Isn't it ironic? Blitzer, Kelly, Hume note cancellation of global warming hearing due to winter storm
On February 14, CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Fox News Channel's Megyn Kelly and Brit Hume all reported on the cancellation of a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing on climate change due to severe winter weather conditions in Washington, D.C., with both Blitzer and Kelly deeming the turn of events "ironic," suggesting that cold weather and snow in February cast doubt on the existence of global warming.
On the February 14 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Blitzer said: "And, of course, all the severe winter weather is coming amid growing concern about global warming. In fact, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee was scheduled to hold a hearing on all things global warming this morning. Ironically -- get this -- it was canceled because of the winter weather conditions here in the nation's capital. It's cold out there."
On the February 14 edition of Fox News Channel's America's Newsroom, anchor Kelly said, "And how's this for irony? The House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality had to cancel its 10 a.m. hearing today. Lawmakers there were going to talk about global warming. Instead, dealing with a national freeze."
On the February 14 edition Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, anchor Hume said, "A House subcommittee hearing on climate change and the warming of the planet was called off today because of the snow and ice storm that hit Washington. And in St. Louis, a scheduled showing of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth movie on global warming was canceled by Maryville University because of the harsh winter weather."
News of cancellation of the climate change hearing and, as Hume reported, a showing of An Inconvenient Truth, the former vice president's documentary on global warming, both due to cold weather conditions, also appeared on the Drudge Report, the website of Internet gossip Matt Drudge. The weblog Think Progress noted that some right-wing bloggers cited the Drudge story as evidence that global warming does not exist.
On February 15, The Washington Times also reported the cancellation of the climate change hearing, and noted that "[t]he news was pointed out by climate-change skeptics and was a lead headline on the Drudge Report."
As Media Matters for America has previously documented, weather in a given portion of the United States at any one time is not indicative of whether the Earth is warming. As the National Climatic Data Center noted in its preliminary 2006 report, "[f]ollowing the warmest year on record for the globe in 2005, the annual global temperature for 2006 is expected to be sixth warmest since recordkeeping began in 1880." That report also noted that "the 2006 annual average temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data) will likely be 2°F (1.1°C) above the 20th Century mean, which would make 2006 the third warmest year on record."
Duh, because anybody can see the irony or humor in it on it's face.....lighten up.
I agree, it is just a joke.
tommy and doris agree again. just a joke. no need to discuss it.
What these talking heads aren't discussing from today's news:
Records show January the hottest ever
I was surprised when I read that article, because the records I received from the local power company showed the average temp in our area to be 10-12 deg cooler that last year.
If we would quit cutting down trees and plowing under vegetation, planting houses, roads, etc in their stead, we could go a long way to easing the rising CO2 levels. Unfortunately, that will probably not happen soon.
"the average temp in our area to be 10-12 deg cooler that last year." --oscar
The temperatures in the story I linked to represents a global average.
Is that article acurate? Why would the US only be 1deg warmer, while other 'industrialized' areas are more? Maybe global warming is selective regarding what part of the globe it affects.
It was the 49th warmest in the US and next year when there is no El Nino and everyone is freezing their rears off we will trend toward the normal.
'Temperature records break regularly with global warming, Trenberth said, but "with a little bit of El Nino thrown in, you don't just break records, you smash records."'
Considering the last time we broke a record was in 2002, it is reasonable that we won't break a record next year. Temperatures do not always rise from year to year although they have trended consistently upwards for a while.
Did you even read the article?
Since when? Recorded weather history is a nanosecond, in terms of a statistical population.
And the cold weather that canceled these events is a picosecond then.
I don't for a picosecond think that you ACTUALLY think that their little observation of something ironic was in fact a sly move to (in one fell swoop) cancel the whole 18 months or so of hopeful, if difficult, construction of data on the Anthropogenic Global Warming postulate.
What's ironic about cold weather and snow in February?
And I do think the media are stretching things to take another unnecessary swipe at Al Gore ant the theory of Global Warming.
We can agree to disagree.
there is a cartoonist for the tampa tribune named wayne stayskal. besides drawing some of the worst cartoons you would want to see, he is constantly mocking global warming with this same kind of nonsense. it's cold somewhere so therefore no global warming. his latest gem is headlined: "two new books say global warming is natural, not caused by human activity". not one word as to who wrote these "two new books", or what basis they have in science. just take his word.
IRONY:
The "joke" seems to be that because the phenomenon has been labelled "Global WARMING", then any indication of COLD weather "disproves" the theory.
Yet the IRONY is, none other than GW Bush himself, coming late to the party, could not lead himself to totally AGREE with the theory, so he coined another semantical phrase to indicate he was aware of SOME problem: He called the phenomenon "Global CLIMATE CHANGE".
The IRONY is, BOTH phrases are accurate enough, and BOTH phrases describe the same phenomenon: the weather is getting more severe, with greater "swings", to where it is BOTH warmer, AND colder alternately, (and featuring more examples of drastic weather such as hurricanes and tornadoes), yet even the simple-minded rightwing "media" cannot make fun of Bush's phrase.
The IRONY is, unintentionally, Bush has helped along a movement with which he strongly disagrees, in his heart of hearts. Usually, when the Bushies "rename" somethng, it is to disguise their true intent ... such as the "Patriot Act", or the "Clean Air" initiatives (both named the OPPOSITE of the effect of the legislation).
In fact, wilder and more variable weather is more normal, as borne out by ancient tree ring studies. The "onset" of such variability is not an onset at all, but a return to the norm. Those trees were around before you started driving your MoPed, by the way.
So lose the guilt.
Can you show us where you got that with a link? I would be interested in reading that theory.
crickets chirping
Just returned.
Some continue to hear sounds regardless of facts put in front of them.
Now searching files for tree-ring studies.
still searching?
looks like lemoc got lost on his "search"
You will be disappointed to learn that the books are based on science and show the huge scientific gap that exists in the gw alarmist cult.
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/two-new-books-confirm-global-warming-is-natural-moderate
The more information the better. The information will either stand or be discredited. That is the way science works.
Again, the beauty of the "faith-based" argument: the consensus of the field of climatology is the ravings of an "alarmist cult," but two books published by, respectively, a physicist and an economist, and a physicist and a former BBC science writer are "science," and not to be questioned.
Whatever the truth on climate change is, your link is to a group that is anything but impartial. It is an arm of the Hudson Institute and is funded by American agribusiness. The global agribusiness giants are largely in the "climate is not changing atypically" camp.
Also, any publication that is not peer-reviewed, as the books referenced in the link are not, should be viewed with skepticism. To be fair, most of us don't have the time to review the peer-reviewed primary literature. Therefore, I think it is even more important to evaluate the person who is writing the synthesized version.
i took the first author i saw, of one of those "two books", dr. fred singer, and found this on wikepedia: "in a feb. 2001 letter to the washington post, singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some twenty years before. while funds were not directed to singer in his name, publicly available documents show that singer's non-profit organization s.e.p.p. received multiple grants from exxonmobil, including in 1998 and 2000". just amazing how that oily trail always shows up. singer also was involved in an effort to dismiss the dangers on second hand smoke. so much for cartoonist stayskal at the tampa tribune.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, I do not believe I stated that it should not be discussed, it should. Saying something was meant to be a joke does not imply it should not be discussed. I also see you still are unable to start a sentence properly?
Just a joke. Hume was reading the story with all the chuckling "oh those global warming fools" disdain he could muster. I get a cold shudder of disgust down my spine every time I see that vile propagandist. Say, that must be further proof that global warming doesn't exist.
Wow. Snow and cold weather in February. Whoda thunk it? Really funny. Wait. Not really.
This was on the drudgereport first. That is where a lot of this stupidity comes from.
Still...
The rightwing noise machine is singing a chorus trying to make Al look stupid on the basis that it's snowing outside, further instilling the false and thickheaded rightwing talking point that global warming is about weather, when it's really about CLIMATE.
