The concept is the same. Taxation without representation. Our representatives might as well be working for King George. They sure as Heck are not looking out for our interest. Who do they think they are kidding with Cap n Trade. Any carbon tax is going to be passed right down to the guy at the end of the food chain. That would be US in the Middle Class. We know the bottom 47% do not pay income tax. They get subsidized to cover any higher cost in living and you and I will be paying for it. Unless you happen to fit in that 47%.
The old tea partiers represented a new direction. The new ones will vote for the same old junk.
Good comparison between the idiotic policies of that [non-permissible content removed] king, and the self-destructive measures so many want to implement to somehow cure us of "global warming"...both make the masses pay through the nose, and make an elite few wealthier. Carbon tax or tea tax...different means for the same real result, money.
Can't be wood smoke I have not built a fire in my wood stove since last Sunday. I am hoping we are done with the cold for this year. Last winter the only smoke you saw rising from the chimneys around me was my next door neighbor. This year several homes were being heated or partially heated with wood. Thank you Barry for the Wood stove insert. We are enjoying the warmth of a nice wood fire. And I am in better shape splitting and hauling the wood. A win win situation.
Looks like a couple more glaciers have disappeared. But it doesn't appear to be linked to mankind because they've been disappearing and shrinking since 1850, when there was a very small fraction of industrial emissions, and human population as compared to today.
The park's glaciers have been slowly melting since about 1850, when the centuries-long Little Ice Age ended. They once numbered as many as 150, and 37 of those glaciers eventually were named.
The report by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and Natural Resources Defense Council included an analysis of weather records that showed Glacier was 2 degrees hotter on average from 2000 to 2009, compared with 1950 to 1979.
That's not surprising since a glacier would "refrigerate" the air. Less glaciers the warmer the air gets in that area, and the faster the glaciers melt, accelerating the local weather. Bravo! I hope some wildflife, or even people can now live in that area, now that it's free of ice.
So if anyone else understands that heating can be occurring without a temperature increase, until you get a phase change, then these reports of glaciers having retreated since the 19th century would indicate that the warming of the Earth really began in the early 19th century or earlier. Mankind was certainly not using energy in quantities sufficient to warm and then melt glaciers in the late 1700's or early 1800's.. This is just more eveidence that the small amount of warming we may be seeing (if you can believe the data at all) is natural.
Yes, and that is why we MUST immediately do the following:
1. Cap all man made emissions so that we do not disturb this delicate balance of nature.
2. Increase the cost of all energy sources to pay for the clean-up that will be needed.
3. Form a massive new system of governance that operates across ALL the globe that is answerable only to the planet and dieties higher than that, with nothing like democracy or sovereignty to hold it back from doing anything it pleases, all for the benefit of humankind of course.
so that we do not disturb this delicate balance of nature.
"balance of nature" is an interesting concept. Do you believe there is such a thing? Looking at the geological and biological history of the Earth (what we know or strongly suspect), there is no balance - at least long-term. The Earth heats and freezes, species come and go, sometimes suddenly, sometimes slowly evolving. There really is no constant.
I think it is a problem with human psychology that our brains are wired with memories of what things were like last month and last week. In actuality we live in a chaotic changing environment where change is either gradual or sudden. Really there is no constancy or balance.
If nothing else that 1 tiny little volcano in Iceland is again a demonstration of the effect of nature relative to mankind's effect. Maybe just coincidence, but there sure seems to be a lot of earthquakes and now volcanic eruptions ; though are scientists assure us this isn't too abnormal (YET!). A few more major earthquakes and volcanoes erupting and I might start putting stock into the magnetic fields reversing quicker, and reading up on 2012.
Nature has nothing to fear from man; man has to fear nature!
You have to wonder how superior man is when they cannot even keep a little volcano from disrupting half the air travel around the World. Nature managed itself long before man stepped foot on the planet. Such arrogance to think that man is significant in the overall scope of this planet Earth.
Driving an SUV sure beats flying about now, if you are in Europe.
quote of the day from an A Gore cult type:
CNN, April 2010
SANCHEZ: I was just asking Chad, how can you get a volcano in Iceland? [Myers laughs]. Isn't it too- when you think of a volcano, you think of Hawaii and long words like that. You don't think of Iceland.
MYERS: Right.
SANCHEZ: You think it's too cold to have a volcano there. But no! There it is.
It's hard to believe that a major cable network employs a man who's unaware that the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees.
I know you too well, Gary. When I just got through reading that volcano story, I said to myself, "Self, you KNOW Gary is going to be posting about how the awesome power of Nature trumps Man on the Forums today."
If you are in Europe, grab a train.
So you think this gent/lady just heard AlGore say it and adopted it as true?
LETHBRIDGE, AB—Close to 50 years of data show the Devon Island ice cap, one of the largest ice masses in the Canadian High Arctic, is thinning and shrinking.
A paper published in the March edition of Arctic, the journal of the University of Calgary's Arctic Institute of North America, reports that between 1961 and 1985, the ice cap grew in some years and shrank in others, resulting in an overall loss of mass. But that changed 1985 when scientists began to see a steady decline in ice volume and area each year. Click here to find out more!
"We've been seeing more mass loss since 1985," says Sarah Boon, lead author on the paper and a Geography Professor at the University of Lethbridge. The reason for the change? Warmer summers.
The High Arctic is essentially a desert with low rates of annual precipitation. There is little accumulation of snow in the winter and cool summers, with temperatures at or below freezing, serve to maintain levels. Any increase of snow and ice takes years.
