near.
We all ready built a light rail line that is under served cuz they PROHIBITED any park and ride lots because cars are evil - yes its true, you cannot drive a station, park you car and take the train into town - there was a cease and disist order sent to a local supermarket that was letting people do this very thing.
maybe in Phoenix people are having reasonable discussions around recycling and such, but here in Seattle that is not the case - why is that? Cuz as al gore said the debate is over, we are all doooooooommmmmmeed
Gary is mad that his electricity bill is going up - AlGore's fault.
Your issues in Seattle - AlGore's fault.
You two should be glad you have someone to blame, at least.
But here's where you took a wrong turn:
You are trying to blame all those ills on the GW movement ITSELF, and not the people who have done incorrect things in the name of GW.
People will always have extreme movements to do this or that.
Our job as middle-dwellers is to try and minimize the damage they do.
But don't poo-poo the ACTUAL warming just because you are mad about what some people are doing because they THINK that man is causing it.
Hmmm....I think that is called "double talk".
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The "GW movement" also contains people like me who think "maybe we are an influence" but maybe we also are NOT an influence, so better to stay cleaner just in case. We have done no ills in the name of GW.
The AlGores and his ilk are the other group, the extremists. They are the ones who have done ills in the name of GW.
Larsb - climate changes - it goes up it goes down - yet this time we are told to freak the hell out.
No
'nuff said - I'm out...
I understand that. Did you read the earlier long-winded link I posted? It explains the origin and the rationale for THIS particular freak-out.
On historical warming - this one COULD BE different. We've never before had 6.7 Billion people polluting the Earf.
That's why more study is needed and as a "smart move" we should err on the side of not polluting MORE than required.
Clean air, clean water, using the earth's resources in a responsible and efficient manner are all excellent goals and we continue to make great strides in these areas.. Wasting scarce resources and capital on dubious hypotheses is just not smart. In any event, as long as China and India are building coal fired power plants and cars by the dozens and millions, spending our money to achieve the last hundreth of a percent of any kind of reduction in any hypothetical pollutant (read: C02) at this time in our fiscal lives is just plain dumb.
And by the way, cars are not a major cause of global warming and nobody can prove that they are.
Regards, DQ
And, if the oceans indeed do keep rising, there's all these people living in cities like San Francisco and L.A. and New York and Boston that will be inundated with water. And you know what that means. Everyone will have to put their swimming skills to the test.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
The dream has arrived for the moochers and looters in the sales presentation of "Global Warming".
Global warmiing is not about the Earth warming.
It is about "Social Justice", redistribution of wealth, hatred of the good for being good, and a lust for power and control.
Using fear to control human behavior is the oldest game.
Yes, and Al Gore knows this very well. Remember the speech where he was screaming about George Bush and WMDs...."HE PLAYED ON OUR FEARS" !
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
So what could happen? If Earth gets hotter, some of the important changes could happen:
* Water expands when it's heated and oceans absorb more heat than land, so sea levels would rise.
* Sea levels would also rise due to the melting of the glaciers and sea ice.
* Over-heated oceans would destroy many ocean species and give the coral reefs a much harder time of survival.
* Cities on coasts would flood.
* Places that usually get lots of rain and snowfall might get hotter and drier.
* Lakes and rivers could dry up.
* Electricity would become far more expensive because demand would go up dramatically - both in areas which use a lot of A/C now and areas which traditionally have not needed air conditioning. This would lead to even more pollution from more and more power plants being built.
* There would be more droughts making hard to grow crops.
* Less water would be available for drinking, showers and swimming pools.
* Some plants and animals might become extinct because of the heat - animals and plants which might contribute to a cure for cancer or aids or diabetes.
* Hurricanes, tornadoes and other storms which are caused by changes in heat and water evaporation may get more common.
* More water vapor in the warmer air from the melting ice means more severe snowstorms and ice storms and more floods in some typically rain-prone areas.
* A new study by scientists with the USGS, US Forest Service, and six universities in Canada and the US has shown that warming is the primary reason for an increase in tree mortality in the Western US and British Columbia.
* Most places will continue to get warmer, especially at night and in winter. The temperature change will benefit some regions while harming others — for example, patterns of tourism will shift. The warmer winters will improve health and agriculture in some areas, but globally, mortality will rise and food supplies will be endangered due to more frequent and extreme summer heat waves and other effects. Regions not directly harmed will suffer indirectly from higher food prices and a press of refugees from afflicted regions.
* Sea levels will continue to rise for many centuries. The last time the planet was 3°C warmer than now, the sea level was roughly 5 meters higher. That submerged coastlines where many millions of people now live, including cities from New York to Shanghai. The rise will probably be so gradual that later generations can simply abandon their parents' homes, but a ruinously swift rise cannot be entirely ruled out. Meanwhile storm surges will cause emergencies.