" trying to make Al look stupid "
Like that's hard to do! Have you read his book? Does he allow for natural warming trends or does he only blame industrialization? Is he taking into account that our sun is a young sun and is continuing to grow? Does he take into account the Milankovitch cycles (if you believe that kind of stuff) or how about the Solar cycle involving sun spots? If you've read Al's book, I hope you can give us some info about whether he takes into account naturally occuring events. That will be a big indication as to how stupid Al is.
No, I have not read his book. Have you seen his movie?
In his film, YES, he does take into account natural warming trends and he clearly lays out why he believes the present waming trend is unprecedented.
Overall, you're missing my point. These rightwing bobbleheads are not citing your 'sun growth' and your 'Milankovitch cycles' to make Al look like a fool. They are simply citing a snow storm, that's it. While they may get less frequent, winter snow storms will continue to happen despite the overall climate getting warmer.
We're talking about CLIMATE change, not weather change.
The trolls are out already.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_A/threadview?m=tm&bn=1028&tid=952528&mid=952528&tof=8&frt=2
Global Warming Morons
The irony is rich. Global warming alarmist meeting postponed because of unseasonable cold and snow. Ya gotta laugh at the global warming idiots...
"because of unseasonable cold and snow"
Snow in February is now "unseasonable"? Looks like you have no grounds to judge other people to be "morons".
i see below you had a long discussion with ldoren. i did this a few weeks ago. he gave me the same stuff about the glaciers in europe. i challenged him to give me anything that proved that. he provided five links, none of which said what he claimed. i also pointed out to him that he was saying that because there was natural change in the past, and there was, therefore that excluded the possibility that humans can have any effect on climate change. that is his argument.
It is actually pretty fun to engage with ldoren. He is fairly civil, but it is apparent he doesn't have his facts straight.
He likes to self-servingly re-frame the debate in unscientific terms by disingenously requiring absolute scientific certainty be the measure of whether Global Warming is happening or not. It is pretty much textbook disinformation.
It's moderately fun... it's like sparring.
I would like for some serious deniers to show up here with at least a coherent argument. Then again, there really may not be any deniers with a coherent argument, but I'd like an opponent with better skillz anyway...
Maybe Richard Lindzen from MIT will read your post.
Depends if Exxon will let him I suppose.
"lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2500 a day for his consulting services". from the dec. 1995 harper's magazine. thanks again, leather. you're such a help.
Google has just taken all the fun out of BS...
Please write a peer reviewed scientific paper stating your research supporting your disagreement with Global Warming and get it published. Scientists are always looking for more evidence to either disprove or re-enforce current science.
And if you are not able to write a scientific response to Global Warming. Shut up.
"Scientists are always looking for more evidence to either disprove or re-enforce current science."
Finally, someone who makes some sense. However, here is the problem....
The Global Warming research is based on correlation studies of the amount of CO2 in the Atmosphere over the last 30 years. As CO2 increases, supporting data demonstrates that world temperature increased as well.
You can't disprove or prove this because data is data. In fact, in 1970s, the same data was used to bring about a World consensus that the world was cooling.
But, nevertheless, Correlation does not = causation.
For example, drowning deaths in America increase as ice cream sales increase. Ice cream does not cause drowning, but they are both associated with the Summer season when more people swim. Understand?
The next problem, however, is the hypothesis that an increase in CO2 is causing the increase in temperature. There has been NO, repeat NO, scientific data to prove that this phenomenon is correct.
It seems plausible from what we know about actual greenhouses, but this is really only a guess. So you CAN'T prove that CO2 is causing the warming, even if there is world warming.
The next issue is whether we are causing the significant increase in CO2, well, that is pretty uncertain as well, but let's assume that is true for the sake of argument. Now what?? We have been told from the best scientists that if we all stopped producing CO2, we couldn't cool the planet.
Now...the next, and I believe most interesting phenomenon is the "little ice age" b/w the 1400-1700, before the Industrial Revolution.
The best indication of what the world temperature was like before the Industrial Revolution was from Wine growers in Northern Europe who have the best indication of what the temperatures were like at the time.
The document large glaciers rolling down from the North with cold weather. The Monks used to pray that the glaciers would receed.
Eventually, the glaciers did receed before the Industrial revolution. Wow!! So that means the Earth warms and cools on its own w/out human causes.
Well, this isn't a surprise since we've had 5 ice ages w/ out the burning the burning of fossil fuels.
So, it is not crazy, to look at the data and say that we don't want to spend trillions of dollars to cut down on CO2, which is not even a pollutant, but what plants need to survive, and reduce naturally (feedback loop).
So if you want a scientific study...it is gonna be impossible...b/c there isn't one presently that demonstrates causation.
"in 1970s, the same data was used to bring about a World consensus that the world was cooling." --ldoren
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Where did you get that idea? It wasn't ever a "World consensus". Provide legitimate links to back your statement if you want anyone to take you seriously. Otherwise your argument is baseless.
Front Page Washington Post within the last week.
Here's another article.The return of global cooling!<!-- AUTHOR LINE HERE -->by Donald Sensing
Dr. Timothy Ball, the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology:
Well, wait and see.
That is not a legitimate source. You are going to have to find someone that isn't an apparent oil industry stooge and a fraud. Much of the tripe you have posted looks like his work as well. Rotten fruit from a rotten tree.
Still waiting for your legitimate link.
"It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
NewsTrack - SciencePublished: Aug. 25, 2006 at 9:12 PMRussian scientist predicts global coolingMOSCOW, Aug. 25 (UPI) -- A Russian scientist predicts a period of global cooling in coming decades, followed by a warmer interval.Khabibullo Abdusamatov expects a repeat of the period known as the Little Ice Age. During the 16th century, the Baltic Sea froze so hard that hotels were built on the ice for people crossing the sea in coaches.
The Little Ice Age is believed to have contributed to the end of the Norse colony in Greenland, which was founded during an interval of much warmer weather.
Abdusamatov and his colleagues at the Russian Academy of Sciences astronomical observatory said the prediction is based on measurement of solar emissions, Novosti reported. They expect the cooling to begin within a few years and to reach its peak between 2055 and 2060.
"The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times," he said. "The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth's global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol."
Still waiting for your legitimate links that Global Cooling was ever a consensus opinion amongst scientists.
The Russian Global Cooling theory you mention (according to wikipedia)"is based on a belief of a 200 year cycle regarding solar activity[26][27] and has not gathered wide support." I don't quite get what you are trying to demonstrate with your post.
Fine, look below....your lib friend sent me a link to a study.
I happen to read the study....the funny thing is that is disputes manmade global warming entirely. Highlight of my day.
Where does he support your increasingly dubious contention that "In fact, in 1970s, the same data was used to bring about a World consensus that the world was cooling."? I must have missed that one.
I suppose you will do anything, but support your statment with legitimate links.
Dude:
The study he sent me is better than anything I said to you before. It goes even further.
I said we can never find a causal relationship.
But, this study demonstrates there isn't even a correlation.
And I guess you got it why I posted that link. Robinson is not even a climate scientist. Who funds OISM? He never made it public (I guess we all know why).
Most of the global warming deniers quote Robinson, citing he is the "independent" scientist who is not apparently not funded by oil companies. I agree with you - this is the best scientist you got so far. But, guess what - he never published any paper regarding this issue for peer review. Instead he started this petition project to get around and get public acceptance. Remind me similar thing in recent days? Theory of intelliegent design?
Don't cite anything from those Russkie scientists, such as Abdusamatov. They're bought and paid for by EEE-VILL OIL, too.
Abdusamatov is an astronomer, not a climatologist. That doesn't mean he's wrong, but one study by someone in a different field is hardly enough to debunk a whole body of scientific research.
"Abdusamatov is an astronomer, not a climatologist." -valentinian
That is true, but how do you know he didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
D-oh-hhh!
Ya got me!!!