This delicate equilibrium is easily upset. One warm summer can wipe out five years of growth. And though the accelerated melting trend began in 1985, the last decade has seen four years with unusually warm summers - 2001, 2005, 2007 and 2008.
"What we see during these warm summers is the extent of the melt is greater," says Boon about the results of a five-year remote sensing study that ran between 2000 and 2004.
So you think this gent/lady just heard AlGore say it and adopted it as true?
I think the CNN anchor Rick Sanchez should be smarter than the average AGW cult member.
If I was so unlucky as to be in Europe I would get on a train South, then grab a ship out of there. I have been stranded MANY times due to volcanic eruptions in Alaska. Never makes much stir in the news. Mount St Helen's made me 3 days late getting back to work.
It is all part of the conditions we put up with on earth. The ocean rises, you move to higher ground. Not pass some stupid tax scam legislation based on lies and deception.
Could be BILLIONS of degrees. We have never more than scratched the surface. I know in the Arctic most of the wells are in the 12,000 foot range. The oil comes out of the ground at about 200 degrees. That is after passing through about 1400 feet of permafrost. So it does get hot fast. If not for superstition and eco nuts we would be building a lot more geo-thermal electric generators.
Speaking of alternatives. Just read an article. More people have died from collapsing wind generators than did at 3 mile Island nuclear incident.
And more:
Hundreds of wind turbines could be SINKING due to design flaw
Hundreds of Britain's offshore wind turbines could be sinking into the sea because of a design flaw.
It is believed the concrete used to fix some turbines to their steel foundation can wear away, causing the power generators to drop a few inches.
The fault was first discovered at the Egmond aan Zee wind farm in the Netherlands and affects those with single cylinder foundations.
Experts from Renewables UK, which represents wind farm developers, said it could cost £50million to fix Britain's 336 turbines thought to be at risk.
Not just wind generators, how about the latest is solar scams?
After press reports, it was established during inspections that several solar power plants were generating current and feeding it into the net at night. To simulate a larger installation capacity, the operators connected diesel generators.
“This is just the tip of the iceberg,” said one industry expert to the newspaper “El Mundo”, which brought the scandal to light. If solar systems apparently produce current in the dark, will be noticed sooner or later. However, if electricity generators were connected during daytime, the swindle would hardly be noticed.
As I said last time around, this is the insanity of greenery.
You too can generate energy with your solar system at night, all you need is an 850 million candlepower WWII era searchlight, now available for rent.
Hey, it’s not crazy. There are so many fees, taxes, add ons, etc to power bills here in California now it is actually cheaper to generate your own electricity running a diesel generator than it is to buy it from PG&E. Anyone have a used diesel-electric locomotive I can buy?
Somewhere along the line, someone would have found out that money was being spent on diesel fuel.
It's no different than a case of corporate embezzlement.
Gary says, "Speaking of alternatives. Just read an article. More people have died from collapsing wind generators than did at 3 mile Island nuclear incident. "
More people have died in diesel car accidents than in hybrids. Does that prove anything? No.
Very informative article. I had no idea that was happening. I now wonder what the geo-thermal drilling East of here is causing. We have geo-thermal generators right in the same area as the earthquakes we have recently been getting. Since the 7.2 on Easter they average about 10 per hour. Here is the map of earthquake activity. We feel them on a regular basis very lightly. We are about 100 miles from the bigger ones.
Global Warming, Ethanol, DDT and Environmentalism's Dark Side By Carrie Lukas Posted April 20, 2010
Environmentalists claim the moral high ground: their interests are in preserving our precious planet, protecting defenseless animals, ensuring our children have clean water to drink and air to breathe. Yet environmentalists' policies have been a much more mixed bag in terms of their actual consequences. Indisputably, many regulations and initiatives have reduced pollution and improved air and water quality, to the benefit of everyone. But other environmental efforts have backfired, some with truly disastrous consequences.
Consider what's happened with dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or DDT. The pesticide came into use during World War II and helped eliminate malaria in the United States. The chemist who discovered DDT's efficacy was even given a Nobel Prize. However in 1962, environmentalist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring which hypothesized that the chemical was causing cancer and destroying wildlife. In 1972, DDT was banned in the U.S. and ultimately worldwide.
As a result of the ban, malaria remained a plague in many poor countries, particularly in Africa. As of 2006, malaria was the biggest killer in Uganda, accounting for more than one in five deaths in the country's hospitals and killing more than 100,000 children under 5 years old annually. At that time, Uganda announced that it would begin using DDT indoors despite threats from the European Union that such a move could lead to a ban on certain agricultural imports.
Fortunately, in September 2006, the World Health Organization announced a change in policy: It now recommends DDT for indoor use to fight malaria. The organization's Dr. Anarfi Asamoa-Baah explained, "The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment. Indoor residual spraying (IRS) is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures and DDT presents no health risk when used properly."
So during the decades in which DDT was not used, when the world bowed to undoubtedly well-intentioned environmental activists, about 50 million people—overwhelmingly African children—died, mostly unnecessarily.
Ethanol provides another, though far less dramatic, example. For years, biofuels were heralded as the promising alternative to fossil fuels, which would reduce our carbon output, improve the environment, and provide needed energy. Yet it turns out biofuel's environmental impact is much more complicated.
In 2008, Time magazine wrote about ethanol's dubious environmental benefits in a cover story entitled, "The Clean Energy Scam." The article warned that forests, wetlands, and grasslands were being sacrificed in a rush to farm crops that could be turned into gasoline. More recently, the peer-reviewed journal Science reported on a study finding that cap-and-trade accounting systems understate the emissions created by the production of biofuels. The study concluded that cap-and-trade programs could encourage biofuel production that would displace 59% of the world's natural forest cover by 2050.