* Weather patterns will keep changing toward an intensified water cycle with stronger floods and droughts. Most regions now subject to droughts will probably get drier (because of warmth as well as less precipitation), and most wet regions will get wetter. Extreme weather events will become more frequent and worse. In particular, storms with more intense rainfall are liable to bring worse floods. Mountain glaciers and winter snowpack will shrink, jeopardizing many water supply systems. Each of these things has already begun to happen in some regions.(23)
* Ecosystems will be stressed, although some managed agricultural and forestry systems will benefit, at least in the early decades of warming. Uncounted valuable species, especially in the Arctic, mountain areas, and tropical seas, must shift their ranges. Many that cannot will face extinction. A variety of pests and tropical diseases are expected to spread to warmed regions. Each of these problems has already been observed in numerous places.
* Increased carbon dioxide levels will affect biological systems independent of climate change. Some crops will be fertilized, as will some invasive weeds (the balance of benefit vs. harm is uncertain). The oceans will continue to become markedly more acidic, gravely endangering coral reefs, and probably harming fisheries and other marine life.
* There will be significant unforeseen impacts. Most of these will probably be harmful, since human and natural systems are well adapted to the present climate.
* The climate system and ecosystems are complex and only partly understood, so there is a chance that the impacts will not be as bad as predicted. There is a similar chance of impacts grievously worse than predicted. If the CO2 level keeps rising to well beyond twice the pre-industrial level along with a rise of other greenhouse gases, as must inevitably happen if we do not take strong action soon, the results will certainly be worse. If emissions continue under a "business as usual" scenario, recent calculations give even odds that global temperature will rise 5°C or more by the end of the century — causing a radical reorganization and impoverishment of many of the ecosystems that sustain our civilization.
Look. Weak-minded people who are gullible enough to be "controlled by fear" get what's coming to them.
People like us who aren't going to fall for that are just going to keep not falling for it.
Nothing to conspiratize about.
Al Gore a lightning rod at Apple shareholder meeting
Gore was seated in the first row, along with his six fellow board members, in Apple's Town Hall auditorium as several stockholders took turns either bashing or praising his high-profile views on climate change.
At the first opportunity for audience participation just several minutes into the proceeding, a longtime and well-known Apple shareholder--some would say gadfly--who introduced himself as Sheldon, stood at the microphone and urged against Gore's re-election to the board. Gore "has become a laughingstock. The glaciers have not melted," Sheldon said, referring to Gore's views on global warming. "If his advice he gives to Apple is as faulty as his views on the environment then he doesn't need to be re-elected."
The security of cash on hand
During the following Q&A session led by CEO Steve Jobs, COO Tim Cook, and CFO Peter Oppenheimer, shareholders were given the chance to speak their mind on, well, practically anything. Besides the environment, many homed in on the theme of just what Apple plans on doing with all that cash it has sitting around--approximately $40 billion in reserve, Apple reported last quarter. One shareholder asked if Apple might consider investing in electric-car maker Tesla. To that, Jobs replied he was planning on throwing "a toga party" with the money instead.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-10459872-260.html
Meaning we are not wasting our cash chasing a red herring. A viable EV company in the USA is highly unlikely. The competition from China and India will bury any attempts made here.
He was right to bring the issue of warming into the limelight - he just went WAY OVERBOARD with all his "declarations of facts" which were and are not facts.
Pending the results of the commission, the party, that has no MPs at the moment, have promised to build new fossil-fuelled power stations to meet energy demands and scrap subsidies for wind farms. Global warming 'propaganda' like the Al Gore film Inconvenient Truth will be banned in schools and public authorities will not be allowed to spend money on climate change initiatives.
A recent poll found the just one in five people believe climate change is man-made, compared to one in three a year ago.
Ban Gore
Use it as a teaching tool to demonstrate how people with an agenda can go overboard.
I might watch it with my kids this weekend and explain to them the difference between the true and untrue parts of the movie.
Movies are banned from schools and even some towns all the time. A movie with at least 11 debunked lies should NOT be shown to young children.
PS
Watching with a child and explaining how politicians lie to instill fear in the Populace would be ok. I am not sure most parents are capable of doing that.
Better than banning would be a teaching guide to pause the movie at each "lie" and have a question and answer session ending with the teacher explaining the real truth in that aspect of the movie.
Remember Gary - a movie made from a "denier viewpoint" would have lies too, because the science is just not settled enough for anyone to prove what they say is true.
That would be real good with the Liberal mentality pervasive in our education system. The movie presents images designed to alarm little minds. Al Gore is an Alarmist. The idea is to generate revenue through scare tactics. Kids coming home and blaming their parents for killing polar bears is what the movie was supposed to do. And it seems as if it is effective. It should be banned from schools. It is AGW pornography.
PS
Which denier movie are they showing in schools?
Did you miss my point or was that sarcasm?