Hate to burst your bubble here, but that study uses invalid datasets. It was conducted in January 1998, well before serious errors in the balloon and satellite datasets were corrected. Many studies at the time were similarly flawed. The correction of the datasets actually changed the minds of some Global Warming skeptics. One of them wrote this:
"All data sets—satellite, surface, and balloon—have been pointing to rising global temperatures. In fact, they all have had upward pointing arrows for nearly a decade, but now all of the data sets are in closer agreement due to some adjustments being published in three new articles in Science today." --Reason Magazine Aug. 11, 2005
Still waiting on your legitimate links to support there ever was a scientific consensus in the 1970's about Global Cooling. What am I saying? I gave you enough chances. You should just retract that if you have any honor by now.
"It was conducted in January 1998, well before serious errors in the balloon and satellite datasets were corrected. Many studies at the time were similarly flawed."
1998 is early now!!
Holy crap, so all the data from the last decades are meaningless according to you.
If 1998 is early, then we really can only measure the trend over the last decade.
Now you are being foolish by misrepresenting the argument. The balloon and satelite datasets did not reconcile with surface temperature readings at the time of the Robinson Study cited.
If you bothered to read the article I linked to, it explains much better than I can. The Robinson Study and others like it at the time relied on flawed data. There were errors due to satelite drift and other problems that made the dataset unreliable. Corrections were made in 2005 to the previously incorrect data. Read the link before you comment further. I have also seen some links that the data has been even further reconciled in 2006. I can provide some links for that if you like?
Holy crap, you did the same thing!!
Christy concludes, "The new warming trend is still well below ideas of dramatic or catastrophic warming."
You're apparently changing the argument again (as well as cherry-picking). You last said CO2 increases weren't correlational to temperature increases. I simply disproved that. What temperature increases constitute catastrophic warming obviously differs amongst scientists. Christie admits to being a minimalist on the issue. The author and other scientists look at the data and come to different conclusions. Welcome to science.
Oh, and by-the-way. I still believe Christy is a decent scientist even though he has worked with the Competitive Enterprise Institute that takes money from Exxon to advance their interests. It may account for his stubbornness and/or minimalist approach to some degree, but his corrected datasets have immensely helped advance the scientific body of knowledge on the subject and he should be thanked for that nonetheless.
You last said CO2 increases weren't correlational to temperature increases.
No, that is what the previous study said.
I said previously that you can't find me causational studies because there are none.
"You last said CO2 increases weren't correlational to temperature increases."
"No, that is what the previous study said. I said previously that you can't find me causational studies because there are none." ldoren1626
Actually, what you said was:"Dude: The study he sent me is better than anything I said to you before. It goes even further. I said we can never find a causal relationship. But, this study demonstrates there isn't even a correlation."
Why "better"? Because it "goes even further" and rejects even a correlation. You seemed to think you were on to something when you trotted it out earlier, but now you seem to be disassociating yourself from it.
It is better because if someone cites something to support their hypothesis, and in fact, if you read it it supports yours, that's pretty funny....and better.
Its even funnier when that theory is then debunked, IMO.
What makes you think only the oil companies
have an agenda???
"What makes you think only the oil companies have an agenda???" --LH
I never said that. You have failed to read my mind yet again.
Leather,
An eloquent, beautiful question. Why is it that (on this site) only a Capitalist could be capable of sinister ideals or intent?
Good luck seeing any meaningful replies to that one.
The difference is that scientists have to defend their work, where deniers need only to sow doubt.
If you would like to assert that the entire scientific community is in an elaborate conspiracy to cover up false data, be my guest. It would be more compelling if you had even a shred of evidence, but feel free to rant away if that's all you've got.
<crickets chirping>
There is no reason to give meaningful arguments to strawman fallacies. Cough up anyone saying any such thing and ask them. Good luck finding any such assertion. No one said ONLY oil companies have an agenda however the oil company agenda IS relevant to this thread.
I take it you aren't old enough to remember the 70s.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
I suggest you could learn more by reviewing the science on that discredited theory rather than reading three-decade old popular media.
Contrary to whatever you might think, science is not driven by whim and fashion. There actually has to be some substance to back theories up, or they are discarded.
LH. You seem to be just as silly as ldoren. He couldn't provide a legitimate link showing Global Cooling was ever a scientific consensus and it appears neither can you.
the title of that time article was "another ice age?" note the "?" that does not express a whole lot of certainty.
Of course, there are scientists who think human are not a product of evolution but children of Adam and Ave. Of course there are scientist who claims that he cloned dog. But what is the consensus among scientific community?
You're an idiot.
Evolution can be supported by evidence.
There is no evidence to support the Causal relationship b/w CO2 and global warming.
By the way, I understand and support Evolution.
Global Warming is a joke.
And now you just gave me a study that supports my conclusion. I love it!!!
First off, if your position is that there is no global warming, then you are fighting a very uphill battle. The climatologists that deny warming is going on are few, far between, and - almost to a one - discredited.
And, if you think that finding just one study - especially a flawed one, not peer-reviewed and not done by people with competence in the field - completely invalidates the scientific consensus, then I think you have a very different definition of "science" than the rest of us.
Not just flawed. Thoroughly debunked and abandoned. Look at my post above.
Well, no, I just thought it was great that I didn't even do the research.
I made a claim that you'll not find a single study showing causation.
PK then finds me a study saying there isn't even correlation.
You even apparently abandoned all of your previous shoddy argument for the fool's gold:
"Dude:
The study [pkd] sent me is better than anything I said to you before." --ldoren
Nice to see that a debunked study is "better than anything [you] said to [me] before".
But Rush Limbaugh told him that GW is just not true so who really cares what the scientific community believes?
Where did I cite Rush?
Maybe I was above your head.
But, I took the time to read a study that your lib friend cited, and it supported my argument.
Nevertheless, forget Rush....find me one, just one, just one, study that supports a causal effect of Humans, CO2, and Global warming. There isn't One.
This "causal link" thing is where you have chosen to make your last stand, huh?
It is a moot point.
Theories do not necessarily have to prove causality.
Theories must be disproven. The burden is on ldoren to disprove Global Warming. Not the other way around no matter how hard ldoren tries to reframe the debate.
I know, but I'm kind of morbidly curious about what Ldoren is trying to set me up for...
CO2 absorbs energy from long wavelength infrared (coming from sun). Is that the evidence you want? Ask any physics student.
CO2, along with other greenhouse gases, also absorbs long-wave radiation reflecting from the Earth's surface...
LDOREN:
You state as an apparent FACT that the increase in CO2 alone is what scientists are theorizing causes this climate change.
Explain scientifically if you can how that increase in CO2 is affecting the ozone layer, which "protects" the earth from warming radiation.
If you are limiting your argument to CO2, when there are OTHER causes listed in the science of the theories of this phenomenon, then what are you really doing? Changing the subject? Wishing to focus on a micro-effect while ignoring the more complicated macro-effect?
In any event, EXXON has a $10,000 check for you if you publish your "theory" which seeks to debunk the Global Warming (or Global Climate Change) theory. Easy money, if your "research" is anywhere near valid.
"when there are OTHER causes listed in the science of the theories of this phenomenon,"
Yes...sun spots, methane from atlantic ridge cracks, volcanos, and other natural Earth phenomenon.
LDOREN:
We may be making progress. Are you saying that various "natural" phenomena MAY have an effect on the world's climate?
Take volcanoes, for example. Does a volcanic eruption have the power to actually affect the earth's temperature over time? If YES (and you seem to assert it's true), then we have a QUANTITATIVE analysis to do.
How much does a volcano cause problems to a human-friendly climate, how does it cause these problems, and what OTHER causes might have the same effect. Are any of these OTHER causes under mankind's control?
Or is your argument that since some people die of natural causes, then we should not make murder illegal?
Tex - Let's say that everyone on the planet agrees that human activity is primarily causing causing global warming. Do you honestly think we can do anything substantive about it? On a GLOBAL level? It seems highly remote to me that we could reverse this affect, even if we all agreed that we (humans) caused it.