So the once environmentally favored solution to our energy problems—and still a politically-favored one—is now recognized as a potential environmental catastrophe. It's worth noting that, beyond biofuel's environmental effects, using food for fuel has a significant impact on the worldwide food supply. As more crops and land are dedicated to producing fuel, the costs of food will climb, which could exacerbate problems of poverty and hunger, particularly in already impoverished countries.
Given this experience, the public would be wise to be cautious in whole-heartedly embracing the policy prescriptions of environmentalists. The movie, Not Evil, Just Wrong, makes the connection between the DDT saga and what's going on with climate change today. Prominent environmentalists promise that they are confident that man is causing the Earth to warm, and they don't want to contemplate (at least publicly) alternative theories about how the sun might be responsible for warming, that the warming isn't unprecedented and therefore could be naturally occurring, or to linger on potential problems on their own temperature readings that might make warming seem more extreme than it is. They don't want to consider the costs of policies that they want to oppose in the name of combating global warming, or just how ineffectual those policies might be. Yet the public should consider what a significant decline in worldwide wealth will mean, particularly for those who are already poor.
Those who question global warming alarmists' claims and policy prescriptions have been compared to holocaust deniers. Yet what are we to call environmentalists whose policies have resulted in the deaths of millions and could exacerbate poverty and hunger? The movie title Not Evil, Just Wrong may be too charitable.
My point was that for every step taken, or touted, as being good for the environment, like all complex decisions, often has hidden costs and unintended consequences. That's all.
Actions have consequences and often unintended ones.
What I don't get are how the die-hard ideologues (like the blind partisan in your link) can justify those kinds of rants, when it's so easy to look up what really happened. I mean, the truth may be a bit of a moving target, but are so many people really so willing to ignore anyone's data or opinion that doesn't narrowly agree with their own?
"are so many people really so willing to ignore anyone's data or opinion that doesn't narrowly agree with their own? "
Sadly, yes, and the number of such demagogues is increasing steadily too. I think Chris Rock once said it best (and I am paraphrasing here) when he said that why do people say "I am a liberal or a conservative or whatever" and then proclaim a point of view and opine on any issue BEFORE they they even know what the issue is or what the evidence is?
Whatever happened to looking at the data and then having a sane discussion?
"Silent Spring" was still a motivating force behind the DDT ban. Books like that and Nader's can have unintended results. GM retreating from building smaller cars after getting blasted, was a big negative. Maybe Nixon read the book and was moved to act on DDT.
I am no fan of DDT in widespread spraying for sure. I just think we as a country have pushed our will around the World and caused unforeseen problems. I think this whole AGW with its design to increase our taxes is just another example. I don't believe for a minute that Al Gore cares about people in Bangladesh being displaced. Or Florida for that matter. Especially after they stole the Presidency from him.
Why would someone that believes the oceans are rising would buy a place close to the ocean. Or why does any couple need 9 bathrooms and 6 fireplaces? Sounds like a lot more Carbon Foot print for the Pope of the AGW cult. Only in America can you come out of politics with about a million bucks and 10 years later have homes around the world and a Gulf Stream to jet you around to visit them. Anyone still think AGW is anything but a money grab by the elites around the World?
Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal.
The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.
Wow, what a fine house! How big is that carbon foot print now Al? Not only must that big mansion consume a lot of energy and produce a lot of carbon but flying between Nashville and Montecito must produce a lot of carbon, I would guess. But you buy off-sets, right? No, you don't have to buy them, you own the carbon off-set company that sells carbon off-sets. Is that not right? How do you do that? Do you award your self off-sets?
Gary says, "Anyone still think AGW is anything but a money grab by the elites around the World?"
Um, yes, I do. Because that would be silly.
These mythical "money-grabbing elites" can't fake that melting ice. They can't fake glacial retreat. They can't fake ocean acidification. They can't fake atmospheric CO2 levels. They can't fake the sea level rise in the last 10 years being double the rate of the last century.
You better ask yourself this question. Did the Neanderthals make as much money off of Climate change 1000s of years ago as the current crop of Neanderthals led by Al Gore?
No, the Neanderthals were too busy pro-creating outside their genome.
Actually, how again is AlGore making money? You mean on his speeches? Well, if those idiots who pay him to speak want to pay him, it's no money out of my pocket.
I think his speech making went into the dumper when the scam was exposed. He made a ton of money speculating on Carbon Credits. They took a big hit. But he was already $millions to the good. He was also put on the board of Google to give them an inside track into Washington. That made him a bundle. Almost everything he does is in direct opposition to the ideological principles he preaches. He epitomizes the saying "DO as I say, Not as I do". :sick:
They can not only fake everything you listed, they already did by lying about practically everything, destroying data, cooking the books, and faking results.
One of the global warmists said recently that he did not care if the current cooling trend lasted for the next 200 years, it would not shake his belief in long term global warming !! There is no way to reason with someone like that. It is his faith based religion...science be damned.
I think he is also on the Apple board. I guess he don't have much stroke with Obama. Obama made all those derogatory remarks about the iPhone, iPod and iPad. I don't think Steve Jobs will vote for him next time.
More ash less sunshine hits the earth, and cooler climate results. Are our Congressmen trying to push through their new climate taxes before the truth becomes known?
At least three other big Icelandic volcanoes are building towards an eruption, according to Thor Thordarson, a volcanologist at Edinburgh University.