My point was that if you want to "ban" AlGore, you would have to ban a similar movie with the opposite viewpoint. Then you might ban another liberal movie, then another conservative movie, etc etc., ad infinitum.
Censorship is not a good thing to get into. Just teach the kids what is right and what is wrong and let them see everything education-related and digest it as they will.
Not X-Rated movies. That's not censorship, just common sense.
So lets ask it in a personal way - given that you believe that all that you post how would you react to your state banning personal automibles - based on their clear and negative impact to all the above.
No before you blow this off as extreme and unlikely and all the other excuses you give us think about how you would react if this change was forced on you - cuz you may not believe that this kind of thing is happening, but it is based on the HYSTERIA OF GW and stupid google quotes such as the one you posted here.
reduction of liberty, reduction of freedom, and transfer of wealth is being done one step at a time based on your assertions that the end is near.
Would I oppose a ban to the "dirtiest polluters"? No.
all this talk about "reduction of liberty, reduction of freedom, and transfer of wealth" is kinda paranoid and misplaced.
I have lived a "carbon-reduced" lifestyle for a few years now, and not one of my liberties or freedoms has been affected or denied.
I'm glad you detected my sarcasm. Getting opposing viewpoints on AGW was nearly impossible, until Climategate and the whole HOAX was brought out in the Open. Our schools are not open places of learning they are closed to many points of view not authorized by the Federally controlled school systems around the USA. How many parents want to spend every evening refuting much of what their child has been indoctrinated with in school?
You don't live in the People's Socialist Republic of California either. Our freedom, liberty and sustenance are all under attack by the bunch of lunatics in Sacramento. It started decades ago. And not just with AGW, though that has had a negative impact on our standard of living.
Driving home yesterday evening we noticed the adverse affect of over priced utilities. Almost every home in our area had smoke coming from the chimney. 10 years ago you would be hard pressed to see one out of 100 homes. Thanks to our Obama stove we have cut our Propane usage this winter in half. I am feeling much healthier splitting logs every other day to keep the stove going. Though I don't believe it will help the air quality down in the valley below us. Not my problem. The Wood cutters are doing very well. Almost every corner has a truck load of wood for sale.
No excess div tags here!
It's called "The Law of Unforeseen Consequences" and we all have to live with those.
I chose to live close to work and don't drive very far - yet I am bad for driving an SUV. My Neighbor chose to live far from work and drives a civic.
at the end of the day she burns more gas than me.
So again if you state leaders wanted to limit cars - either banning them , or limiting them to 500 miles per calendar month would you be OK with that? no exceptions
No one is going to "ban cars."
But if suitable public transportation and plenty of park-n-ride lots and etc etc were in place for COMMUTERS ONLY, then I could see allowing commuters only 500 miles per month. I personally drive far less than that for my commute.
But nothing like that is EVER gonna REALLY happen. C'mon, let's be real.
Here is seattle they want to tear down one freeway AND NOT REPLACE IT. They want to tear down another link and replace it with less capacity than it has today.
Do you really think that they would not ban cars from the city? Their motivation is that the end of the world is rapidly approaching from global warming.
So while you think that is a far fetched reality on the coasts where the politics tend to be extreme left wing it is no far fetched at all. And the more people run around saying the following are facts:
Warming is worse/different from any other time
Warming is universally bad for everybody and everything
and that the debate is over
the more we will see things we take for granted today erode.
Here is a simple ban we have all ready seen. You will no longer be able to burn incandescent light bulbs in California - period. What makes you think that they won't move up the chain and ban other types of products? I like CFLs for some applications but not all, but pretty soon I will no longer have that choice - and I really love the idea that CFLs come from China on big polluting ships and contain mercury that can be difficult to dispose of if they break. Let me pick which light bulbs to buy and use...please!
Yes that is a somewhat silly example, but that is the direction we are going
I guess its the "I'm digging my [non-permissible content removed] out of snow banks every other weekend" effect?
Anyhoo, on the tearing down a freeway and not replacing it ?
I'M ALL FOR THAT STRATEGY.
For too long in this country, we have addressed population expansion by "building more roads" and that is seriously IDIOTIC.
Think about the end game to that strategy: freeways ALL over the place. Noise. Pollution. Wrecks. Gridlock because of those wrecks. People and neighborhoods getting displaced by the need for more freeways. People relying on a critically flawed system.
A WELL-DESIGNED mass transportation system including the street bus, light rail, elevated rail, etc is a far better solution for population-impacted larger cities.
And banning of very inefficient, hot burning, short life incandescent bulbs? All for that too.
You can choose ANY bulb you want as long as it's CFL or LED. There are bulbs now for virtually EVERY usage. I've got CFLs and LEDs in my house exclusively. Have not used an incandescent bulb in any home of mine since probably around 2000.
Sure, AC is comfortable and convenient but people lived for years without it, so you are being very selfish and you are harming the planet to boot. If you are going to talk the talk you gotta walk the walk !
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460