Bruce, it will be very difficult to even stabilise CO2, let alone reduce it. In addition there are many who have suggested that a huge amount of methane could be released from melting permafrost. The situation is very dire.
I don't understand wht you are saying - because it will be difficult, we should do nothing about it, making it even worse?
Fair question, I'm saying that I don't believe mankind can reverse course. So whether or not some people believe the science is indesputable or not is going to be besides the point in the long run.
It's like if it were proven that the sun was going to explode in 20 years. Thanks, I'll mark my calendar.
Of course I would love to see us be more fuel-efficient, less pollutant, all those things. Just not convinced it will reverse what we have supposedly caused.
I went to some talks at Caltech a couple of years back. The problems involved in CO2 alone are almost overwhelming. It is definitely not something just changing a few lightbulbs will resolve.
I am seeing the beginnings of a shift in public discourse from "we don't know if humans are to blame for the warming" to "even if we are to blame, there's nothing we can do about it." The problem here is that doing nothing is doing something - it is allowing the problem to worsen. Even if completely retooling our industrial base will not totally reverse warming, it will definitely reduce it - and it will, ultimately, be cheaper than the costs of unrestrained runaway warming.
How about the option of doing nothing now and hoping we become technologically advanced enough sometime in the future to be able to fix it then. Kind of like "Global Warming" deficit spending. The option of retooling our industrial base is an option only in Fantasyland. You can't force something like that. I'm not pooh-poohing the problem, I'm just saying that humankind (IMO) doesn't have the capacity to deal with it right now, perhaps in the future we will. Anyway, you can have the last word, thanks for the information.
" Provide legitimate links to back your statement if you want anyone to take you seriously "
Only ldoren has to provide "legitimate" links? How about others who make wild claims of global warming being present? Where are those "legitimate" links? If you go to wikipedia it shows several 'simplified' explanations for natural occuring events that will and do contribute to global warming. For Al to say man is the cause of global warming (and expect us to believe him) then he needs to acknowledge that nature is involved too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Solar_cycles , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archean . But that assumes you trust wikipedia as a "legitimate" site of information.
Here's a legitimate link:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
"Only ldoren has to provide "legitimate" links? How about others who make wild claims of global warming being present?" --proudchristian
Ldoren stated as a fact that "in 1970s, the same data was used to bring about a World consensus that the world was cooling." Ldoren apparently could not support his fact (despite repeated requests to do so). Asking people to support their facts is a way of separating the pretenders from people who base their arguments on facts. Ldoren is apparently a pretender.
Wingnuts hate it when they are asked to provide legitimate links to support their facts/arguments for some reason.
The next problem, however, is the hypothesis that an increase in CO2 is causing the increase in temperature. There has been NO, repeat NO, scientific data to prove that this phenomenon is correct.
++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, there are ample data. Is it one of the main cause of greenhouse effect.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.htm
++++++++++++++
It seems plausible from what we know about actual greenhouses, but this is really only a guess. So you CAN'T prove that CO2 is causing the warming, even if there is world warming.
++++++++++++++++
Show me a single reliable article what says it's a "guess". It's not a guess. It's well-established.
+++++++++++++++++++
The next issue is whether we are causing the significant increase in CO2, well, that is pretty uncertain as well, but let's assume that is true for the sake of argument. Now what?? We have been told from the best scientists that if we all stopped producing CO2, we couldn't cool the planet.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Source please. Let us know the source (and scientists).
++++++++++++++++++
So, it is not crazy, to look at the data and say that we don't want to spend trillions of dollars to cut down on CO2, which is not even a pollutant, but what plants need to survive, and reduce naturally (feedback loop).
+++++++++++++++++
Remind me the the ad "Carbon Dioxide is Our Friend" by Competitive Enterprise Institute which is funded by oil companies. Are youy funded by oil companies too?
UNLIKE YOU, I READ YOUR "STUDIES"!!!! HERE IS WHAT I GOT FROM THEM!!!!
DiscussionThere are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased. We also need not worry about environmental calamities, even if the current long-term natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. ''Global warming,'' an invalidated hypothesis, provides no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 as has been proposed (29). Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not measurably warmed the atmosphere, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not significantly do so in the foreseeable future. It does, however, release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes. As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.This is what I mean...People like you just listen to the scientific "consensus" don't even read the studies that they use to support Global warming!!!!
Go back and read your studies. There is NO experimental data do demonstrate Global warming...period.
But...thanks for giving me the ammo to throw back at you.
WAIT, HOLD ON....WHY NOT JUST READ THE ABSTRACT OF YOUR STUDY.
ABSTRACT
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
Do you ever feel like a missionary in a hostile land? You are a saint, but these people have a different religion, and you're gonna be burnt at the stake.
You have it precisely backwards. We are arguing science. Ldoren has a belief, and anything that supports it is embraced while any contradictory facts are ignored.
I'd love a reasoned debate based on science, rather than this dishonest sophistry.
You're full of crap. You read my argument up front. You didn't like the cites I used to support the 1970s consensus.
So fine, for the sake of argument, say I conceed the 1970s concensus...try to refute anything else I said. You can't.
Find me One, just One study that shows a causal link b/w humans, CO2, and Global warming. Just one. Just one.
If there is such a consensus, I'm sure you can find one.
You have already said it is impossible to show such a link due to the complexity of the global climate system. You then apparently proceed from there to the conclusion that no amount of science - good, peer-reviewed science - can come to any conclusions about anthropogenic global warming, since you discount the consensus view.
Again, what would it take to convince you?
"Find me One, just One study that shows a causal link b/w humans, CO2, and Global warming. Just one. Just one." --ldoren
Again, moot point. Theories don't necessarily work like that. Theories are disproven. Find something false in the theory and you are in business.
Actually, it would be nice if ldoren would have thought to bring a proper argument with him to stave off us mindless liberal savages.
This is the terrible brilliance of the "faith-based" argument - one presents a case based on nothing but belief, puts forth no supporting argument other than the assertions of crackpots with an axe to grind... and then attacks the scientific community as True Believers wanting to burn heretics at the stake.
Wait... "ammo" is something you "throw?"
Source please. You forgot to provide source to backup your argument. Unless,you want to say that it's your own theory.
I took it from your links that you sent me!!!
[link to www.oism.org]
PKD...
This is the funniest thing I've ever seen.
You make me feel stupid for not being able to cite sources.
So then you send me links purporting to support studies demonstrating a causal relationship.
But, if you read the studies, they don't say there is a causation.
In fact, it says there is no correlation at all.
HAHAHAHAHA
Because I cannot read your microscopic post. Can you?
Taken from the study you sent me
Discussion:There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased. We also need not worry about environmental calamities, even if the current long-term natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. ''Global warming,'' an invalidated hypothesis, provides no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 as has been proposed (29). Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not measurably warmed the atmosphere, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not significantly do so in the foreseeable future. It does, however, release CO2, which accelerates the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes. As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. Human activities are believed to be responsible for the rise in CO2 level of the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere and surface, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the CO2 increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.Well, I know you can read what I wrote in the first block. If you can't, go to the link you sent me.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Debunked above.
...and again by Tex below.
LDOREN has decided to rely on this "source", the Oregon Institute of Science:
"The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal.
[Ah-ha! A deception calculated to deceive, a fraud which sought to associate itself with ACTUAL peer-reviewed science, without the benefit of having any such connection!]
The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers. Read more about how ill-prepared the Oregon Institute is to make any scientific findings, and to discover the confusion their "petition" caused for REAL scientists:
ttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research.
Other "specialties" of the Institute are Home Schooling packages and Creation Science promotion.
You clearly didn't follow the conversation I had w/ PK.
I didn't find the cite. He sent it to me claiming it would show me a casual link b/c I said you won't find a single one.
The studies out there at best show correlation. But, it is nice when someone hands you a bone. I just ran w/ it.
LDOREN:
You didn't "find the cite", but you both cut and pasted extensively from it, and claimed that it was an ever better source than any YOU had found.