“The frequency of Icelandic eruptions seems to rise and fall in a cycle lasting around 140 years,” he said. “In the latter part of the 20th century we were in a low period, but now there is evidence that we could be approaching a peak.”
The three other volcanoes cited by Thordarson as being potentially close to a large eruption are Grimsvotn, Hekla and Askja — all of which are bigger than Eyjafjallajokull.
In the past, they have proved devastating. Hekla alone has erupted about 20 times since AD874, pouring out a total of two cubic miles of lava from a line of fissures that stretches 3Å miles across the mountain.
There was a minor eruption in 2000 and geologists have reported that snow is once again melting on Hekla’s summit, suggesting that magma is rising.
Grimsvotn, another highly active volcano, lies under the huge Vatnajokull glacier in Iceland’s southeast. An eruption in 1996 saw much of this glacial ice melt, causing a flood that washed away the country’s main ring road.
And how much of the ice melting is a result of volcanic activity? I don't recall any of the AGW alarmist articles about melting ice mentioning internal heat causing the melting. Oh, maybe they know they cannot tax volcanoes or God.
Let's look at the Footprint stomping around the globe of THE High Priest of AGW.
It was only three weeks ago that the Los Angeles Times reported that Al and Tipper Gore had bought new digs. The couple purchased an $8.8 million ocean-view villa in the gated community of Montecito, California. The 6,500-square-foot villa tucked on one-and-a-half acres of grounds includes a swimming pool, a spa, fountains, five bedrooms and nine baths.
The couple told friends Tuesday they planned to separate after 40 years of marriage. This comes after the Gores' kids -- Karenna, Kristin, Sarah and Albert III -- have left the nest and the couple has amassed massive wealth since Al Gore left public office in 2000. The most recent figure predicted in 2007 by Fast Company was more than $100 million. Before the 2000 election they predicted the family's net worth was closer to $1 million.
Since then, the Gores have purchased the Montecito mansion, a multimillion-dollar home in Nashville, Tenn., a condo in San Francisco in addition to their home in the Washington area, an Arlington Tudor. They bought a 100-foot houseboat named, aptly, Bio-Solar One in 2008. And they own a farm in Carthage, Tenn., that includes a zinc mine.
How does he keep a straight face while spewing his GW diatribe? Does anyone believe that he believes what he is preaching? How can a person believe that man, is by his wasteful use of energy, making the planet uninhabitable & still spew as much CO2 as Al Gore does. My guess is Tipper is leaving him because she is tired of living with a BIG FAT LIAR.
I knew when I saw a new posting who and what it was about! Good to see you're out there fighting the good-fight!
It'll be interesting to see if Tipper does some interviews in the next few weeks, or writes a book. I bet the high priest has as many interesting cons in his closet, as his buddy John Edwards had. Most of these guys in Washington are corrupt, conniving, hypocritical, and paid-for by lobbyists and corporations. Idolize your heroes, at your own folly. Jeez I sure do miss those Tiger Woods Buick commercials.
WASHINGTON - And the heat goes on: It was the warmest May on record.
Worldwide, the average temperature for the month was 58.6 degrees Fahrenheit (14.8 Celsius), the warmest May on record, back to 1880.
hat was 1.24 degrees F (0.69 C) warmer than average for the month as the planet's temperature continues to climb. Atmospheric scientists generally attribute the rising readings to the greenhouse effect, with man-made chemicals added to the atmosphere trapping heat from the sun that previously would have gone back out into space.
This year has also marked the warmest January-May period on record, according to the report from the National Climatic Data Center, an arm of the government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Looking at just the United States, May temperatures were near average with cooler-than-normal temperatures in the West balanced by warmer-than-normal readings East.
Idaho had its second coolest May on record, for example, while Rhode Island had its second warmest and Florida tied for its second warmest.
They took your link down because the report was so bogus. Even if it was warmer you might want to think about the huge effect the volcanic eruption in Iceland may have had. It put out more CO2 than all the automobiles since the beginning of the industrial revolution. It may have been warm some places but we are still having the coolest spring I can ever remember. On average about 10 degrees cooler.
It could also be these government agencies are trying to keep their cushy worthless agencies open for business. What would happen if they told the truth? That would take away the need for Climate Change legislation and their Cap n Trade tax scam.
The sooner the truth about AGW is exposed the better. Just like the High Priest Gore has been exposed in his whoring around. I hope Tipper takes that [non-permissible content removed] for every cent he has. I would love to see him homeless on the streets of San Francisco for all the trouble he has caused. Aside from inventing the Internet. :shades:
The port of Los Angeles has reported an appreciable reduction in several types of emissions associated with its cargo-handling operations. And the success is in large part due to something very simple: requiring the use of clean trucks.
Compared with 2008, diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions are off 37 percent, nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions have declined 28 percent, and sulfur oxide (SOx) emissions were reduced by 36 percent. Compared with 2005 levels, the results are even more compelling: DPM is off 52 percent, NOx is off 36 percent, and SOx is off 56 percent. You can download the complete inventory here. The port authority is clear that the reductions are appreciable even when freight traffic reductions related to the economic recession are considered.
The port is managing the emissions reductions through a comprehensive Clean Air Action Plan. Right now, the authority says it is more than halfway toward its 10-year targets under that plan.
One big part of the reduction is related to truck retrofits that are part of its Clean Truck program.
Two years ago, the port banned any pre-1989 truck from entering the port, and earlier this year, it banned trucks from 1989 to 1993 that had not been retrofitted. The authority has been methodically replacing engines for harbor craft and/or retrofitting them with pollution control devices. It also has been experimenting with the use of alternative fuels and power systems. The next big deadline is Jan. 1, 2012, when any truck that does not meet the 2007 Federal Clean Truck Emissions Standards will be banned.
Right now, the port has 6,600 clean trucks, including 600 natural gas trucks.
While that is a good move. Many of the trucks that are banned here are sold in Mexico and other states. So it just moves the pollution to another place. The last I heard Obama is going to allow Mexico to start bringing their trucks into the USA again. Guess what? Many are the ones that are banned at the Port of Los Angeles. Plus Mexico still sells high sulfur diesel and anyone can drive right across the border and get the stuff. Though there is no price savings anymore.
Speaking of the port of LA.
The Port of Los Angeles is pursuing plans to become the world’s first port to offer a reduced tariff for zero-emission vehicles imported into the United States through the Port. The reduced-fee incentive proposal was announced Friday, April 30, as Chinese manufacturer BYD Auto Company Limited (BYD) said it will locate its North American headquarters in Los Angeles and use the Port of Los Angeles to import its vehicles.
Does BYD ring a bell? That is the EV company that Warren Buffett dumped $millions into. So they got a vehicle and a way to get it into the country at a cheaper price point. That should make the local EV manufacturers happy.
I was comparing my temp to the dozen or so weather stations people have around where I live. Interestingly the RAWS site is almost always 5-6 degrees higher than the others in the same area. Is this normal or by plan? Yesterday for example the Alpine RAWS site registered a high of 94 degrees. The average station all around that one hit a high of 88 degrees. And I am about 2 miles away from there and I hit a high of 88 degrees. If that is the data that NOAA uses for my area it is BOGUS. I think we can pretty much discount any data the US government puts out with regard to Climate. It is all aimed at pushing the AGW agenda.
Comments
Good comparison between the idiotic policies of that [non-permissible content removed] king, and the self-destructive measures so many want to implement to somehow cure us of "global warming"...both make the masses pay through the nose, and make an elite few wealthier. Carbon tax or tea tax...different means for the same real result, money.
Sure it's not wood smoke? :shades:
The park's glaciers have been slowly melting since about 1850, when the centuries-long Little Ice Age ended. They once numbered as many as 150, and 37 of those glaciers eventually were named.
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2010-04-07-glacier-national-park_N.h- - tm
The report by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and Natural Resources Defense Council included an analysis of weather records that showed Glacier was 2 degrees hotter on average from 2000 to 2009, compared with 1950 to 1979.
That's not surprising since a glacier would "refrigerate" the air. Less glaciers the warmer the air gets in that area, and the faster the glaciers melt, accelerating the local weather. Bravo! I hope some wildflife, or even people can now live in that area, now that it's free of ice.
So if anyone else understands that heating can be occurring without a temperature increase, until you get a phase change, then these reports of glaciers having retreated since the 19th century would indicate that the warming of the Earth really began in the early 19th century or earlier. Mankind was certainly not using energy in quantities sufficient to warm and then melt glaciers in the late 1700's or early 1800's.. This is just more eveidence that the small amount of warming we may be seeing (if you can believe the data at all) is natural.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
1. Cap all man made emissions so that we do not disturb this delicate balance of nature.
2. Increase the cost of all energy sources to pay for the clean-up that will be needed.
3. Form a massive new system of governance that operates across ALL the globe that is answerable only to the planet and dieties higher than that, with nothing like democracy or sovereignty to hold it back from doing anything it pleases, all for the benefit of humankind of course.
SO THERE! You can take your volcano and stuff it.
"balance of nature" is an interesting concept. Do you believe there is such a thing? Looking at the geological and biological history of the Earth (what we know or strongly suspect), there is no balance - at least long-term. The Earth heats and freezes, species come and go, sometimes suddenly, sometimes slowly evolving. There really is no constant.
I think it is a problem with human psychology that our brains are wired with memories of what things were like last month and last week. In actuality we live in a chaotic changing environment where change is either gradual or sudden. Really there is no constancy or balance.
If nothing else that 1 tiny little volcano in Iceland is again a demonstration of the effect of nature relative to mankind's effect. Maybe just coincidence, but there sure seems to be a lot of earthquakes and now volcanic eruptions ; though are scientists assure us this isn't too abnormal (YET!). A few more major earthquakes and volcanoes erupting and I might start putting stock into the magnetic fields reversing quicker, and reading up on 2012.
Nature has nothing to fear from man; man has to fear nature!
You have to wonder how superior man is when they cannot even keep a little volcano from disrupting half the air travel around the World. Nature managed itself long before man stepped foot on the planet. Such arrogance to think that man is significant in the overall scope of this planet Earth.
Driving an SUV sure beats flying about now, if you are in Europe.
quote of the day from an A Gore cult type:
CNN, April 2010
SANCHEZ: I was just asking Chad, how can you get a volcano in Iceland? [Myers laughs]. Isn't it too- when you think of a volcano, you think of Hawaii and long words like that. You don't think of Iceland.
MYERS: Right.
SANCHEZ: You think it's too cold to have a volcano there. But no! There it is.
It's hard to believe that a major cable network employs a man who's unaware that the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees.
If you are in Europe, grab a train.
So you think this gent/lady just heard AlGore say it and adopted it as true?
Hot Summer Nights
LETHBRIDGE, AB—Close to 50 years of data show the Devon Island ice cap, one of the largest ice masses in the Canadian High Arctic, is thinning and shrinking.