I debunked the site, and now you act as if you weren't attempting to exploit the site to make your points.
Well, the record is clear, what you posted and the points you tried to make, so running away NOW doesn't help you. The greatest asset one can have in such arguments is CREDIBILITY, and yours has been shattered.
Holy crap....find me One, One, One, study that demonstrates the causal link b/w Humans, CO2 and Global warming.
What would it take to "demonstrate" a "causal link" in your mind?
Theories provide evidence to support them. The correlation pointed out previously on the thread is an example of some of the evidence to justify the Global Warming/Climate Change theory. It is the burden of scientists and critics to disprove the theory. Asking for a causal relationship is not necessary to have a theory nor does its absence necessarily disprove the theory in any way.
This is part of that shallow re-framing the debate thing scoundrels often try. Don't fall for it. It has nothing to do with science.
I guess you did not get why I posted that link.
Who is Robinson and what is OISM? He is not even a climate scientist. His paper regarding this issue was never been published for peer review. Whenever someone makes argument supporting benefits of CO2 (just like oil companies) , that is the best person (or scientist) he/she gets - quotes some petition paper by Robinson. Now, got it why I quoted that link?
Yes, there are ample data. Is it one of the main cause of greenhouse effect.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.htm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now you're just lying to me.
You tried to use these links to show that CO2 was one of the main causes of the greenhouse effect.
I said the "greenhouse effect" is just a guess.
There is no experimental date demonstrating a causal relationship.
These links you sent me say there isn't even a correlative relationship.
I was not good at editing. That's why I clubbed two links together without adding comment in between.
is this the best you got - Aurther Robinson?
No No No
I'm not going to fall for that trap.
I said there is no data supporting a causal relationship.
You show me the links.
I then read the links and it says there isn't even a correlation.
The burden is on you my friend to show the causal study.
By the way - this is an unfair request on my part - it is not really possible to demonstrate a causal link (that's the point).
You would have to put the entire world in a bubble and somehow devise an experiment to test the causal relationship.
That is why I said all the studies show at best is correlation - which according to your study, there isn't any.
It doesn't seem you're really interested in understanding the science, but I will try, just for giggles.
According to the IPCC report just released:
Let's review. Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of human activities. Warming has been observed in the environment that matches climate models. On the basis of a lot of research (that is, peer-reviewed, repeatable studies based on good science), it is considered "very likely" (> 90% certainty) that current and projected warming is caused by human activity.
You can - and should - question these studies and try and understand them better. Invalidate them if you can, as it will strngthen the science. But you can't invalidate good science through mere assertions. I'm sorry, but it's so.
The goal of ldoren is to identify and attack areas of uncertainty and to equate 90% reasonable certainty with no certainty at all.
This all goes back to an infamous memo from Republican PR guru, Frank Luntz (who has recently changed his tune on Global Warming) spelling out the Republican strategy to protect Big Oil.
Exactly. It's so typical.
Once upon a time, there was "no certainity" that smoking causes cancer.
Recently, they try tried to insert Intelligent Design schools same way, citing that many things are "not certain" in Darwin's evolution theory and it's just theory.
Science is not absolute. There are always dabates and that's the way science works (theories are fine-tuned, older theories are debunked). Basically, they try use these dabates within scientific community and tell people - "Look they are not even sure and certain. Therefore my theory is correct.".
You WILL find casual studies for smoking. You won't find any for global warming.
You are ignoring his argument. "Once upon a time, there was "no certainity" that smoking causes cancer."--pkd
Did smoking cause cancer before the studies were conducted showing causation? Or did the studies need to prove it was true first?
I know Valentine.
What you just said is a correlation. You won't find a single causal study.
As one element goes up, so does another = correlation.
But, correlation does not equal causation. For example, as ice cream sales rise, so do drowning deaths. Why?? Well, b/c both occur during the summer months when more people swim. But, ice cream does not cause drowning.
(> 90% certainty ---- most reputable studies use 95% confidence intervals. Is especially fishy since we are dealing with people claiming the Earth is rising hundreths of a degree.
That would be like saying that Barrack Obama is leading Hillary in the polls by 1% w/ an error rate of 5%.
You are playing a very silly, and IMHO dishonest game. Ice cream does not cause drowning, but GHGs do absorb thermal radiation. The concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere is far higher than at any time in the past. Temperatures are rising, much more than hundredths of a degree, and the rise is accelerating.
I don't think you're really seriously interested in learning anything about this. You have a position and you will grasp at any straw to support it. Which is fine, but don't twist the language of science to attack science.
I just don't understand why we don't cave in on Kyoto and any other such treaty , and go ahead and export more jobs to countries not penalized by such treaties. It'll help us with our guilt, and since Americans are gullible, Ee-vill CorporateAmerica can be blamed for exporting more jobs, rather than the actual economic factors.
Let's stop quarreling and get those jobs exported!
You are changing the subject, which is beneath you. I had begun to respect you as a person with the intellectual integrity to stand and defend a position rather than using dishonest tricks.
Flattery will get you nowhere.
You are also trying to equate 90% with 0% which is simply dishonest.
Science doesn't always consist of absolute certainty. That is why Global Warming or Climate Change are called "theories". It is not incumbant to prove a theory correct, but to prove it is incorrect through experimentation or data analysis. The burden is actually on you, no matter how you dishonestly try to frame the argument in unscientific terms.
Similar problems of certainty occur in other theories like evolution, gravity, quantum theory, string theory, etc. Saying we cannot be absolutely certain does not make them necessarilly false as you suggest.
Well according to Ldoren, there is no such thing as atomic structure or atoms.
BTW: atoms are only theory. The math, chemistry and physics all prove they exist, but its not 100% (mainly because we are not able to see, even with the most powerful microscope, atoms. You know light is a wave (and a particle) and misses or bounces off atoms, etc.) So therefore if one scientist (no matter how insane) says atoms do not exist, they do not!
I guess we must be made up of ether or the four basic elements (per the Greeks).
By the way - this is an unfair request on my part - it is not really possible to demonstrate a causal link (that's the point).
You would have to put the entire world in a bubble and somehow devise an experiment to test the causal relationship.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
I am amazed that you cliamed that you do study, but did not find a single paper/article to find the correlation.
CO2 absorbs energy from longer infrared lighwaves from sun. More CO2 in atmosphere, more warmer it gets. You are arguing the very basic.
http://www.pa.msu.edu/sciencet/ask_st/083194.html
http://www.llnl.gov/str/Duffy.html
There are thousands papers published on this issue (and yes, they were peer-reviewed).
Whether these papers/articles have correct/valid points that's more honorable argument (if you can). But they don't exist? That's a hogwash.
LDOREN has decided to to take the part of the Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Company, which for four decades dumped 370 million gallons of cancer-causing chemicals into unlined ponds in Hinkley, California.
LDOREN, as counsel for PG&E, claims there is "NO PROVEN CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP" between the dumping of toxic wastes in the water system, and the failing health and multiple cancers developed in the surrounding communities.
Enter Erin Brockovich, who finally takes PG&E to court, and presents the mountains of scientific evidence and the PROBABILITIES that there was a direct causal effect.
LDOREN clings to his "no causal relationship" defense for the same reason PG&E's lawyers made the same claims: they did not wish to be held responsible, nor entertain that their profit-seeking was harming scores of human beings.
The difference is, Global Warming/Climate Change has not yet had its "trial". So the defense attorneys like LDOREN continue protecting the status quo so profitable to polluters, and will continue their "no proven connection" talk, as conditions continue to worsen.
PG&E's attorneys did not consider themselves immoral ... they were "just doing their jobs".
No...you are clearly destorting my point.
There is a difference b/w toxic waste and CO2.
There are no casual studies of CO2 and global warming.
There have been for other toxins that cause cancer.
LDOREN:
I have not "distorted your point". My POINT is that people with an agenda and selfish goals have a great deal of MOTIVE to simply DENY.
Just as the electric company DENIED that their waste was causing cancers, the oil companies and their allies are simply denying any "causal" connection between the burning of fossil fuels and the changing climate of the earth.