A paper published in the March edition of Arctic, the journal of the University of Calgary's Arctic Institute of North America, reports that between 1961 and 1985, the ice cap grew in some years and shrank in others, resulting in an overall loss of mass. But that changed 1985 when scientists began to see a steady decline in ice volume and area each year.
Click here to find out more!
"We've been seeing more mass loss since 1985," says Sarah Boon, lead author on the paper and a Geography Professor at the University of Lethbridge. The reason for the change? Warmer summers.
The High Arctic is essentially a desert with low rates of annual precipitation. There is little accumulation of snow in the winter and cool summers, with temperatures at or below freezing, serve to maintain levels. Any increase of snow and ice takes years.
This delicate equilibrium is easily upset. One warm summer can wipe out five years of growth. And though the accelerated melting trend began in 1985, the last decade has seen four years with unusually warm summers - 2001, 2005, 2007 and 2008.
"What we see during these warm summers is the extent of the melt is greater," says Boon about the results of a five-year remote sensing study that ran between 2000 and 2004.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I think the CNN anchor Rick Sanchez should be smarter than the average AGW cult member.
If I was so unlucky as to be in Europe I would get on a train South, then grab a ship out of there. I have been stranded MANY times due to volcanic eruptions in Alaska. Never makes much stir in the news. Mount St Helen's made me 3 days late getting back to work.
It is all part of the conditions we put up with on earth. The ocean rises, you move to higher ground. Not pass some stupid tax scam legislation based on lies and deception.
Speaking of alternatives. Just read an article. More people have died from collapsing wind generators than did at 3 mile Island nuclear incident.
And more:
Hundreds of wind turbines could be SINKING due to design flaw
Hundreds of Britain's offshore wind turbines could be sinking into the sea because of a design flaw.
It is believed the concrete used to fix some turbines to their steel foundation can wear away, causing the power generators to drop a few inches.
The fault was first discovered at the Egmond aan Zee wind farm in the Netherlands and affects those with single cylinder foundations.
Experts from Renewables UK, which represents wind farm developers, said it could cost £50million to fix Britain's 336 turbines thought to be at risk.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1265886/Sinking-turbines-cost-Bri- tish-wind-farms-50million.html
Not just wind generators, how about the latest is solar scams?
After press reports, it was established during inspections that several solar power plants were generating current and feeding it into the net at night. To simulate a larger installation capacity, the operators connected diesel generators.
“This is just the tip of the iceberg,” said one industry expert to the newspaper “El Mundo”, which brought the scandal to light. If solar systems apparently produce current in the dark, will be noticed sooner or later. However, if electricity generators were connected during daytime, the swindle would hardly be noticed.
As I said last time around, this is the insanity of greenery.
You too can generate energy with your solar system at night, all you need is an 850 million candlepower WWII era searchlight, now available for rent.
Hey, it’s not crazy. There are so many fees, taxes, add ons, etc to power bills here in California now it is actually cheaper to generate your own electricity running a diesel generator than it is to buy it from PG&E. Anyone have a used diesel-electric locomotive I can buy?
Solar with diesel
Somewhere along the line, someone would have found out that money was being spent on diesel fuel.
It's no different than a case of corporate embezzlement.
Gary says, "Speaking of alternatives. Just read an article. More people have died from collapsing wind generators than did at 3 mile Island nuclear incident. "
More people have died in diesel car accidents than in hybrids. Does that prove anything? No.
There's no free lunch with that either (although there's geotherm here and no one ever thinks about quakes).
How Does Geothermal Drilling Trigger Earthquakes? (Scientific American)
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/32.34.-117.-115.php
the list is continuous:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/32.34.-117.-115_eqs.- php
Look how close geo-thermal drilling is to Calexico, the hardest hit town in the USA.
http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/CA3057/
Here is an interesting map of all the geo-thermal wells and their usage in CA.
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/maps/Geothermal/MapS-11.pdf
from: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/04/20/global-warming-ethanol-ddt-and- - -environmentalisms-dark-side.html
Global Warming, Ethanol, DDT and Environmentalism's Dark Side
By Carrie Lukas
Posted April 20, 2010
Environmentalists claim the moral high ground: their interests are in preserving our precious planet, protecting defenseless animals, ensuring our children have clean water to drink and air to breathe. Yet environmentalists' policies have been a much more mixed bag in terms of their actual consequences. Indisputably, many regulations and initiatives have reduced pollution and improved air and water quality, to the benefit of everyone. But other environmental efforts have backfired, some with truly disastrous consequences.
Consider what's happened with dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or DDT. The pesticide came into use during World War II and helped eliminate malaria in the United States. The chemist who discovered DDT's efficacy was even given a Nobel Prize. However in 1962, environmentalist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring which hypothesized that the chemical was causing cancer and destroying wildlife. In 1972, DDT was banned in the U.S. and ultimately worldwide.
As a result of the ban, malaria remained a plague in many poor countries, particularly in Africa. As of 2006, malaria was the biggest killer in Uganda, accounting for more than one in five deaths in the country's hospitals and killing more than 100,000 children under 5 years old annually. At that time, Uganda announced that it would begin using DDT indoors despite threats from the European Union that such a move could lead to a ban on certain agricultural imports.
Fortunately, in September 2006, the World Health Organization announced a change in policy: It now recommends DDT for indoor use to fight malaria. The organization's Dr. Anarfi Asamoa-Baah explained, "The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment. Indoor residual spraying (IRS) is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures and DDT presents no health risk when used properly."
So during the decades in which DDT was not used, when the world bowed to undoubtedly well-intentioned environmental activists, about 50 million people—overwhelmingly African children—died, mostly unnecessarily.
Ethanol provides another, though far less dramatic, example. For years, biofuels were heralded as the promising alternative to fossil fuels, which would reduce our carbon output, improve the environment, and provide needed energy. Yet it turns out biofuel's environmental impact is much more complicated.
In 2008, Time magazine wrote about ethanol's dubious environmental benefits in a cover story entitled, "The Clean Energy Scam." The article warned that forests, wetlands, and grasslands were being sacrificed in a rush to farm crops that could be turned into gasoline. More recently, the peer-reviewed journal Science reported on a study finding that cap-and-trade accounting systems understate the emissions created by the production of biofuels. The study concluded that cap-and-trade programs could encourage biofuel production that would displace 59% of the world's natural forest cover by 2050.
So the once environmentally favored solution to our energy problems—and still a politically-favored one—is now recognized as a potential environmental catastrophe. It's worth noting that, beyond biofuel's environmental effects, using food for fuel has a significant impact on the worldwide food supply. As more crops and land are dedicated to producing fuel, the costs of food will climb, which could exacerbate problems of poverty and hunger, particularly in already impoverished countries.
Given this experience, the public would be wise to be cautious in whole-heartedly embracing the policy prescriptions of environmentalists. The movie, Not Evil, Just Wrong, makes the connection between the DDT saga and what's going on with climate change today. Prominent environmentalists promise that they are confident that man is causing the Earth to warm, and they don't want to contemplate (at least publicly) alternative theories about how the sun might be responsible for warming, that the warming isn't unprecedented and therefore could be naturally occurring, or to linger on potential problems on their own temperature readings that might make warming seem more extreme than it is. They don't want to consider the costs of policies that they want to oppose in the name of combating global warming, or just how ineffectual those policies might be. Yet the public should consider what a significant decline in worldwide wealth will mean, particularly for those who are already poor.
Those who question global warming alarmists' claims and policy prescriptions have been compared to holocaust deniers. Yet what are we to call environmentalists whose policies have resulted in the deaths of millions and could exacerbate poverty and hunger? The movie title Not Evil, Just Wrong may be too charitable.
The DDT Global Ban Myth (bahumuth.bitfreedom.com)
My point was that for every step taken, or touted, as being good for the environment, like all complex decisions, often has hidden costs and unintended consequences. That's all.
What I don't get are how the die-hard ideologues (like the blind partisan in your link) can justify those kinds of rants, when it's so easy to look up what really happened. I mean, the truth may be a bit of a moving target, but are so many people really so willing to ignore anyone's data or opinion that doesn't narrowly agree with their own?
/own rant :shades:
Sadly, yes, and the number of such demagogues is increasing steadily too. I think Chris Rock once said it best (and I am paraphrasing here) when he said that why do people say "I am a liberal or a conservative or whatever" and then proclaim a point of view and opine on any issue BEFORE they they even know what the issue is or what the evidence is?
Whatever happened to looking at the data and then having a sane discussion?
And DDT does kill birds - one consequence is this nice amenity that Boise has:
World Center for Birds of Prey
Peregrine Fund Celebrates Anniversary of DDT Ban
Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal.
The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.
Wow, what a fine house! How big is that carbon foot print now Al? Not only must that big mansion consume a lot of energy and produce a lot of carbon but flying between Nashville and Montecito must produce a lot of carbon, I would guess. But you buy off-sets, right? No, you don't have to buy them, you own the carbon off-set company that sells carbon off-sets. Is that not right? How do you do that? Do you award your self off-sets?
Carbon waster WEST
more pics
Um, yes, I do. Because that would be silly.
These mythical "money-grabbing elites" can't fake that melting ice.
They can't fake glacial retreat.
They can't fake ocean acidification.
They can't fake atmospheric CO2 levels.
They can't fake the sea level rise in the last 10 years being double the rate of the last century.
Actually, how again is AlGore making money? You mean on his speeches? Well, if those idiots who pay him to speak want to pay him, it's no money out of my pocket.
One of the global warmists said recently that he did not care if the current cooling trend lasted for the next 200 years, it would not shake his belief in long term global warming !! There is no way to reason with someone like that. It is his faith based religion...science be damned.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Well, that's the least they could do for him since he invented the internet
At least three other big Icelandic volcanoes are building towards an eruption, according to Thor Thordarson, a volcanologist at Edinburgh University.
“The frequency of Icelandic eruptions seems to rise and fall in a cycle lasting around 140 years,” he said. “In the latter part of the 20th century we were in a low period, but now there is evidence that we could be approaching a peak.”
The three other volcanoes cited by Thordarson as being potentially close to a large eruption are Grimsvotn, Hekla and Askja — all of which are bigger than Eyjafjallajokull.
In the past, they have proved devastating. Hekla alone has erupted about 20 times since AD874, pouring out a total of two cubic miles of lava from a line of fissures that stretches 3Å miles across the mountain.
There was a minor eruption in 2000 and geologists have reported that snow is once again melting on Hekla’s summit, suggesting that magma is rising.
Grimsvotn, another highly active volcano, lies under the huge Vatnajokull glacier in Iceland’s southeast. An eruption in 1996 saw much of this glacial ice melt, causing a flood that washed away the country’s main ring road.