The electric company's lawyers denied their culpability and their "causal" responsibility right up to the moment the vertict was handed down, and they were HELD responsible, based on the evidence (hint: the evidence was circumstantial, but scientific and overwhelmingly convincing). They can continue to DENY, but for practical purposes, the issue had been decided, and the electric company was WRONG.
There is ample evidence that humans can greatly control the amount of deliterious effect our practices have on our environment. Yet, those with MOTIVE will continue to DENY, until there is a trial (or the equivalent) which gives the "last word" on the facts.
As Condi Rice once (falsely, it turned out) said about the threat from Iraq, we didn't want our fair warning to be a "mushroom cloud". Although the topic for her was disingenuous, the principle is sound: We humans should not wait until DISASTER is our first wake-up call.
In other words, how BAD does the changing climate have to get, how wildly do temperatures and winds have to shift, before the deniers are forced to say, "oops. guess I was wrong." ?
I'm reminded of that great movie, "Bridge on the River Kwai", at the end where Col. Nicholson (played by Alec Guiness) is fighting to preserve the bridge his men built for the enemy. His moment of realization, that his priorities and motivations were screwed up opposite of what they SHOULD have been, he utters, "My God. What Have I Done?"
The Billions the oil companies are making today blinds them to the world they will be causing for their grandchildren. It will be too late for a "my god what have I done", if our actions are not studied carefully TODAY and we begin to curtail our harmful behavior.
How the hell did we get to be talking about Iraq?
There is not a single study showing a causal relationship. So how can they confirm or deny anything. There have only been faulty climate models, that have been deemed wrong once a decade.
There have only been faulty climate models, that have been deemed wrong once a decade.
No, that's not true. You want to pull an allegation that sweeping out of your ass, you will have to back it up with a cite. Not from Time, Newsweek, or Conservative Assholes Weekly, but from a serious, peer-reviewed journal.
"How the hell did we get to be talking about Iraq?"--ldoren
It's called an analogy.
As for your repeated and tired rant about causality, I have answered that question many times. You need to familiarize yourself with the Scientific Method and then get back to me.
I'm sorry, but you don't really seem to know what you are talking about. The so-called greenhouse effect is based on very solid science - the absorption of thermal radiation by different gases is understood very well and can be verified experimentally.
Actual greenhouses are warmed by the effect of solar radiation on the earth. It's actually totally unrelated to the phenomenon called the "greenhouse effect" in planetary atmospheres.
Just in case you're interested...
Besides, if Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart had a joke about this, and they very well may have, everybody would and should be giggling.
Of course it would, but you're making the same mistake Tucker Carlson made concerning the Daily Show. They don't purport to be real news show unlike Fox and CNN. As Stewart put it, his show is preceded by a show of crank-calling puppets.
If you can't see the basic irony of a global warming conference cancelled because of an icy winter storm, regardless of one's stance on this issue - irony is the perfect description.
Thanks for the thinly veiled slap at my lack of understanding of irony, Tommy. Of course I see and understand the irony of the circumstance. I also see and understand that it is an opportunity for those who belittle and/or deny the growing climate change problem to cast doubt upon it by lampooning a coincidence that means nothing in the long-term forecast.
It wasn't a veiled slap at anything, you're too sensitive.
A denial of previous jab, followed by another jab. Classic strategy. After I finish wiping my tears, I'll switch it up and throw a pre-emptive "don't get defensive, Tommy."
We disagree on this item, simple.
Now you call Lindenbully (and I quote) Simple? lol :-)
I can accept that, but I have a hard time believing that there are qualified scientists that after years of study on climate change, have concluded that human activity is not the major contributing factor to the current warming trend of the Earth. If anyone can provide a list of scientists who claim this, and who are not backed by corporations (i.e. ExxonMobil, etc.) or groups with a vested interest in minimizing the role human activity plays concerning climate change, I would like to see it.
i just had a post on here last friday about a new group called the "natural resources stewardship project". they just formed in october, and they dispute human caused warming. they share a lot of members with the "friends of science", a canadian group that the "globe and mail" newpaper traced oil money to. and snow is not proof of anything getting colder. i heard that a lot of this snow is happening because the great lakes are warmer that usual, causing lake effect snow. antartica is the coldest place on earth and has little snow.
antarctica, with a c
Exactly right. Many strange weather patterns ar directly and indirectly caused by global warming.
I didn't realize it at first, but ldoren is regurgitating that group's talking points above. Some of my links discuss how the leader of the group, "Dr." Timothy Ball is an apparent oil industry stooge and fraud.
that is correct. ball is the "chairman" of the group and the exec director is tom harris, who has worked for p.r. firms that represent oil companies. ball has also been in a dispute about claims he inflated his resume.
Meefer,
Grow up. Oil company money can be traced to every university or other bastion of undefiled scientific inquiry. So everybody's corrupt, and it's up to us to try to figure out what this grand RW conspiracy is, pitting us all against one another.
There's no hope.
Are you just speculating here?
No speculation. It's somewhere between 75-90% sure thing.
If it wasn't purely speculative, please support your argument with links. If it was, then stand back up, pull your drawers up and wash your hands.
...crickets chirping
The real irony is that their attitude helps to keep people thinking the issue is not serious.
Irony? Two words--Fox "News"
Nope, there is no irony.
Again, global warming is about CLIMATE, not weather.
irony is the perfect description
Maybe... if you're Alanis Morrissette.
"If you can't see the basic irony of a global warming conference cancelled because of an icy winter storm, regardless of one's stance on this issue - irony is the perfect description." --tommy
Yeah. Snow and cold weather in February. How obviously ironic.
Yeah...but Snow in Malibu???
Are you trying to disprove Global Warming by anecdote? Kind of desperate.
Reminds me of Drudge printing that it is snowing in South Africa while the US was in a record heat wave this past summer. Drudge never mentioned it was the middle winter in the Southern Hemisphere and that temperatures are regularly near freezing during that time of year. Drudge said it hadn't snowed for 20 years, but he was lying. Local records were available online that showed it snowed 3 years ago in the area. Drudge was apparently so desperate to make an ironic point, he didn't care about the details that would seem to make the whole thing moot.
No...I'm just saying it was snowing in freakin' Malibu.
Uhuh.
So what??? I grew up in So Cal, Orange the city and county. At least once every 5 years we would get snow that we could actually make into snowballs. I would say about once every 2 years we would get a snow shower where the snow melted as it hit the ground. Weather is not climate, weather is not climate, weather is not climate, weather is not climate. Ok? Next is .... Climate effects weather, climate effects weather, climate effects weather. As the climate changes so will weather. Specific predictions of how the weather will change are largely a guessing game because of the complexity of atmospheric systems. However, as computing processing comes down in cost, more and more researchers make better and better predictions, and, here is the kicker, can design better and better experiments to collect more relevant data. So, the fact that scientists in the 70's predicted a new ice age is irrelevant. Here are some really widely accepted hypotheses (if you don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, get over to the library soon) Global temps are rising, atmosphere at all levels, oceans, surface temps all rising. This is very close to being theory due to massive amounts of data, collected over many decades. There are certain gases that vary in concentration over time that cause global temps to vary. Again, nearly a theory. In fact, in controlled lab experiments, these gasses can be proven to absorb certain wavelengths of electro magnetic energy and warm up. It is factual that these gasses vary in concentration over time in the atmosphere and that they absorb energy and then rise in temp. Human burning of fossil fuels has caused an increase in concentration of these gasses in the atmosphere to the point where global climate change has been effected. This is the hypothesis that researchers are testing over and over, and mostly strengthen.
By reducing human caused emissions of these gasses, global climate change can be effected. Truly a hypothesis since there is no experiment, short of actually reducing emissions, that one could test the hypothesis.
Holy Hailstones!!!
I agree with Tommy. It was a joke.
Hell hath truely frozen over.
It was obviously a joke. I agree with that. The problem is drudge has done this kind of thing before and it tends to distort the debate and lead unwitting viewers to false conclusions.
anybody ever see those TBS commercials? "pretty darn funny?" i'm gonna have to agree with Tommy on this one. I'm a lib, and this is still funny. Sense of humor, folks.
The subtext is, "see! a few days of cold weather just debunked decades of scientific study concerning climate change phenomenon. Don't worry! Go buy an Escalade!"
Seriously though-- maybe scheduling the conference in April would have been a better idea.
The irony or humour or whatever this is supposed to be would be so much easier to brush off if the know-nothing Right hadn't been using every cold snap, every snow storm, every chilly morning in May to crow "Global warming? What global warming? My nipples are hard! Ah-ha-ha-ha!"
All that being said, yes, there's no real way of countering this without looking humourless. I'm sorry that I don't have more of a sense of humour about this, but we're like 20 years late to even start doing something about it, and $#!T like this is still all over the media.
Val,
It's all very inconclusive to me. One side has one scientific expert, then the other side has one equally as qualified with a totally different view......so I am still undecided about the whole issue. I try and live my life being as environmentally sensitive and cognizant of a very tenous and delicate earth that we all inhabit.
Tommy--"One side has one scientific expert, then the other side has one equally as qualified with a totally different view"
Please allow me to inject a little accuracy into your statement.
One side has more than 9000 accredited scientific experts worldwide, then the other side has a few equally as qualified who are on the payroll of oil and auto industries.
If it's hard to take a position on this, you aren't paying attention.
Yeah, Tommy, I'd personally urge you to educate yourself a little more about this, reach your own conclusions and act on them.
TheRick,
Oil Co. $ has been " traced" to all the employers of the vaunted 9000.
They're pitting us all against each other.
Evidence?
crickets...
ah hell, it's no fun when they just run away
I think we have to stop having such high standards like asking wingnuts to support their own arguments with legitimate links.
Yeah, I know, but hell... it's kind of like being at the park and having a bunch of kids challenge you to play ball. Sure, you can put the points on the board, but it's so unsatisfying...
Actually no matter what the others say Tommy, it is not just about Oil money affecting the science and creating those who don't think Global warming is real. There is a deeper issue.
The scientists who say yes to Global Warming (that it is happening) publish peer-reviewed journals and papers. These papers are analyzed and the science (math, chem, physics, etc) is double checked. It then gets published.
Those against (like that guy on the Daily Show the other night) publish a book and sell it at stores, saying THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!!! Or they post to little web sites or try to turn it into a guest slot as a guest lecturer.
Who reviews thier work? Who sits down and makes sure its correct? No one but themselves. Its the same thing with the ex-gay "research", they publish in these fringe journals (where maybe 50 people read it) and say, "Look my research is published! So I'm legitimate." No your not.
This is a "both sides" thing. Global warming proponents use every hot day as an excuse to raise the issue.
Nobody in the media is capable of discussing it. Al Gore has a single slide that completely shuts the door on the issue, but it's never been seen outside of his movie. (The slide that shows vastly more CO2 in the last few years than any time in the previous 600,000).
Global warming proponents use every hot day as an excuse to raise the issue
I don't agree. I have never seen any serious organisation that said anything of the type. If some celebrity or media personality did so, then it was just foolishness.
I would not draw a parallel between a well-intentioned fool trying to grab attention and someone intentionally trying to confuse the issue - but in either case it's bad science. And we have had entirely too much bad science.
I'm actually in favor of global warming. I want to see huge waves and monster storms, because I know in the end it is probably Bill Clinton's fault.
Irony - (noun) a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.
For this to be "Ironic", one would have to "expect" that there won't be anymore cold weather events due to the effects of global warming. Therefore a "Global Warming" meeting would never be canceled due to cold weather. This, of course, is ridiculous.
Oh, and TOMMY - One side has a few scientific experts, and the other side has THOUSANDS of scientific experts.
Yeah, when even John McCain says "the debate is over," it's probably time to take the red pill...
Isn't it amazing how the right wing noise machine will attempt to scare the hell out of people when they want to start a war, then they'll brush off actual scientific evidence if it doesn't support their position on something like Global Warming?
Now That's Irony !
Global Warming isn't scary. What's scary is what The Faithful think we should do about it.
No, global warming is not scary. What is scary is that there are people who would rather drive an Escalade and let other people's kids deal with the consequences of a rise in sea level and coastal flooding, the loss of drinking water supplies dependent on snow melts, the disruption of agriculture, more frequent tropical storms, an increased incidence of tropical diseases...
Are you driving a MoPed and living in 600 sq. ft.? You really don't need more, you know. Do you have a lawn? You don't need that either, especially at the expense of the Colorado River, the Owens Valley, the California Water Project, (gotta fuel those lift stations south of Bakersfield)etc. The consequences to future generations are immense.
I agree 100%. We, as a society, need to make drastic changes in our lifestyle, especially here in Southern California, where we're hoovering up vast amounts of water to create a garden in an arid region.
This situation will get increasingly unsustainable with the predicted reduction of the snowmelt.
OH COME ON. its just one of those funny things you note. it's like someone's car festival celebrating how perfect cars are getting cancelled because their car breaks down on the way.
irony
did everyone see that "col campbell" was outed yesterday as a character in a japanese video game?
actually youre a little late, i was outed about a week ago, private.
guess i missed it. i'm talking about the fact that you have passed yourself off as a member of the military when you're not.
actually ive done nothing of the sort if you know videogames you wouldnt think that;). not my fault.
That's like saying using the name "Prime Minister.Johnston" is trying to pass yourself off as a prime minister
Actually Col, don't lie.
You did try to pass yourself off as a military man, even after some one attacked you about it (a week or so ago). BTW how do you like the brig?
You even posted link a picture to "prove" it. A hand drawn picture, not a photo btw.
Irony is respecting someone because he's an army Col., then finding out it was WWII's German army.
The issue is that the average joe believes that cold snaps like this one disprove global warming...and where would they get that idea? Because supposed newsmen make statements about this "ironic" coincidence
Yeah...don't question a scientific hypothesis. That would be too....scientific.
Questioning scientific hypothesis is fine. That is how science works and how we ended up with penicillan, electricity, computers and stuff like that.
However existing science is questioned by following a rigorous scientific method and not by following a bunch of fools braying at the wind.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Your lib friends sent me this link to support a causal relationship b/w CO2 and global warming.
I happen to have a science background so I read the study. If you read it....You'll be amazed.
It says there is not even correlative evidence. Just read the abstract and discussion. It's great!!
You say you have a "science background," whatever that is, so you probably have some idea of the concept of peer review.
Anyone can do science and publish a paper. You can do lots of good science in your basement. However, unless it's undergone some kind of review by people competent to do so, a report doesn't have a lot of credibility.
When a study has no peer review and claims to invalidate years of serious research, especially when it is done by people not qualified in the field, it should be greeted by more than a little scepticism.
Val,
I debunked his study ldoran cites above. The datasets were inaccurate and are no longer used. Corrected datasets show a definite correlation between increasing CO2 and global temperatures.
Please refer to my links above.
Thanks, Open - a perfect example of why there is peer review.
Believe me, I'd love it if there were good science showing we're not wrecking the climate. It will be very nasty here in Southern California when clean water costs as much as good Chardonnay...
It DOES cost as much as good chardonnay. It just doesn't cost YOU. Read up on LA Power and Water, etc.
Read up on LA Power and Water, etc.
Could you summarize your point before telling me to embark on a research project?
The cost to others for turning Smoke Basin into, and maintaining, a giant nursery.
What is your point? Smoke Basin = LA? Are you talking to yourself, are we having a dialogue, what?!!
Smoke Basin is what the aboriginal peoples called it before we turned it into L.A. Maybe you don't live in the L.A. basin, but another part of SoCal.
A peer review system that would include incorruptible and nonpolitical recognition, like the Nobel Peace awards. Anything outside the recognized fraternity is just "whatever that means".