And how much of the ice melting is a result of volcanic activity? I don't recall any of the AGW alarmist articles about melting ice mentioning internal heat causing the melting. Oh, maybe they know they cannot tax volcanoes or God.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7127706.ece
LOL !! He took it so hard that it ended his political career, thank goodness.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
It was only three weeks ago that the Los Angeles Times reported that Al and Tipper Gore had bought new digs. The couple purchased an $8.8 million ocean-view villa in the gated community of Montecito, California. The 6,500-square-foot villa tucked on one-and-a-half acres of grounds includes a swimming pool, a spa, fountains, five bedrooms and nine baths.
The couple told friends Tuesday they planned to separate after 40 years of marriage. This comes after the Gores' kids -- Karenna, Kristin, Sarah and Albert III -- have left the nest and the couple has amassed massive wealth since Al Gore left public office in 2000. The most recent figure predicted in 2007 by Fast Company was more than $100 million. Before the 2000 election they predicted the family's net worth was closer to $1 million.
Since then, the Gores have purchased the Montecito mansion, a multimillion-dollar home in Nashville, Tenn., a condo in San Francisco in addition to their home in the Washington area, an Arlington Tudor. They bought a 100-foot houseboat named, aptly, Bio-Solar One in 2008. And they own a farm in Carthage, Tenn., that includes a zinc mine.
How does he keep a straight face while spewing his GW diatribe? Does anyone believe that he believes what he is preaching? How can a person believe that man, is by his wasteful use of energy, making the planet uninhabitable & still spew as much CO2 as Al Gore does. My guess is Tipper is leaving him because she is tired of living with a BIG FAT LIAR.
It'll be interesting to see if Tipper does some interviews in the next few weeks, or writes a book. I bet the high priest has as many interesting cons in his closet, as his buddy John Edwards had. Most of these guys in Washington are corrupt, conniving, hypocritical, and paid-for by lobbyists and corporations. Idolize your heroes, at your own folly. Jeez I sure do miss those Tiger Woods Buick commercials.
May the warmest on record
WASHINGTON - And the heat goes on: It was the warmest May on record.
Worldwide, the average temperature for the month was 58.6 degrees Fahrenheit (14.8 Celsius), the warmest May on record, back to 1880.
hat was 1.24 degrees F (0.69 C) warmer than average for the month as the planet's temperature continues to climb. Atmospheric scientists generally attribute the rising readings to the greenhouse effect, with man-made chemicals added to the atmosphere trapping heat from the sun that previously would have gone back out into space.
This year has also marked the warmest January-May period on record, according to the report from the National Climatic Data Center, an arm of the government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Looking at just the United States, May temperatures were near average with cooler-than-normal temperatures in the West balanced by warmer-than-normal readings East.
Idaho had its second coolest May on record, for example, while Rhode Island had its second warmest and Florida tied for its second warmest.
These clowns can't tell you if it is going to rain the next day much less predict climate changes !
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
It could also be these government agencies are trying to keep their cushy worthless agencies open for business. What would happen if they told the truth? That would take away the need for Climate Change legislation and their Cap n Trade tax scam.
The sooner the truth about AGW is exposed the better. Just like the High Priest Gore has been exposed in his whoring around. I hope Tipper takes that [non-permissible content removed] for every cent he has. I would love to see him homeless on the streets of San Francisco for all the trouble he has caused. Aside from inventing the Internet. :shades:
You know, to me, it becomes less of an "are we causing it?" problem and more of an "I don't give a DARN what's causing it, let's STOP IT !" situation.
If it's a NATURAL heating phenomenon, and we can curtail it by curbing our GHG emissions, then let's do that.
Less Smoggy
The port of Los Angeles has reported an appreciable reduction in several types of emissions associated with its cargo-handling operations. And the success is in large part due to something very simple: requiring the use of clean trucks.
Compared with 2008, diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions are off 37 percent, nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions have declined 28 percent, and sulfur oxide (SOx) emissions were reduced by 36 percent. Compared with 2005 levels, the results are even more compelling: DPM is off 52 percent, NOx is off 36 percent, and SOx is off 56 percent. You can download the complete inventory here. The port authority is clear that the reductions are appreciable even when freight traffic reductions related to the economic recession are considered.
The port is managing the emissions reductions through a comprehensive Clean Air Action Plan. Right now, the authority says it is more than halfway toward its 10-year targets under that plan.
One big part of the reduction is related to truck retrofits that are part of its Clean Truck program.
Two years ago, the port banned any pre-1989 truck from entering the port, and earlier this year, it banned trucks from 1989 to 1993 that had not been retrofitted. The authority has been methodically replacing engines for harbor craft and/or retrofitting them with pollution control devices. It also has been experimenting with the use of alternative fuels and power systems. The next big deadline is Jan. 1, 2012, when any truck that does not meet the 2007 Federal Clean Truck Emissions Standards will be banned.
Right now, the port has 6,600 clean trucks, including 600 natural gas trucks.
Speaking of the port of LA.
The Port of Los Angeles is pursuing plans to become the world’s first port to offer a reduced tariff for zero-emission vehicles imported into the United States through the Port. The reduced-fee incentive proposal was announced Friday, April 30, as Chinese manufacturer BYD Auto Company Limited (BYD) said it will locate its North American headquarters in Los Angeles and use the Port of Los Angeles to import its vehicles.
Does BYD ring a bell? That is the EV company that Warren Buffett dumped $millions into. So they got a vehicle and a way to get it into the country at a cheaper price point. That should make the local EV manufacturers happy.
You can say that again. Only had my AC on twice this year so far. :P
http://www.fs.fed.us/raws/
http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=MANEC1&month=6&- day=15&year=2010