If you're really going to try and discredit the entire practice of peer review, it would help to have, you know, something to back it up.
I happen to have a science background so I read the study. If you read it....You'll be amazed.
A "D" in tenth grade geography is not a science background.
Isn' there someone here who would like to claim R Branson's prize for figuring out how to extract the CO2 from the atmosphere and make something useful out of the byproducts?
I heard a very witty caller on Limbaugh or one of the other righty radio shows the other day. He suggested he should get the prize for telling Al Gore to stop flying his jet around.
I'll bet he thought that was ironic.
"They are defending the society. But I tell you stay in doors ladies and gentleman. Stay cool. Get fans or whatever. And the poor, they need emergency fans and ice to cool down — the number of people dead. I have not been one who believed in the global warming. But I tell you, they are making a convert out of me as these blistering summers. They have broken heat records in a number of cities already this year and broken all-time records and it is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels. If we are contributing to the destruction of the planet we need to do manage about it." -Pat Robertson 8/3/06
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/03/robertson-global-warming/
That should alarm the Anthro-GW faithful: Pat Robertson endorsement = questionable cause.
I keep tellin' ya, folks--Big Oil is just trying to keep us confused(follow the money-I know Pat got some).
It's time to start lookin' out for Big Corn now!
Big Corn? Do you mean ADM? Maybe we can get them to stop making corn syrup and start making ethanol.
Kinda cute I guess to make light of this 'irony', but while science is still - correctly - continuing to investigate, it's now evident to anyone who has quit the Flat Earth Society, that the Earth's overall temperature is being raised by human activity!
I place 'irony' in quotes because no one here (in comments) seems to be using the correct, scientific term. Since the planet's overall temerature is being increased, world wide we are experiencing GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. Hence the unseasonably cold weather this winter (meaning winter weather colder than usual, for those new to the language) in the Northeast is the indirect result of this warming which causes - repeat after me - GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. This occurs because the climate and weather patterns of the Earth are slightly more complex than your average pea-brain can comprehend.
Unfortunately since I love irony, knowing that makes the 'irony' a helluva lot less ironic!
I should have said,"This occurs because the climate and weather patterns of the Earth are slightly more complex - AND inter-related -than your average pea-brain can comprehend.
It's also true that the unusual Atlantic hurricane season last year - one without any significant hurricane activity - is a part of the pattern of atypical weather caused by GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.The year of extreme weather like Katrina as well as the next year without significant activity are both extremes and both support the notion of GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, just like the unusually cold winter weather in some areas.
I like the analogy that some [if they were sufficiently renumerated] would deny the existence of the sun because it's night! - Good one!
Monetary remuneration is one means of corrupting a person's integrity; other rewards are equally (and more insidiously) compromising. Can be as simple as the need for, and the reward of, acceptance by one's peers.
A remarkable phenomenon, responsible for some disasters.
Again, are you asserting that the entire scientific community is failing to do adequate peer review, covering up for false or incorrect data, and allowing fantasy to pass as science?
Do you have any evidence for this allegation? Anything at all?
Wow - snow falling during the winter. Who'da thunk it.
Brit Hume = moron
Snow falling in Malibu...what a normal event.
I hate to burst your bubble, but it didn't snow in Malibu. There was snow in the hills above Malibu. However, what was identified as snow in some reports was actually, graupel, a type of hail. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cold18jan18,0,1404930.story?coll=la-home-headlines
In any event, your anecdote proves nothing about climate.
Weather abberations are completely irrelevant to climate change. But of course, you know that... you have a "science background."
I think he actually meant "science backside". That is the only plausible explanation I can see for his arguments.
For those of you here who think that Hume was just making a "casual joke" about Global Warming and we should all just "lighten up," I would remind you that this "joke" has been repeated from many right-wing sources every time there is a cold spell, blizzard, etc....
But you will NEVER see these guys discuss global warming when it's 70 degrees in January (like it was here in the DC area last month) or when there's a sweltering heat wave that kills dozens of people, etc. To these guys, every cold snap is "proof" that global warming does not exist, while heat waves, crop failures, floods, massive hurricanes, etc have nothing to do with it at all.
These people would deny the existance of the sun because it's nighttime, I swear.
I like the analogy that some [IF they were sufficiently renumerated] would attempt to deny the existence of the sun because it's nighttime! - Good one!
MMFA is being oversensitive on this one; "ironic" has a specific meaning which has nothing to do with "casting doubt" or "suggesting" anything about global warming itself.
A ceremony to honor members of a Fire Dept might be cancelled because of a fire in the building -- that would be ironic but would hardly "cast doubt" on the worthiness of the honorees.
One might see irony in a mass murder suspect named "Slaughter," but that should not "suggest" to anyone that the suspect is therefore more likely guilty of the "slaughter."
Weather and Climate are two different things. Weather is what is happening outside my house right now, it refers to a specific place and time. Climate, from what I have read, is the average, prevailing conditions that have existed over a period of time. 2000 of the world's top scientists have just stated unequivicolly that global warming exists and they are 90 % certain it is man made. Imagine playing with loaded dice. Storms, droughts, and weather conditions naturally occur. But with GW there will be more droughts near equator, and less but more severe storms at mid latitudes (the US hence unseasonably warm weather in NY was followed by the record 12 feet of snow in). You are more likely to roll, if you will, certain weather with GW. More sixes will come up which means warmer weather. But sixes already naturally occur. No one can say if the specific weather system is from GW. GW just makes certain weather more likely. Incidently CNN is reporting that this past January is the warmest January ever: "the world's land areas were about 2 degrees Celsius warmer than a normal January, according to the U.S. National Climatic Data Center."
I am all for skepticism. But at this point GW deniers have about as much credibility as Holocaust deniers.
Ironic: yes. Significant: no.
The physics department at my university had a lecture by a guy who won the Nobel prize for attaining a temperature in his lab at which Bose-Einstein condensation occurs: about a millionth of a degree above absolute zero. It was during a heat wave in March, the chill plant wasn't operating yet, and it was about 90 Fahrenheit degrees in the lecture hall.
Ironic like that.
The Earth warms-the-earth-cools-the-Earth-warms-the-Earth-cools-the-earth-warms.......It always has and always will, regardless of what that insane madman Gore spews.
Brilliantly reasoned point.
The Earth
is flat, the stars and the sun and the moon rotate around the flat earth... it always was thus and always will, regardless of what that insane madman Galileo spews.
...
... Yup. Dangerously ignorant and fear-driven Luddites will always be with us, persecuting knowledge and enlightenment, sadly trying to limit all people to a level that the Luddite can "understand" ... which sets the bar at the lowest most hopeless ebb of human aspiration.
Yes, Tex. Unfortunately, dangerously ignorant fear mongers like Crazy Al Gore will always be with us. They were with us back in the 70s when they were running around in hyserics tellings us that the next ice age was 15 minutes away and man was causing it. The Earth is in a warming period now, Tex, like it has been in the past and will be in the future with cooling periods in between. Relax, Tex. The sky is not falling, no matter what Crazy Al tells you.
True, it's Crazy Al Gore, Crazy John McCain, and a couple thousand crazy climate scientists just being crazy. As opposed to the rational, scientific people we should all be listening to, like a pseudonymous poster on a website.
Siting stuff that was descredited countless times and then just making stuff up, then puctuating empty arguments with the madman gore, crazy Al stuff is kind of lame.
I offer the observation that ignorance is not a virtue.
Too many posts on here to read, but I'll bet the thread is driven by one or two trolls whose sole rationale for denying climate change is their extreme, irrational hatred of Al Gore.
Screech on, screechmonkeys.
Hey Rusty, dont you get tired of being right all the time? (right as in not wrong, being correct)
Hey RS- How do you explain the receding polar ice caps on Mars? Was that caused by an ancient civilization that developed SUVs before we did?
Stawman argument.
No one credible doesn't recognize that natural cycles are involved. Start paying attention.
It is, indeed, like rain on your wedding day.